Quote:
Originally Posted by The Last Conformist
I'm afraid the logic of this convention escapes me completely.
(Also, it plain doesn't apply to SB5, where a 1H mace does 1d6+2 damage. I thought the new BRP book took its close combat weapon stats from SB5?)
|
I was not advocating either RQ or SB. In fact I see maces having a higher minimum, as in SB, as being more realistic. The point is that they are
different and they should do different damage.
Quote:
|
I don't see the point in difference for difference's sake.
|
peterb has already replied to this.
Quote:
|
(in fact, the sword is slightly better at punching through armour).
|
Flexible armour. This was the point. Vs. hard armour, sharp weapons are more effective.
Quote:
|
Also, as was already mentioned, flat adds leads to the anomaly where you can't get grazing hits. This is particularly noticeable in CoC with rifle damages like 2d6+4.
|
But a grazing hit is impossible with a weapon that is basing its damage on sheer impact force. You cannot be grazed by a modern .45 shot, and I am very uncertain about a heavy maul grazing anyone, too. An arrow or a super-sharp katana is another story. The point is exactly what you have just reminded us: the SB way where blunt weapons have the highest minimum is superior to the RQ way where the sharp weapons do. But whatever the right way, having a difference is realistic.