[Runequest] ***SPAM*** Weapon Damages - technical question

Tom Cantine tcantine at incentre.net
Sun Dec 6 10:50:18 EST 2009

I wondered about that myself, but I think it's probably a variety of 
things, some of them appropriately in-game, and some of them possible 
game-balance related.

For one thing, in-game, yes leverage is one thing, but also a longer 
spear has more mass and momentum behind it and although in theory both 
can penetrate just as deeply,  you have more length to follow through 
with a long spear, so on average it will tend to go deeper into the 
target, whereas with a short spear going deeper means getting closer to 
the angry victim (who may still be trying to hurt you), so you'll tend 
to stab and withdraw for another stab.

Out-of-game, it may be a game balance idea as well, that since you do 
not have the option of using a spear with a long spear, the trade-off 
is somewhat better damage dealing capability.

On 5-Dec-09, at 3:34 PM, Chris Gilmore wrote:

> Here's a technical question for all you who have some experience with 
> this:
> The damages listed in the RQ3 book are 1D8+1 for a short spear and 
> 1D10+1 for a long spear. Is this because the long spear is assumed to 
> have a larger head? The damage listed for a 2H short spear is still 
> 1D8+1, so it seems that leverage wouldn't have much to do with it.
> Also, a dagger does 1D4+2, significantly less damage than a long spear
> Other than the length of the shaft providing some additional leverage, 
> why would these threee thrusting weapons with (presumably) similar 
> sized blades be so different from one another in terms of damage?
> The reason I'm asking is because of a project I'm working on. I don't 
> have any fighting experience myself, so perhaps there's some nuance 
> I'm missing.
> Thanks!
> Chris
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tony Den" 
> <postmaster at runequest.za.org>
> To: "RuneQuest Rules" <runequest at rpgreview.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2009 4:40 AM
> Subject: Re: [Runequest] ***SPAM*** Armour weight/enc
>> Pete Nash wrote:
>>> And here's another text, which although underplaying the protective 
>>> value
>>> of
>>> sheet bronze, shows an example of a battle damaged bronze helmet 
>>> about
>>> 2/3rds of the way through the article... which shows (at least to 
>>> me) that
>>> despite denting, the thin bronze definitely prevented penetration 
>>> from
>>> edged
>>> weapons.  Considering the movement of opponents during normal combat 
>>> and
>>> inherent deflection angles of curved surfaces, bronze armour was very
>>> functional.
>>> http://www.ffzg.hr/arheo/ska/tekstovi/tale_sword.PDF
>> Wasn't one of the major advantages the famed 300 spartans had was 
>> that a
>> lare number of the persians they faced had wicker shields and/or 
>> armour
>> whereas the hoplites had bronze?
>> _______________________________________________
>> Runequest mailing list
>> Runequest at rpgreview.net
>> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net
> _______________________________________________
> Runequest mailing list
> Runequest at rpgreview.net
> http://rpgreview.net/mailman/listinfo/runequest_rpgreview.net

More information about the Runequest mailing list