It is currently Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:29 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Blunt Trauma
PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 8:32 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:06 pm
Posts: 130
It still seems to me that bludgeoning weapons would be too powerful. The defensive benefits of a sword would only really apply if you were not using a shield, so all shield fighting combatants would be better off using a 1h mace rather than a sword against anyone in any armour that has a lower bash AV than cut/thrust AV, which is most armours in your mod. When using 2handed weapons, the difference in defensive TN's is only around 1, which is probably not enough of a penalty given the increased ability to do damage if you do hit - your successful blows are far more likely to give you opponent a fight ending wound than theirs on you.

In FOB the difference in 1handed maces to swords is even more in favour of the mace.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blunt Trauma
PostPosted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 5:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Estonia
No point looking at TFOB stats...

However, I've represented it all to the best of my knowledge and ability. Even ARMA claims plate wearer to be "effectively immune to the edged blows of swords": http://www.thearma.org/essays/TopMyths.htm

Search for "mace" to find relevant passages.

_________________
"Brothels are a much sounder investment than ships, I've found. Whores seldom sink, and when they are boarded by pirates, why, the pirates pay good coin like everyone else."
- Lord Petyr Baelish, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blunt Trauma
PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:06 pm
Posts: 130
I am not doubting the accuracy of having lower Avs for bludgeoning to cutting, just that given how damage works in Tros, it will make maces etc a better option than swords when fighting anyone in any armour that has a lower bludgeoning AV than cutting AV. The defensive frailities of using a mace etc will not really impact once you use them with a shield.

One thing that does occur to me from reading around ancient armours on th web is that even if a sword blow, axe blow etc could not pierce the armour it could damage and weaken it, thereby making it easier to get through on subsequent blows. In addition, with plate if you manage to bend a piece covering an articulated joint then you could severly impact the ability of the target to move that limb. Seems to me that if you do go for lower Bludgeoning AV's then having some armour damage system in place would be very useful.

I have been messing around with changing the damage system somewhat, so that rather than looking up the damage on a table, you instead use the mos, probably doubling it, then modify that number by a location modifer for shock, pain and blood loss, and then subtract the AV of the resulting shock, pain etc, rather than it modifying the mos directly. It is still in the early stages and may not work quite how want, but it is interesting analysing the damage tables and trying to come up with some underlying maths for it all. This system may allow an easy way of doing blunt trauma, as it would still be possible to do small amounts of shock and pain even if the AV was higher than the straight mos. Blood loss would probably not be achievable if the mos was less than the AV. Either way, it is still in its infancy, so may not pan out in a satisfactory manner. The basic formula for shock and pain would be something like:

(Mosx2) + location modifier - AV = Shock or Pain

One change I am seriously considering is to have a derived stat called Toughness, which is made up of Health and Will Power. Toughness will then be subtracted from the pain modifier, rather than will-power. I am also contemplating having it subtract from the shock, which will mean upping the average amount of shock that is dealt in a blow. This may make it easier to simulate your Conan v Elric example in damage you have used in other threads.

Out of interest, what are the major weaknesses of the TFOB weapons? Looking through them it seems the defensive TN's have changed, mostly making many non-sword weapons easier to defend with. What are the other drawbacks?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blunt Trauma
PostPosted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 5:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Estonia
Iorwerth wrote:
it will make maces etc a better option than swords when fighting anyone in any armour
Damage wise, yes, but bow else would you model an anti armour weapon, if not being more effective against armour? With a mace, you lose the options to Feint and Counter compared to a sword.

Iorwerth wrote:
I have been messing around with changing the damage system somewhat
As most TROS wounds are nowhere near where any gaps should be, granted, completely removing wound descriptions would definitely add some credibility to the "gap theory".

Iorwerth wrote:
Out of interest, what are the major weaknesses of the TFOB weapons?
The authors have tried too hard to model different weapons with completely different TNs. Doing so, they have used TN7 too extensively and TN8 as well, which is not a viable TN anymore, especially if shields are available. In short, most weapons are too clumsy TN-wise. Also, the only way you can mechanically benefit from Draw Cuts is if your weapon has a Draw Cut Modifier of +2 or greater, which only a handful weapons do, making the whole mechanic useless baggage for the rest of the arsenal.

_________________
"Brothels are a much sounder investment than ships, I've found. Whores seldom sink, and when they are boarded by pirates, why, the pirates pay good coin like everyone else."
- Lord Petyr Baelish, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blunt Trauma
PostPosted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Iorwerth wrote:
it will make maces etc a better option than swords when fighting anyone in any armour


higgins wrote:
Damage wise, yes, but bow else would you model an anti armour weapon, if not being more effective against armour? With a mace, you lose the options to Feint and Counter compared to a sword.


Two points here:

Firstly, the mace should be -- comparatively -- less effective against padded armour and no armour. Strike an unarmoured arm with a mace and you'll break the bone but the limb won't come off. So a level 5 wound with a mace to many if not most locations should be less destructive -- less life threatening -- than a sword where the BL should be so much higher. The wound descriptions, therefore, should be part of the solution to this concern as well as AV changes. The AV on these armours should be higher for the mass weapon than the thrusting weapon (though in neither case should it be high of course).

Secondly, many (most?) of the high-Proficiency manoeuvres described in TFoB aren't/shouldn't be available to mass weapons. This should make the high-Proficiency swordsman far more versatile than the high-Proficiency mass-weapon wielder -- but at the lower Proficiency, the mass weapon is more effective (which I think makes sense).

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blunt Trauma
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Estonia
Ian.Plumb wrote:
Strike an unarmoured arm with a mace and you'll break the bone but the limb won't come off.
Lower level of blunt wounds have no BL at all and high level wounds of cutting weapons are much more likely to amputate a limb than extensive blunt damage. This is already modelled in the tables.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
The AV on these armours should be higher for the mass weapon than the thrusting weapon (though in neither case should it be high of course).
Can you elaborate on the reasoning?

Ian.Plumb wrote:
Secondly, many (most?) of the high-Proficiency manoeuvres described in TFoB aren't/shouldn't be available to mass weapons. This should make the high-Proficiency swordsman far more versatile than the high-Proficiency mass-weapon wielder -- but at the lower Proficiency, the mass weapon is more effective (which I think makes sense).
Again, that's more or less the case -- mass weapons indeed have less maneuvers than sword & shield. If we take away the shield and go cut&thrust or greatsword/longsword, the gap becomes even greater, but it was the shield add-on that seemed problematic for "mass weapon balance", and even here the swords have the edge in maneuvers.

_________________
"Brothels are a much sounder investment than ships, I've found. Whores seldom sink, and when they are boarded by pirates, why, the pirates pay good coin like everyone else."
- Lord Petyr Baelish, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blunt Trauma
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 3:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:06 pm
Posts: 130
I do see that the manoeuvres available to swords over mass weapons do go some way to making swords etc more viable, and was not something I had considered before. However, I still have a slight problem with the damage effects of having lower AV’s for bludgeoning weapons over cutting, which is based on how the damage tables work in tros, rather than the realism of having lower AVs.

While bludgeoning does not have high BL and won't cut off limbs, in tros having a difference of two wound levels is huge, which is what having the AV 2 less will be doing. If I do a level 4 or 5 wound with my mace I will not be so worried about a lack of bloodloss, as the additional shock and pain will more than compensate, especially if I land a blow on one of the more sensitive areas. Would you prefer to do a level 4 or 5 bludgeoning wound to your opponent or a level 2 or 3 cutting one? e.g. I hit the guy in the abdomen doing a level 4 bludgeon after armour and deal out 10 shock and 12-wp, whereas a level 2 cut would only do 4 shock and 6-wp pain. Also, the cut will be doing 3 bloodloss, but my mace will be doing 8. Take a hit to the thigh - my level 4 bludgeon does 8 shock, 9-wp pain and 3 bloodloss, whereas my level 2 cut would only be doing 2 shock, 4-wp and 2 BL. The trouble is that the effects of wounds in tros really shoot up with additional damage levels, so that any drop in AV becomes really meaningful.

The system I am fiddling around with at the moment that does (Mosx2) + location modifier - AV = Shock or Pain, helps to mitigate this somewhat.

e.g. Suppose in my damage mod the shock location modifier on a thigh hit was cutting:0 Bludgeon +1, and a pain modifier was cutting:+1 and Bludgeoning :+1. I hit with a MOS of 7 and the opponent is wearing maille on that location, which, using Higgins' proposed AV's, would be AV 5 v cuts and AV3 v Bludgeon. If I was using a bludgeoning attack the shock would be 12 (mos of 7x2=14 +1 for location modifier = 15, then minus AV of 3 = 12) and the pain would be 12-wp (same formula). If I were using a cutting weapon it would be 9 shock (mosx2=14 minus av of 5) and 10-wp pain. In the Tros ways of doing wounds the damage from a total Mos 7 bludgeoning hit would be a level 4 wound after modifying for the AV3, giving 8 shock and 9-wp pain, and for the cut would be a level 2 wound doing 2 shock and 4-wp pain. In Tros the difference would be an additional 6 shock and 5-wp pain if you hit with a bludgeoning weapon as opposed to a cutting one, in my way the difference would be of 3 shock and 2 pain - so a meaningful diminishing of the difference in the wound effects, though still a bonus to the mace, just not such a huge one.

Now, obviously, my formula is not the finished article, as it leads to too much damage being inflicted, as the AV's of the armour count for less. Having said that, it is harder to get such a high Mos in my mod, as this system is aimed at being used with my strength mod where weapon damage modifiers don’t actually just add on to the Mos rolled, but instead allow re-rolling of failed dice. Even so, armour values would probably need to be boosted up. If, for example, the Av’s for maille v cutting was 7 and the AV v bludgeoning was 5, then in the example above, the bludgeoning wound would be doing 10 shock and 10-wp pain (pretty close to what it does in Tros proper, where a level 4 wound does 8 shock and 9-wp pain), whereas the cutting one would be doing 7 shock and 8-wp pain. If the guy was wearing no armour the Mos 7 hit would be doing 14 shock and 15-wp pain with a cutting weapon and 15 for both if using a bludgeoning weapon.

One of the advantages I see in this system is that it allows the concept of blunt trauma without having to actually have a separate system for doing it – if the armour reduces the shock and pain by a significant degree but doesn’t totally get rid of it, then this damage could be viewed as a form of blunt trauma, especially if there is no bloodloss from the blow. One of the other advantages I see with it is that it doesn’t need oceans of different tables to work out the final shock, pain and bloodloss, as you would need just the one location modifier table.

I haven’t yet done any work on bloodloss, but I think the system would have a more even progression of Blood Loss than exists in Tros at the moment, but I would want to keep it as close as possible to the BL amounts in Tros, though I think there would by necessity be some differences, as BL is Tros has little even progression it. I also want, if possible, to introduce some form of critical level for wounds, so that if the final damage figure is high enough then it can simply remove all shock, as in tros, or lead to automatic death etc. I have an idea how to do this, but haven’t yet actually put it down on paper and really had a crack at making it work. Wound descriptions would have to be worked in by some sort of benchmark terms for location based on total shock, pain and bloodloss achieved in the hit.

Like I said above, this is all a work in progress and may not pan out in the end, but if it can be made to work it does help answer some of the problems with the nature of the Tros damage system and also helps to simulate blunt trauma without having to have a separate system for it.

Would appreciate some feedback on it, even if it just to show why the whole idea is mad and should be abandoned immediately!!!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blunt Trauma
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Estonia
Iorwerth wrote:
Would you prefer to do a level 4 or 5 bludgeoning wound to your opponent or a level 2 or 3 cutting one? e.g. I hit the guy in the abdomen doing a level 4 bludgeon after armour and deal out 10 shock and 12-wp, whereas a level 2 cut would only do 4 shock and 6-wp pain.
I think you're missing two very important points:
1) with proper padding (they stack with blunt AV), "cuttable" armours have rather similar cutting and blunt AVs.
2) it's only in case of "non-cuttable" armours (cutting damage converted to blunt) where the AV gap becomes apparent. If the AVs were the same, sword would deliver just as effective blunt wounds than a mace. So, this 2 wound level difference is to model swords being bad "mass weapons".

_________________
"Brothels are a much sounder investment than ships, I've found. Whores seldom sink, and when they are boarded by pirates, why, the pirates pay good coin like everyone else."
- Lord Petyr Baelish, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blunt Trauma
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:06 pm
Posts: 130
higgins wrote:
Iorwerth wrote:
Would you prefer to do a level 4 or 5 bludgeoning wound to your opponent or a level 2 or 3 cutting one? e.g. I hit the guy in the abdomen doing a level 4 bludgeon after armour and deal out 10 shock and 12-wp, whereas a level 2 cut would only do 4 shock and 6-wp pain.
I think you're missing two very important points:
1) with heavy padding (they stack with blunt AV), "cuttable" armours have identical cutting and blunt AVs.
2) it's only in case of "non-cuttable" armours (cutting damage converted to blunt) where the AV gap becomes apparent. If the AVs were the same, sword would deliver just as effective blunt wounds than a mace. So, this 2 wound level difference is to model swords being bad "mass weapons".


I am not sure what you mean here. Could you give me some examples?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blunt Trauma
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Estonia
Iorwerth wrote:
I am not sure what you mean here. Could you give me some examples?
Let's ignore ST/TO in this exercise.
Arming sword MoS 6, final attack final value 7.
Mace attack MoS 6, final attack final value 7.

Heavy leather armour, heavy padding. Cut AV 3, blunt AV 3. Results are lvl 4 cutting wound and lvl 4 blunt wound.

Scale armour (metal, non-cuttable), heavy padding. Cut AV 5, blunt AV 3. Results are lvl 2 BLUNT wound and lvl 4 blunt wound.

If scale armour would have equal cut&blunt AVs:

Scale armour (metal, non-cuttable), heavy padding. Cut AV 3, blunt AV 3. Results are lvl 4 BLUNT wound and lvl 4 blunt wound. Sword would be JUST as effective MASS weapon despite the obvious weight difference.

_________________
"Brothels are a much sounder investment than ships, I've found. Whores seldom sink, and when they are boarded by pirates, why, the pirates pay good coin like everyone else."
- Lord Petyr Baelish, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blunt Trauma
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 6:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:06 pm
Posts: 130
Thanks. It does seem a simple system, but it still runs into the problem I see of how big the difference is between a level 2 and level 4 wound, whether they were both bludgeoning or not. I suppose the problem I have is that the advantage of the mace against the sword against these types of armours is just too large. Actually your system is even more extreme, as maces get +1 wounds v hard armours, so would be doing bludgeoning level 5 wound against the sword's level 2 wound - this is just huge in tros terms and gives the mace too much of an advantage, at least in my opinion.

Interestingly, when TFOB gave their armour table where some armours had a + or -1 AV modifier against some types of attacks, they said it should not be combined with any weapon bonuses v certain types of armour and I can see why.

Part of the problem, as I see it, in getting the right balance for this type of thing is the tros wound system itself and the big step up even 1 wound level gives - once the bonus goes up to 2 wound levels it is just huge, above that and it is most often the difference between victory and defeat. What I am trying to do with my mod above is to have varying AV's for armour v blunt and v cut, which we all agree is the way to go if you want some form of realism, and give the mace an advantage, but not such big a one that it becomes a total show stopper. Fiddling with how shock and pain are arrived at from Mos and how armour figures in to the equation was aimed at trying to do that, albiet maybe not that successfully.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blunt Trauma
PostPosted: Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Estonia
Iorwerth wrote:
Thanks. It does seem a simple system, but it still runs into the problem I see of how big the difference is between a level 2 and level 4 wound, whether they were both bludgeoning or not.
That's a valid point. I'll be sure to revise the armour ratings once we get some basic wound tables done for EoS. Meanwhile, feel free to drop all non-cuttable cut-AVs by one and tell me what you think.

Iorwerth wrote:
Actually your system is even more extreme, as maces get +1 wounds v hard armours
Since we have different AVs now, that special property becomes obsolete. Actually... +1 vs hard armour is EXACTLY the same as cutting AV being one point higher than blunt. I'll need to try reducing the gap and see how it turns out.

Iorwerth wrote:
Interestingly, when TFOB gave their armour table where...
Please don't bother with TFOB armour modifications as they go contrary to just about any of my undestanding of how the armour works. Leather gets bonuses for thrusting attacks and is weaker against cutting? This video here shows completely the contrary. Same thing with plate. It gets bonuses versus bashing attacks... about the only type of attack that should be effective versus plate armour. :roll:

_________________
"Brothels are a much sounder investment than ships, I've found. Whores seldom sink, and when they are boarded by pirates, why, the pirates pay good coin like everyone else."
- Lord Petyr Baelish, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blunt Trauma
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Iorwerth wrote:
Interestingly, when TFOB gave their armour table where...


higgins wrote:
Please don't bother with TFOB armour modifications as they go contrary to just about any of my undestanding of how the armour works. Leather gets bonuses for thrusting attacks and is weaker against cutting? This video here shows completely the contrary. Same thing with plate. It gets bonuses versus bashing attacks... about the only type of attack that should be effective versus plate armour. :roll:


TFoB, Page 11 wrote:
Most forms of armor are designed to be worn over clothing or their own “under-wear”, and as such, it is not generally possible to “double up” protection by wearing one suit of armor under another.


IMO, the plate armour values in TFoB assume that padded linen is worn under the plate armour. The net result is that bash damage is distributed across the plate section that has been hit rather than the point of impact. Thus damage is reduced when compared to a soft armour (or no armour).

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blunt Trauma
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:05 pm
Posts: 2035
Location: Estonia
Ian.Plumb wrote:
IMO, the plate armour values in TFoB assume that padded linen is worn under the plate armour. The net result is that bash damage is distributed across the plate section that has been hit rather than the point of impact. Thus damage is reduced when compared to a soft armour (or no armour).
Okay, but that's surely already represented by the higher AV plate has over soft (or no) armour?

Ian.Plumb wrote:
The AV on these armours should be higher for the mass weapon than the thrusting weapon (though in neither case should it be high of course).
Can you elaborate on the reasoning?

_________________
"Brothels are a much sounder investment than ships, I've found. Whores seldom sink, and when they are boarded by pirates, why, the pirates pay good coin like everyone else."
- Lord Petyr Baelish, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Blunt Trauma
PostPosted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:43 pm
Posts: 2112
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Ian.Plumb wrote:
IMO, the plate armour values in TFoB assume that padded linen is worn under the plate armour. The net result is that bash damage is distributed across the plate section that has been hit rather than the point of impact. Thus damage is reduced when compared to a soft armour (or no armour).


higgins wrote:
Okay, but that's surely already represented by the higher AV plate has over soft (or no) armour?


With that line of reasoning there is no difference between the different damage types. Plate has AV 6, that's it. That is what TFoB says as well. What we're talking about is an optional rule in TFoB -- and given that TFoB itself is optional, that makes it even more optional. 8 ^ )

Anyway, that being said all the author is saying is that a suit of plate armour was well designed to handle bash attacks and cutting attacks. Piercing attacks were the best option -- that is, short-swording or whatever.

Ian.Plumb wrote:
The AV on these armours should be higher for the mass weapon than the thrusting weapon (though in neither case should it be high of course).


higgins wrote:
Can you elaborate on the reasoning?


Which part? If you are not wearing armour a piercing weapon will penetrate the skin and muscle easily as the point of contact is relatively small. The contact point for a mass weapon is relatively large, allowing the muscle to diffuse some of the blow before the bones start breaking. Thus I would give the no armour AV versus mass weapons for humans as being 1 higher than for thrusting weapons -- but in neither case would the AV be high given that full plate armour has an AV of 6.

Regards,

_________________
Ian Plumb
Illustrations for Gamers
Lyonpaedia
Griffin Grove Gaming
Kraftworks for Kids School Holiday Program


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group              Designed by QuakeZone