Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-04-2013, 12:49 PM   #61
Figleaf23
Banned
 
Figleaf23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Default Re: Damage and wounding readjustment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
...
As for cutting getting an armor divisor, I suppose it could work, but have it set where it no longer applies if the cutting damage were turned into crushing (by the weapons itself being stopped by the armor). Actually, it might be best to have it be that the divisor only applies if the weapon would have managed to completely penetrate (that is, remained cutting), making it so that cutting means armor protects less if it gets through, rather than making it so that cutting weapons actually get through armor more readily. Probably a bit too fiddly, however.
I had sort of assumed that this would be adequately accounted for by the level of DR itself, and I would have a strong preference for having it do so. But maybe a 1.5 divisor is simply too advantageous for edged weapons and it should be smaller.
Figleaf23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 12:50 PM   #62
Anthony
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
Default Re: Damage and wounding readjustment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Figleaf23 View Post
This seems to be the nub of what you're saying, but I don't understand it. What is a cutting weapon worse at?
It reality, it's worse at connecting solidly with the target, and should have a penalty to hit (or blunt weapons should have a bonus). In general I'd want to say:

Blunt Rod: Easy, Poor Armor Penetration
Blunt Striking Head (mace): Average
Cutting Rod (sword): Average, Poor Armor Penetration
Cutting Striking Head (axe): Hard
Impaling Striking Head (pick): Very Hard, Good Armor Penetration

This bears little resemblance to the way GURPS does weapons.
__________________
My GURPS site and Blog.
Anthony is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 12:59 PM   #63
Ulzgoroth
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Default Re: Damage and wounding readjustment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Figleaf23 View Post
Which implies what?
If the weapon doesn't get through the armor, it can't possibly do cutting damage to the person inside.

I'm going to try putting it this way: It might be that a sharp axe is better at cutting through armor than a mace, but both are so awful at doing so that that isn't a significant consideration. But the axe's striking surface is designed to cut into that soft flesh that it's not actually going to touch, while the mace's striking surface is designed to hurt somebody without actually reaching their skin. So the mace is actually more effective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vicky_molokh View Post
Then when is a crushing weapon considered to have broken the armour? E.g. Fantasy Venom (Powers, p.144) is priced the same whether the teeth/striker it is a follow-up to are crushing, cutting or impaling, and the price differences of teeth are minuscule; the difference in utility is enormous, though.
It's melee damage. If you're in melee re-adjustment topics, you can't expect the rules as written to actually help you much.

I'm pretty sure Follow-Up is written in such a way as to imply that damage > DR functionally means penetration.

On the other hand, a contact agent or blood agent on a mace would have problems.

I can't tell you what the answer should be, because in my opinion the answer probably should involve an extensive rebuild with impact/penetration dualism.
__________________
I don't know any 3e, so there is no chance that I am talking about 3e rules by accident.
Ulzgoroth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 01:00 PM   #64
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Damage and wounding readjustment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Figleaf23 View Post
I had sort of assumed that this would be adequately accounted for by the level of DR itself, and I would have a strong preference for having it do so. But maybe a 1.5 divisor is simply too advantageous for edged weapons and it should be smaller.
Cutting's nasty to try and rework. It's actually where I gave up on my own attempt (although I might give it another shot), as you kind of have two different types of cutting - the kind-of-impaling of narrow-headed axes (which is easy to manage) and the PITA slicing of wider axes and swords (where you keep hitting armor all the way through as you're cutting, effectively giving the target some sort of IT:DR). Semi-impaling (hacking) you can manage to work out what the armor divisor should be based on its cross-section, but slicing means a cross-section that varies depending on type of armor, where it hit, length of the blade, etc, and results in headache and heartbreak.

What might work out would be to flesh out Anthony's hard vs easy weapon breakdown a bit more and give hacking weapons the 1.5 armor divisor. For slicing weapons, no armor divisor might work out.
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 01:02 PM   #65
sjard
Stick in the Mud
 
sjard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Rural Utah
Default Re: Damage and wounding readjustment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Figleaf23 View Post
Cleaving through armor (or failing to of course) is what I'm talking about.
Realistically, actual evidence suggests that cleaving through armor is almost entirely the realm of fiction. It isn't something that happened to any meaningful extent.

Even a layer or two of cloth* is very hard for a flat strike of a sharp blade to penetrate. A slicing strike is a different issue, but those aren't common with a sword.

*Not even particularly heavy cloth. Sure, some damage will happen underneath, but the cloth itself won't be cut.
__________________
MIB #1457
sjard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 01:17 PM   #66
Nereidalbel
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Default Re: Damage and wounding readjustment

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjard View Post
Realistically, actual evidence suggests that cleaving through armor is almost entirely the realm of fiction. It isn't something that happened to any meaningful extent.

Even a layer or two of cloth* is very hard for a flat strike of a sharp blade to penetrate. A slicing strike is a different issue, but those aren't common with a sword.

*Not even particularly heavy cloth. Sure, some damage will happen underneath, but the cloth itself won't be cut.
Mythbusters actually tested this with paper armor. Even that was able to prevent swords from causing more than a bruise.
Nereidalbel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 01:34 PM   #67
sjard
Stick in the Mud
 
sjard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Rural Utah
Default Re: Damage and wounding readjustment

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereidalbel View Post
Mythbusters actually tested this with paper armor. Even that was able to prevent swords from causing more than a bruise.
I haven't seen that one, but I was aware that there was a type of laminated paper armor used in Japan. If I remember what I read correctly.
__________________
MIB #1457
sjard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 01:52 PM   #68
Nereidalbel
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Ellicott City, MD
Default Re: Damage and wounding readjustment

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjard View Post
I haven't seen that one, but I was aware that there was a type of laminated paper armor used in Japan. If I remember what I read correctly.
They did an episode on laminated paper armor vs metal. I know the full episode is on Youtube, and I think it's on Netflix.
Nereidalbel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 02:01 PM   #69
DanHoward
 
DanHoward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Maitland, NSW, Australia
Default Re: Damage and wounding readjustment

The "armour" that Mythbusters tested had nothing in common with historical paper armour. What was used was barkcloth, not reconstituted wood pulp, and it was layered and quilted just like other textile armours. Didn't Low-Tech cover this?
__________________
Compact Castles gives the gamer an instant portfolio of genuine, real-world castle floorplans to use in any historical, low-tech, or fantasy game setting.
DanHoward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2013, 02:32 PM   #70
DouglasCole
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
 
DouglasCole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
Default Re: Damage and wounding readjustment

Quote:
Originally Posted by gilbertocarlos View Post
Addendum: F=MA is not the only formula of physics.
For damage, GURPS use energy, not momentum. Otherwise, a javelin would be better than a musket.
GURPS firearms use energy. Other weapons use the very scientific scale of "one extra point of ST gives one extra point of swing damage."

The norming of firearms to energy (and bows, if you use TDS), while other weapons use the somewhat arbitrary ST-to-penetration scale is why this topic keeps coming up.

Well, one of the reasons.
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC
My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify
My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon
DouglasCole is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
armor divisor, damage, wounding

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.