Rejiggering Muscle-Powered Weapon Damage

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Oh, and my general comment on this type of thread, just do away with the ST Swing Table and simply add +1 to the value in the Thrust Table for single handed swing, and +2 to value for two handed swing.

A counter-proposal: eliminate the Swing table, and instead use Thrust*0.7 for thrust attacks and Thrust*1 for swing attacks.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

A counter-proposal: eliminate the Swing table, and instead use Thrust*0.7 for thrust attacks and Thrust*1 for swing attacks.

The Thrust*0.7 isn't very playable, making it a flat -1 would work, but only if coupled with a +1 for weapon skill at DX +1.

[Kraydak]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

The Thrust*0.7 isn't very playable, making it a flat -1 would work, but only if coupled with a +1 for weapon skill at DX +1.

Swing->Thrust-2
Thrust->Thrust-3
+1 damage/die at DX+1, +2 damage at DX+2 with a reduced-price Weapon Master.

I tend to feel that "armor X is proof against weapon Y" means, at a minimum, that armor X's DR is equal to the average AOA-strong damage from weapon Y, because, if the armor is near-proof, people know they need to swing hard. So, here I am assuming that AOA or Committed attacks form the majority of actually damaging hits, and that Crits aren't an uncommon sub-population of damaging hits (which, given that they bypass active defenses, turns out to be somewhat true).

[Landwalker]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

That 4.5 is for a two handed spear thrust, the normal spear thrust is 3.5, that's reasonable damage wise.

Remember, the base system sets the proof at the average damage, so DR 4 is proof against single handed spear, and proof against "all but the heaviest spear thrusts".

The description of fine mail never limits it to "resisting all but the heaviest one-handed spear thrusts." But more important, at least to the assumptions I've made, is that I don't consider a ST-10 user to be regularly capable of "the heaviest sword cuts and spear thrusts." Setting proof at 50% (which doesn't really seem very proofed to me) means that a full half of Average Joe's stabs with a spear fall into the "heaviest spear thrust" category. And that just doesn't seem believable to me.

Originally Posted by Kraydak

I tend to feel that "armor X is proof against weapon Y" means, at a minimum, that armor X's DR is equal to the average AOA-strong damage from weapon Y, because, if the armor is near-proof, people know they need to swing hard. So, here I am assuming that AOA or Committed attacks form the majority of actually damaging hits, and that Crits aren't an uncommon sub-population of damaging hits (which, given that they bypass active defenses, turns out to be somewhat true).

That strikes me as a good way to look at it. Sure, Average Joe's stabbing might fall into the "heaviest thrust" category 50% of the time—but only if he's putting everything he's got behind it, with no regard to his own well-being.

So, to add to the earlier examples and factor in AoA, and how it affects things:

ST 10

Realistic Broadsword: 1d (3.15) cut / 1d-1 (2.45) imp —— AoA 1d+1 (4.55) cut / 1d (3.85) imp

Realistic Spear (1H/2H): 1d-1 (2.45) imp / 1d (3.15) imp —— AoA 1d (3.85) imp / 1d+1 (4.55) imp

ST 12

Cinematic Broadsword: 1d+3 (6.5) cut / 1d+1 (4.5) imp
Realistic Broadsword: 1d+1 (4.55) cut / 1d (3.15) imp —— AoA 2d-1 (5.95) cut / 1d+1 (4.55) imp

Realistic Axe: 1d+2 (5.25) cut —— AoA 2d or 1d+3 (6.65) cut

ST 14

Realistic Broadsword: 1d+2 (5.6) cut / 1d (3.85) imp —— AoA 2d (7) cut / 1d+2 (5.25) imp

Realistic Axe: 2d (7) cut —— AoA 3d-2 or 2d+1 (8.4) cut

Realistic Spear (1H/2H): 1d+1 (4.55) imp / 1d+2 (5.25) or 1d+1 (4.9) imp —— AoA 2d-1 (5.95) imp / 1d+3 or 2d (6.3 or 6.65) imp

Looking at that actually has me feeling pretty good—Average Joe still doesn't beat DR 4 with the sword or spear most of the time, but if he makes an All-Out Attack (Strong), he can reach the 50% mark.

This seems like a pretty believable outcome, at least to me—fine mail was the staple of armies for centuries, and it wasn't because it was 50% effective against the average schmuck who was handed a pointy stick.

The clear side-effect of all this, of course, is making hit location more important, as well. If Average Joe can't reliably get through that mail vest (which he shouldn't be able to), maybe he'll decide to start going for arms and legs, or even necks and faces.

[borithan]

Originally Posted by Landwalker

This seems like a pretty believable outcome, at least to me—fine mail was the staple of armies for centuries, and it wasn't because it was 50% effective against the average schmuck who was handed a pointy stick.

I thought Fine Mail's description suggests it is mainly a secondary armour, ie for wearing under something else or for protecting secondary areas. I thought it was "Heavy" (or is it something else... haven't got Low Tech with me) Mail which is described as the standard for Mail armour which is designed as primary protection.

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by borithan

I thought Fine Mail's description suggests it is mainly a secondary armour, ie for wearing under something else or for protecting secondary areas. I thought it was "Heavy" (or is it something else... haven't got Low Tech with me) Mail which is described as the standard for Mail armour which is designed as primary protection.

Originally Posted by Low Tech pg 107

Made from small links of light wire, this material flows through the fingers like metallic cloth, yet can resist all but the heaviest sword cuts and spear thrusts.

Something to keep in mind is that "resist" may not be the same as "block all damage from." At least for cutting attacks, we have the Edge Protection rules, which draw a clear (if possibly arbitrary) line between an attack which inflicts damage without penetrating, and one which cuts through the armor itself. And for highly flexible armor, it's possible to sustain "sharp" damage even if the material isn't breached. For example, I once sliced my knee open by falling against a sharp piece of metal, but my jeans weren't cut. This would be harder to do with something like chainmail, but could explain why 1 point of impaling damage gets through despite the armor not being breached.

[Landwalker]

Originally Posted by borithan

I thought Fine Mail's description suggests it is mainly a secondary armour, ie for wearing under something else or for protecting secondary areas. I thought it was "Heavy" (or is it something else... haven't got Low Tech with me) Mail which is described as the standard for Mail armour which is designed as primary protection.

To elaborate a bit from vierasmarius' answer, I believe you're thinking of Light Mail, which is explicitly identified as being mostly common as an underlayer for other armor, whereas Fine and Heavy Mail are "primary armors". Unfortunately, I won't be at my books for a good nine hours (what ever happened to eighthour work days?), so I don't remember which one lorica hamata falls under. I think that might be Heavy Mail (but, quite possibly, cheap heavy mail, giving it DR 4 anyway, based on the munitions grade lorica segmentata in the Roman legionary sample loadout).

[vierasmarius]

Originally Posted by Landwalker

To elaborate a bit from vierasmarius' answer, I believe you're thinking of Light Mail, which is explicitly identified as being mostly common as an underlayer for other armor, whereas Fine and Heavy Mail are "primary armors".

Exactly right. Light Mail has a much looser weave the Fine Mail, making it less protective, despite using the same (or thicker) wire.

Unfortunately, I won't be at my books for a good nine hours (what ever happened to eighthour work days?), so I don't remember which one lorica hamata falls under. I think that might be Heavy Mail (but, quite possibly, cheap heavy mail, giving it DR 4 anyway, based on the munitions grade lorica segmentata in the Roman legionary sample loadout).

I don't see mention of which grade of mail Lorica Hamata is, but it does indicate Heavy Mail was primary armor in the Roman era.

[Sam Baughn]

Originally Posted by Landwalker

Setting proof at 50% (which doesn't really seem very proofed to me)...

Isn't that exactly the standard of 'proof' that modern armour is given against firearms though?

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Perfect Organism

Isn't that exactly the standard of 'proof' that modern armour is given against firearms though?

This is precisely the standard. Even if you don't agree, if you don't use this method you will have consistency and verisimilitude issues with whatever system you come up with.

Having an AoA be at the 50% level probably will meet both criteria, though. That was a really good suggestion.

I had the beginnings of an alternate damage system that was going to be part of the Armor as Dice article in Pyramid #3/34. But it got cut (by me) as being a big can o' worms. :-)