Rejiggering Muscle-Powered Weapon Damage

[Landwalker]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

That's not the way GURPS does it, "armor X is proof against weapon Y" means that, at most, that armor X's DR is equal to the average dmg from weapon Y, that's it, not AoA strong proof, just normal dmg proof.

There are a lot of ways that GURPS doesn't do it, though. Just because GURPS doesn't think that Armor X Proofs Vs. Weapon Y at average AoA-Strong damage doesn't mean that that isn't a possible way to come at the issue.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Landwalker

There are a lot of ways that GURPS doesn't do it, though. Just because GURPS doesn't think that Armor X Proofs Vs. Weapon Y at average AoA-Strong damage doesn't mean that that isn't a possible way to come at the issue.

Except that you're then departing from reality and how armors are proofed by everyone from today's NIH to medieval armor smiths.

I've had this discussion from your side of things against the game developers, and they ended up convincing me that the proof is against average, with the only problem being the high dmg variability due to people liking to roll dice.

Doug's Armor as Dice rule is one of the ways of reducing that variability, I'm assuming you're familiar with his rules on that, p.32 of Pyramid #34...

[Landwalker]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Except that you're then departing from reality and how armors are proofed by everyone from today's NIH to medieval armor smiths.

I've had this discussion from your side of things against the game developers, and they ended up convincing me that the proof is against average, with the only problem being the high dmg variability due to people liking to roll dice.

Doug's Armor as Dice rule is one of the ways of reducing that variability, I'm assuming you're familiar with his rules on that, p.32 of Pyramid #34...

I'm aware of the rules, though I haven't seen them, not having said Pyramid. It seems like making armor variable as well as damage would increase variability, but based on the fact that you're pretty confident in recommending it, I'm assuming that whatever the mechanical details are manage to avoid that problem?


Another possible problem: I don't know the underlying mechanical assumptions GURPS has about this, but I'm not sure that the MinST of a weapon is also necessarily the ST of the average user of that weapon. If that's the case, then the fact that Fine Mail (DR 4/2) is "proofed" against the average damage of a ST 10 wielder is flawed, since that would certainly cause it to fail to be proofed against the average damage of an actual average broadsword-wielder.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Landwalker

I'm aware of the rules, though I haven't seen them, not having said Pyramid. It seems like making armor variable as well as damage would increase variability, but based on the fact that you're pretty confident in recommending it, I'm assuming that whatever the mechanical details are manage to avoid that problem?

Getting a Pyramid subscription is a nice way of supporting GURPS current and future authors, and the articles are a nice bonus. *grin*

Armor as Dice, Pyramid #34, p.32:
"Convert DR to dice by dividing by 3.5, and rounding up to the nearest point. DR 10 converts to DR 2d+3, DR 20 to DR 5d+3."

Then just subtract armor dice from damage dice before rolling.

Originally Posted by Landwalker

Another possible problem: I don't know the underlying mechanical assumptions GURPS has about this, but I'm not sure that the MinST of a weapon is also necessarily the ST of the average user of that weapon. If that's the case, then the fact that Fine Mail (DR 4/2) is "proofed" against the average damage of a ST 10 wielder is flawed, since that would certainly cause it to fail to be proofed against the average damage of an actual average broadsword-wielder.

An average broadsword wielder is ST 10 if he's human, if he's not human, then that's a different story.

[gilbertocarlos]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

An average broadsword wielder is ST 10 if he's human, if he's not human, then that's a different story.

Actually, I don't know why to use ST10 to calculate this...

Kromm already said that most soldier have ST11, this makes armor look even worse, fine mail for example, will let pass an average of 1,667 dmg/hit, increase it to 4,5 dmg/hit for AoA, with 1/3 of the attacks passing through edge protection

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Landwalker

Outside of the viability of that one specific option, I do like the idea of reducing variability of damage.

The "Armor as Dice" article in Pyramid #3/34 deals with this in a few different ways.

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Except that you're then departing from reality and how armors are proofed by everyone from today's NIH to medieval armor smiths.

How do you know the people doing the proofing aren't doing AoA (Strong) when they test the armor?

Do they swing as hard as they can, and then swing again, but not as hard? Do they dodge arrows being shot at them when they make the attacks used to measure the armor?

If someone walked up to me and handed me a weapon, and then pointed me at something they wanted me to hit, I imagine I would hit it as hard as I could, meaning I would be taking an All-Out Attack (Strong).

And how do we know if they're using 'fine' quality or better weapons to do the tests? Modern blades are 'fine' by default, aren't they? And I doubt ancient armorers had any sort of standards.

What I think we're seeing in modern tests is people using All-Out Attacks while swinging 'fine' quality weapons. That's two more damage!

Otherwise, you end up with realistic arrow damage acting as expected against armor (with fine mail resisting most arrows), while they're cut through like butter by even a moderately strong (ST 11) soldier with a broadsword.

Just think about a ST 11 samurai with a 'fine' quality katana. He's doing 1d+5 damage on an AoA (Strong). He can possibly slice right through heavy mail. Is that really possible? I don't know.

Or look at what he could do with a 'fine' Longsword two handed. 1d+4 impaling damage on a thrust. Men in heavy mail fear him. Is that how it works in reality? He can easily put that sword right through even medium plate. He doesn't need to worry with a rondel or armor gaps. He can put his sword right through a medium breastplate. He goes through mail like it's not even there.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

How do you know the people doing the proofing aren't doing AoA (Strong) when they test the armor?

We don't really know how consistent the proofing for melee was, we do know what the proofing for bullets were, so that's where the generalities come from.

*shrug*, it's a game, we can't overdo it and still end up with playable fun.

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

Or look at what he could do with a 'fine' Longsword two handed. 1d+4 impaling damage on a thrust. Men in heavy mail fear him. Is that how it works in reality? He can easily put that sword right through even medium plate. He doesn't need to worry with a rondel or armor gaps. He can put his sword right through a medium breastplate. He goes through mail like it's not even there.

Which is unrealistic, all those damage bonuses may really add to HT damage, but they don't add much to armor penetration.

Fine swords cut flesh more deeply and punch through bone instead of glancing off, but they have no real effect on punching through most armors unless they're high tech or magical.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

Which is unrealistic, all those damage bonuses may really add to HT damage, but they don't add much to armor penetration.

Mostly what they do is make them hold their edge better and withstand impact better. Since edge isn't particularly important against metal armor, the main effect is bringing performance closer to the performance of a crushing weapon.

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Mostly what they do is make them hold their edge better and withstand impact better. Since edge isn't particularly important against metal armor, the main effect is bringing performance closer to the performance of a crushing weapon.

Which shouldn't be adding to armor penetration, just to injury and/or blunt trauma.

In other words, against metal armor Fine and Very Fine weapons should be +1 and +2 INJURY, not damage.



Hmm, may have to actually implement that one...