Large Monster Combat Questions

[Icelander]

I've always felt that the weapon breakage rules were an odd method of balancing small vs. large fights.

While it is fairly obviously much harder to deflect or block a powerful blow from a massive weapon or creature than one from a similar weapon and strength level, I'm not convinced that breaking one's weapon is the only possible failure mode.

In fact, I'd consider it pretty odd for a solid cutlass or katzbalger to break if used in an unsuccessful attempt to divert a charge from a pony or even a warhorse. For one thing, I'd expect the grip of the wielder to give before I expected a decently made steel blade to snap.

For that matter, as far as I can make out, the rules appear to say that a combat knife will nearly always snap if used to stop a charging man.* That seems... odd.

I'd far rather have effective weapon weight give a penalty to Parry, with perhaps appropriate attacks also calling for a HT check to avoid damage to the weapon (it would seem appropriate that one could avoid part of the Parry penalty by taking a greater risk of breaking the weapon, as well, if that level of complexity was desired).

*For example, a greased-up deaf guy.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I've always felt that the weapon breakage rules were an odd method of balancing small vs. large fights.

While it is fairly obviously much harder to deflect or block a powerful blow from a massive weapon or creature than one from a similar weapon and strength level, I'm not convinced that breaking one's weapon is the only possible failure mode.

In fact, I'd consider it pretty odd for a solid cutlass or katzbalger to break if used in an unsuccessful attempt to divert a charge from a pony or even a warhorse. For one thing, I'd expect the grip of the wielder to give before I expected a decently made steel blade to snap.

For that matter, as far as I can make out, the rules appear to say that a combat knife will nearly always snap if used to stop a charging man.* That seems... odd.

I'd far rather have effective weapon weight give a penalty to Parry, with perhaps appropriate attacks also calling for a HT check to avoid damage to the weapon (it would seem appropriate that one could avoid part of the Parry penalty by taking a greater risk of breaking the weapon, as well, if that level of complexity was desired).

*For example, a greased-up deaf guy.

I agree, there was fairly recent thread on it FWIW I think you are more likely to have a weapon knocked out of your grip than to actually break in all but a few specific scenarios.

[JoelSammallahti]

Originally Posted by Icelander

I've always felt that the weapon breakage rules were an odd method of balancing small vs. large fights.

My house rules work like this: You test for breakage whenever you critically fail with your weapon, but not otherwise. (Attacks, parries, fast-draws, etc. all count.)

Parrying against bigger weapons and opponents: You get -1 to parry if the opponent is one SM level bigger than you are, and can't parry if the difference is two or more levels. When using a two-handed weapon, slamming, or grappling with both hands, you're considered one SM bigger for these purposes. (So you get -1 to parry a two-handed weapon with a one-handed one, in a fight between two characters of the same size.) Further, if you're much stronger than normal for your size (ST >20 for SM 0, >30 for SM +1, >50 for SM +2, and so on), you're treated as one or more SM levels bigger for these purposes.

It's not completely unproblematic, but I think it's more elegant than RAW.