[Runequest] Is weapon damage too high?
viletraveller at gmail.com
Sat Dec 11 23:30:05 EST 2010
On 11 December 2010 09:00, *Bjørn Are Stølen* wrote:
IMO the damage-issue in RQ(3) suffers from not introducing
armor-piercing-rules. In my setting, I tried to introduse slashing, piercing
and blunt-damage values, and having the armor allso having different AP vs.
theese different attack-types, a chainmail for instance would protect some
10 ap against slashing, 1 ap against bashing and perhaps 5 ap against
I have tackled this problem (armour penetration vs. damage transfer) in
firearms (where the issue is much worse than for melee or primitive missile
weaponry) by introducing an armour penetration bonus (pen.). Basically, some
weapons ignore a certain amount of armour before their damage is reduced.
For example, a bullet might have a pen. of 5 and a damage of 1D4. It strikes
a target wearing 6-point armour and the damage roll is 3. The bullet ignores
the first 5 armour points, then loses 1 point of damage to the remaining
armour point, doing 2 points of damage to the target. If the target had been
unarmoured, he or she would still only have suffered 3 points of damage.
Without the pen. value, if weapon damage had been, e.g. 1D10, an unarmoured
target would clearly be affected to a much greater degree, which is
unrealistic in this case because much of the kinetic energy would have
simply "blown through".
This is by no means intended to be a perfect simulation. But it has worked
flawlessly over many years of gaming in introducing a much greater variety
of weapons without making everything past a certain point into a
This rule could be extended to primitive weapons, e.g. stiletto: pen. 2,
You can see this rule applied in more detail in my Traveller/RuneQuest
weapons tables uploaded to the Basic Roleplaying Central website:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Runequest