09-08-2011, 05:49 PM | #11 | ||
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Oregon
|
Re: Rejiggering Muscle-Powered Weapon Damage
Quote:
Quote:
The problem really boils down to GURPS being quite granular, especially in its treatment of melee weapons. Hmm... perhaps replace all damage rolls with 3d6 x (some constant based on ST + Weapon modifier), rounding damage to the nearest 0.1 HP. For example, if there's a sword attack that should deal 1d+2 (5.5) damage, it would instead inflict 3d6*0.5, which averages (approximately) the same. I suspect that people wouldn't like all the decimals... they should grow a pair of (mathematician) balls, IMO. </joke> |
||
09-08-2011, 06:03 PM | #12 |
"Gimme 18 minutes . . ."
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Albuquerque, NM
|
Re: Rejiggering Muscle-Powered Weapon Damage
My thought on the issue is that everything gets wonky when you allow attributes much over 15, IME. I think if you reworked the calculations for BL so they were less finely granulated and put the vast majority of humans at 15 or under on all four attributes you'd be pretty good.
So anyways, my solution is make ST 20 as far outside realistic human norms as IQ 20, refigure lifting and carrying capacity to line up with a general max of roughly 15 for people who aren't Andre the Giant. EDIT: Oh, combined with a rule that gives all melee weapons skills a bonus to damage a la Karate/Boxing at higher levels, and further nerfing of standard weapon damage. So a skilled strong warrior can do some damage, but a peasant with a spear is unlikely to do much unless he gets lucky on the hit location/critical table against anyone reasonably prepared. Last edited by Crakkerjakk; 09-08-2011 at 06:07 PM. |
09-08-2011, 06:10 PM | #13 | |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Rejiggering Muscle-Powered Weapon Damage
Quote:
Code:
MoS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Dam 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 7 8 9 MoS 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 +20 Dam 10 11 12 14 16 18 20 22 25 28 31 35 40 45 50 56 63 70 80 90 x10 |
|
09-08-2011, 08:06 PM | #14 | |
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Caxias do Sul, Brazil
|
Re: Rejiggering Muscle-Powered Weapon Damage
Quote:
|
|
09-08-2011, 08:08 PM | #15 |
"Gimme 18 minutes . . ."
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Albuquerque, NM
|
Re: Rejiggering Muscle-Powered Weapon Damage
Keep it a ST roll then. Location is skill (though maybe a slight bonus for sufficient skill), damage is ST and weapon.
|
09-08-2011, 08:42 PM | #16 | ||||
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cumberland, ME
|
Re: Rejiggering Muscle-Powered Weapon Damage
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Ultimately, I'm not looking for all of the ways to adjust muscle-based damage. I'm just trying to get a sense for how this particular adjustment method will bear out the historical facts about the equipment available. With that in mind, I think that, until I come up with a satisfactory solution, I'm comfortable (or at least, I can stomach) leaving Fine and Very Fine alone simply because their impact is reduced (from +1 and +2 to, effectively, +0.7 and +1.4). I agree that I would like a better way to deal with them (and if/when I rebuild Weapon Breakage/Damage rules, I think Fine/Very Fine will play a prominent role there), but that seems like an issue separate from the "bringing ST-based damage closer to realistic representation" issue. I also don't think that unarmed damage is adversely impacted by this, principally because it's so low to begin with: A ST 10 punch with no skill bonus to damage normally is 1d-2 (1.5) cr — With the 70% adjustment, it is still 1d-2 (1.05, rounded up). The bonus for Brawling at DX+2 and Karate at DX+1 is largely lost at ST 10: 1d-1 (2.5) to 1d-2 (1.75, rounded down), while Karate at DX+2 goes from 1d (3.5) to 1d-1 (2.45). But the viability of unarmed combat is pretty much the last thing I'm interested in, since I think anyone fighting unarmed in an armed combat situation should have their arms parried off on principle. But, again, that pet peeve of mine is not the goal. =) So, just to reiterate what I'm after: (#1 Issue) I feel that muscle-based damage does not line up with Armor DR values in a manner that is believable or realistic. It has been generally agreed upon by people I trust to know these things that the problem is not Armor DR. Therefore, muscle-based damage is too high. Here is one idea of mine, grounded in a published optional rule, for bringing ST-based damage down to levels that allow armor to have the importance and performance that it reasonably should, especially for ST values in the normal human range. (2) From a game standpoint, does that idea have any clear flaws or issues that need to be considered and, potentially, addressed (e.g. how it might affect and be affected by Fine Weapons, or its impact on unarmed damage). (3) A more minor point: Is my arrival at this idea by transferring Douglas Cole's formulae for cinematic and realistic bow damage to other muscle-powered damage calculations totally barking up the wrong tree? And to reiterate what I'm not fishing for in this thread: (A) Rebuilding how ST and damage work (trust me, I've done more of this than I should have over the last week before happening across Mr. Cole's article). |
||||
09-08-2011, 09:10 PM | #17 |
Join Date: Apr 2011
|
Re: Rejiggering Muscle-Powered Weapon Damage
I do agree that .7 * damage is a reasonable way of doing it, but the final solution will need to be based around changing the ST->Damage tables.
|
09-08-2011, 09:24 PM | #18 | |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
|
Re: Rejiggering Muscle-Powered Weapon Damage
Quote:
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". If you want to normalize damage you can do it with a base amount modified by +/- MoS, something like MoS Dmg+B, with B = Avg Dmg. Code:
MoS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 ... Dmg -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 B B +1 +1 +2 +2 +3 +3 ... 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. |
|
09-08-2011, 09:48 PM | #19 | |
Doctor of GURPS Ballistics
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Lakeville, MN
|
Re: Rejiggering Muscle-Powered Weapon Damage
Quote:
Then you need to figure the ST multiplier for swings, lever arm, weight, and balance of the weapon. No problem, eh?
__________________
My blog:Gaming Ballistic, LLC My Store: Gaming Ballistic on Shopify My Patreon: Gaming Ballistic on Patreon |
|
09-09-2011, 01:20 AM | #20 |
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Berkeley, CA
|
Re: Rejiggering Muscle-Powered Weapon Damage
'equivalent skill' should not be interpreted as weapon skill, it should be interpreted as being an esoteric skill along the lines of mighty blow -- i.e. a skill that is specifically intended to replace a ST roll.
|
Tags |
combat, house rules |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|