Random Damage Bonus versus Static Damage Bonus

[Rurik]

Just don't tell the velocity freaks that you are using the diameter of the round to base damage on...

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Rurik

Just don't tell the velocity freaks that you are using the diameter of the round to base damage on...

You probably really want to use muzzle energy; its not a perfect solution either (ballistics is too complicated for there to be a perfectly solution) but it'll probably produce less artifacts than any other single criterion.

[Al.]

Originally Posted by Rurik

Just don't tell the velocity freaks that you are using the diameter of the round to base damage on...

I'm kinda including velocity by having a subtly different calculation for pistol, carbine and rifle. To take into account length of barrel and quantity of propellant and thus velocity.

Ultimately it is a very rough and ready calculation (well six of them) which give same numbers which make ENOUGH sense to me for a GAME.

I am sure that there are better ones out there.

I am equally sure that the whole muzzle energy vs. energy imparted at target debate has been aired by people infinitely more qualified and erudite than me.


Al

[Lord Twig]

I like the idea of rolling damage dice, but I also like the idea of more granularity. I have come up with the following. Obviously some people won't like it. An option would be to just add +1d6 for every 16 after 33 or 49, depending on when you thought that the granularity was no longer useful.

STR+SIZ = Damage Dice = Average Damage
01-04 = -1d6 = -3.5
05-08 = -1d3+1 = -3
09-12 = -1d3 = -2
13-16 = -1 = -1
17-20 = 0 = 0
21-24 = +1 = +1
25-28 = +1d3 = +2
29-32 = +1d3+1 = +3
33-36 = +1d6 = +3.5
37-40 = +1d6+1 = +4.5
41-44 = +1d6+1d3 = +5.5
45-48 = +1d6+1d3+1 = +6.5
49-52 = +2d6 = +7
53-56 = +2d6+1 = +8
57-60 = +2d6+1d3 = +9
61-64 = +2d6+1d3+1 = +10
65-68 = +3d6 = +10.5
etc...

Edit: Hmmm... Just had a thought. You could replace the 1d3+1 with 1d4 and you would get a pretty good progression as well.

STR+SIZ = Damage Dice = Average Damage
01-04 = -1d6 = -3.5
05-08 = -1d4 = -2.5
09-12 = -1d3 = -2
13-16 = -1 = -1
17-20 = 0 = 0
21-24 = +1 = +1
25-28 = +1d3 = +2
29-32 = +1d4 = +2.5
33-36 = +1d6 = +3.5
37-40 = +1d6+1 = +4.5
41-44 = +1d6+1d3 = +5.5
45-48 = +1d6+1d4 = +6
49-52 = +2d6 = +7
53-56 = +2d6+1 = +8
57-60 = +2d6+1d3 = +9
61-64 = +2d6+1d4 = +9.5
65-68 = +3d6 = +10.5
etc...

[Tywyll]

Originally Posted by Lord Twig

I like the idea of rolling damage dice, but I also like the idea of more granularity. I have come up with the following. Obviously some people won't like it.
etc...

Personally? I think it looks great. I look forward to taking it for a spin.

[The Last Conformist]

Sorry for late reply.

Originally Posted by RosenMcStern

The point is that they are different and they should do different damage.

This seems to be our fundamental disagreement. I do not want or like difference for difference's sake - do things meaningfully different, or don't bother in the first place. A cosmetic difference in damage codes isn't worthwhile. Losing the adds would make things simpler, introducing a big difference would add interest, the present system achieves neither.

peterb has already replied to this.

He said players should be given choices; I quite agree, but only to the extent they're interesting choices. 1d10 vs 1d8+1 for damage isn't interesting.

Flexible armour. This was the point. Vs. hard armour, sharp weapons are more effective.

Other way round. Hard armour (eg. plate) is relatively more protection against a sword (it stops you from getting cut in two!) than against a mace (which wasn't going to cut you in the first place). You still suffer the impact from either (but spread over a larger area - less risk of broken bones etc), but the mace presumably has more of it (it must have to deal the same damage as the sword to an unarmoured target).

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.

What gives you the idea you can't have a grazing hit with a bullet? It's very possible for a periferal hit to just punch through skin, fat and muscle without actually damaging anything important.

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.

As per above, the SB way is the wrong way round compared to reality. Reversing the damage codes would be marginally more realistic than having the same for both weapons, but I'd happily pay that small price in realism for getting rid of the complication of the flat adds.