10-18-2018, 08:29 PM | #21 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: behind you
|
Re: Silver Weapons, Weird Things That Aren't Enchantments, Armor Piercing
Even with modern weapons, I still don't see a _need_ for "armor-piercing" to "make the game work".
I can certainly understand a _desire_ for it though. IF I were to make some "armor-piercing" rules, I would _not_ take the "this weapon ignores X points of armor" route. I would give certain weapons +1 or +2 damage against certain armors. I might also give certain weapons (perhaps the same weapons previously mentioned) a -1 or -2 damage against certain other armors (or no armor). I'm not a historian of historical weapons but here are some examples for illustration: Weapon...Damage...Damage Modifiers Rapier...1d...+1 chainmail/-1 platemail Saber...2d-2...-1 chainmail Shortsword...2d-1...-1 chainmail Broadsword...2d...-1 chainmail Hatchet...1d...+1 platemail/-1 chainmail Hammer...1d+1...+1 chainmail Mace...2d-1...+1 chainmail Small Ax...1d+2...+1 platemail Morningstar...2d+1...+2 chainmail/+1 chainmail Great Hammer...2d+2...+2 chainmail Longbow...1d+2...+1 chainmail/+1 platemail (I wouldn't give Heavy Crossbow and Arquebus special bonuses but I would reduce their damages) Heavy Crossbow...2d+2 Arquebus...3d-1 Trident...1d...+2 chainmail |
10-18-2018, 10:06 PM | #22 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Silver Weapons, Weird Things That Aren't Enchantments, Armor Piercing
As long as you don't give them more damage than the armor actually stops against other weapons... what would be the difference, other than wording?
|
10-18-2018, 10:13 PM | #23 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: behind you
|
Re: Silver Weapons, Weird Things That Aren't Enchantments, Armor Piercing
|
10-18-2018, 10:45 PM | #24 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Silver Weapons, Weird Things That Aren't Enchantments, Armor Piercing
I don't see how. I have just one question, exemplified by:
What is the difference between saying a weapon does 1 more damage against chainmail, as opposed to saying it ignores one point of chainmail? Oh, never mind, there is no difference, as I thought, about what I was asking about. You mean that you would break it down by weapon/armor combinations, rather than giving a bonus against all armor. Ok. |
10-18-2018, 10:54 PM | #25 | |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: behind you
|
Re: Silver Weapons, Weird Things That Aren't Enchantments, Armor Piercing
Quote:
However, saying "+1 damage against chainmail" and "ignore one point of chainmail" are functionally the same but "+1 damage against chainmail" is more easily grasped (by me, at least) and requires less mental calculation in the midst of game-play.
__________________
Miranda Warning: Anything you say can and will be used against you in a forum of rules-lawyers. Last edited by platimus; 10-19-2018 at 07:38 AM. |
|
10-18-2018, 11:23 PM | #27 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: behind you
|
Re: Silver Weapons, Weird Things That Aren't Enchantments, Armor Piercing
Ha! I should read my new signature again!
"+1 damage against defenders wearing chainmail" And, no, I don't mean the Marvel Defenders! LOL
__________________
Miranda Warning: Anything you say can and will be used against you in a forum of rules-lawyers. |
10-19-2018, 11:03 AM | #28 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Silver Weapons, Weird Things That Aren't Enchantments, Armor Piercing
|
10-19-2018, 12:50 PM | #29 |
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: behind you
|
Re: Silver Weapons, Weird Things That Aren't Enchantments, Armor Piercing
Crap! LOL
"+1 damage against foes wearing chainmail"
__________________
Miranda Warning: Anything you say can and will be used against you in a forum of rules-lawyers. |
10-19-2018, 04:40 PM | #30 |
Join Date: May 2015
|
Re: Silver Weapons, Weird Things That Aren't Enchantments, Armor Piercing
Seems to me it'd really depend on what one thinks the odds are. And I would love to have some better statistics. But it seems to me the odds are probably higher than 2%, or else we wouldn't be remarking at the surprising stories of the cases where someone gets shot and keeps fighting. We'd be expecting to have to shoot someone many times, and snipers would be trying to shoot people three times before checking to see if they're still going or not.
I don't mean to say you're suggesting something wrong, though. I think it's an interesting direction to go and I do agree that penetration rather than just higher damage is a good starting point. But 1) I've played and considered various attempts to do TFT guns as 1d to 2d for pistols and was not very happy with the predictability of being able to shrug off the first hit or two. and 2) if I were going to rework things rather than use the TFT numbers, I'd probably go farther, one way or another, with more hit location and/or a wound-based system as opposed to just adding up damage and dropping when the total hits ST. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|