Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon
.....
A big part of this is an issue with the GURPS Knockback rules. Realistically, knockback isn't some instantaneous effect like we see in GURPS (where the target moves the intervening distance instantly, but is treated as having constant velocity that would require them to take a full second to move this distance while being pushed back) - rather, it's a brief acceleration that adds some velocity to the target, and the target will either need to accelerate itself to negate it or let friction+gravity do that for it. Actually working that out is going to be pretty nasty in play, however. There's also the issue (related to your later statements, which I haven't included simply for space) that GURPS calculates knockback based on HP, rather than on mass - something that pushes a 100 lb object back at 1 yard per second should push a 50 lb object back at around 2 yards per second, but as HP scales by cube root rather than linearly, and knockback is based on HP-2, the 100 lb object has a knockback threshold of 7, while the 50 lb one has a knockback threshold of 5. Additionally, mass from gear and armor doesn't make a difference in GURPS. Again, it's a loss of realism for the sake of being easy to use in play.
|
OK I have to say I agree there are likely issues with GURPS Knock back. I'm guessing rooted in the fact it's a gameable simplification of a complex effect that's going to involve more than just the physics of moving objects around by impact (and that itself is not simple thing to calculate when you factor other forces acting on the system). But that doesn't really detract from the point that 8.3 kg m/s is really not very much force here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon
Having the damage roll (not counting adds from the weapon) be at or near maximum for thrust result in an impaling weapon getting stuck is something I've considered. Thrust attacks only get stuck on particularly strong attacks, while swing attacks won't get stuck on weaker attacks. I opted against it, due to the fact that I interpret damage rolls as often being more about attack placement than the actual force behind the attack (which I think will typically be much less variable than the dice indicate).
|
That's true but the range of the damage rolls is also pretty closely tied to the strength of the attack. The thing is there are also target specific factors in weather something gets stuck as well (generally bone placement, tissue type and depth of penetration) but also changing angles etc. So attack placement can be factor as well!
What doesn't help is that it's likely different placement factors will effect damage to the overall target (itself a pretty abstract thing) and the chances of getting stuck!
However if you wanted to remove placement as a variable, and worked on the assumption that placement is the overriding variable what gives the variation on damage rolls.
Maybe instead of taking the damage actually rolled, take the average damage of the attack. That would be maybe a more consistent measure of how initially powerful the attack is abstract. But I can see problem where glancing blows that barely connect would be boosted by this.