Weapon damage

[Trifletraxor]

With the RuneQuest weapon tables, my players usually chose the same weapons over and over, because some weapons due to less damage or armor points just became filling on the weapon table.

Bows f.ex did 1d8+1. A throwing knife, dagger, axe or spear did less damage and had shorter reach, so why would anyone choose those missile weapons? The heavy crossbow was sometime employed due to its high one-shot damage, but the other crossbows where too slow for use (the one that didn't had puny damage so no reason to use it). Among the bows, the composite bow was the one who where always chosen.

Missile weapons showed this very well, but the same also applied for the melee weapons (though not as strongly). Some weapons where never chosen. With the STR and DEX requirement being as low as they where, there was really no reason not to pick a bigger weapon.

I considered (but haven't tried out) assigning damages to weapons like this:

natural weapons (for humans): 1d3
small 1h weapons: 1d4
short reach 1h weapons: 1d6
regular size 1h weapons: 1d8
bastard weapons 1h or 2h: 1d10
long reach 2h weapons: 1d12

Then differentiating the weapons based on the type of damage it did, or what weapon group it belonged to.

So long as I've played, none of my players have used a scimitar unless forced to due so, because the broadsword is just better.

Anyone else who've had this problem?

SGL.

[TRose]

One of the problems with the D100 system has always been it its just as easy to skill up Nuclear physic as say, lawn care.
The big advantage a crossbow has over the Bow was ease of use. I Remember reading someplace that to train a good crossbow man it took 6 month , to train a good longbow man you started with his grandfather.
I have always felt skills should be listed as easy , normal and hard for increase rolls, perhaps use a D4 to increase hard skills, D6 for normal, and D8 for easy.
As far as throwing weapons go, they should be faster to use when surprised. I can throw the spear in my hand and then toss the ax in my belt before you string your bow and shoot off an arrow.
And for hand to hand weapons go there are many things that unfortunately are hard to take into account. For example the Cutlass was preferred on ships because it was crowded on a ship and some one with a long sword might end up cutting the rigging or hitting a friend. I understand that why Pike men used short swords as a back up weapon there was no room to swing a bigger weapon.
Other weapons where chosen because of economics, a Sling is and should be dirt cheap. The Highlanders of Scotland preferred the ax for most of the clansmen because they simply could not afford to purchase swords . Your average adventurer does not worry about if he should buy a broadsword or do I stick with an ax and buy everyone in the hearth a new cloak.

[Nightshade]

Well, part of the answer is that when all weapons are available, some _won't_ get chosen as much. As an example, spears are by their nature a somewhat primitive and limited weapon. Other than specialized forms for certain forms of combat (pikes and lances, for example) you don't see them used all that late when other weapons were present. Throwing weapons are in much the same bucket; you carry them when you're not trained to use something better and/or when you think you might want one occasionally (a small axe functions both as a throwing weapon and a backup weapon in case your primary gets broken, for example).

That said, I think there are, as the prior poster noted, some issues with the fact that vanilla RQ and all forms of other BRP I know treat all skills as equally easy to learn; that was one of the things the Easy/Medium/Hard skill breakdown from RQ: AIG was trying to address. And of course, sometimes there are weapons that are simply likely overstated (I think the bastardsword tends to land in this category in a lot of cases).

[Atgxtg]

Well there are a few reasons for this.

First off, the sword is typically a better weapon overall than most other melee weapons. It is fairly strong, and highly verstile, as you can slash & stab with it. Many other weapons of the era were either not as study, slower, or not a versitile. Swords were the weapons for the rich. So in a way they should be better.

Eas of use has been mentioned, and is quite true, and should be factored in. The old adage that to train an archer start with the grandfather comes to mind.

THe ability to make and maintain weapons is a factor too. Sometimes people just got stuck with what was avaiable, rather than the "best" weapon.

Another thing overlooked is the various "special effects" of weapons usually don't come into play in RQ. For instance, Certain weapons are more effective at bashing down foes in armor and that plays a factor. I think the solution to the problem would be to facotor in different effects for special success. Maybe give each weapon two or three special effects to choose from. For instance, a sword might get a slash & stab options, with an axe might get at cleave (more damage than a slash), and a maul might get a bonus to knockdown (2x) or some such, a hammer might get an 1/2AP benefit, Bills & Hook could get a dismount special, and staves a trip, swotdcathers and sai could get a disarm (foe makes DEX roll or disarmed) on a special, and so on.

Also, weapon reach isn't a big issue in RQ, but is a big factor in real combat. The spear has been and continues to be (thanks to they bayonet) a very useful weapon in part because it has a nice reach advantage over most swords, aces, and maces.


Oh, and I disagree with Nighshade about the spear. The Egyptians, the Greeks, medieval militia, Swiss Pikemen, bayonet. The weapon has been one of the most used weapons throughout history.

[Enpeze]

I dont allow my players to choose weapons because these are very or less effective on the damage table. (because of metagaming)

They choose their weapons mostly in accordance to the culture they belong to or the game is settled. Their social status in the game world is also important and the fact if they can afford a certain weapon or not.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Oh, and I disagree with Nighshade about the spear. The Egyptians, the Greeks, medieval militia, Swiss Pikemen, bayonet. The weapon has been one of the most used weapons throughout history.

Militia didn't use them because they were a good weapon; they used them because they were easy to use and cheap. Same is really true of the use of bayonet on weapons (the fact they'd do double duty as a dagger didn't hurt). Most of the others were using them during periods when the other weapon choices were, frankly, often substandard, and before breakout into specialized troops. I already acknowledged the benefit of the Pike, but notice its a specialized weapon in the end; it was designed primarily to deal with cavalry, which used lances.

The spear is a good formation weapon, but once formations break up, its reach doesn't really make up for its limitations in other ways. Its just got the virtue its cheap and easy to learn to use; it doesn't have the control issues you have to some degree with maces and axes, and even worse with flails, nor the cost associated with decent swords.

(Though as an aside, an awful lot of early swords were largely either-or in terms of thrust versus slash; its hard to find one that was really good for both functions, and some were almost useless for one of the two purposes (usually thrusting)).

[TRose]

The advatage a spear has is its cheap, easy to train people to use on the battlefield, Has Reach, and you can use a shield with it. Other pole arms tend to cost more and are harder to use right. But they often can hit harder and do more damage.

[Atgxtg]

Yeah,
I agree with pretty much what both of you have posted. It is just that things such as "cheap and easy" generalyl don't apply in RQ/BRP. PCs, like most poeple who regualrly stake thier lives on their weapons, will try to buy the best avialbe, and spend the time to improve.

But, skill pays too too. A man skilled with a spear can be a very formidable adversary for someone with a sword or axe. They pretty much have to knock the spear out of the way prior to any real attack, and then step in.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Enpeze

I dont allow my players to choose weapons because these are very or less effective on the damage table. (because of metagaming)

I think, however, that the need to do at least some of this shows that the weapons aren't entirely represented properly. Past that, what it usually encourages is about what you'd expect; most people tend toward using a one handed sword.

[Nightshade]

Originally Posted by Atgxtg

Yeah,
I agree with pretty much what both of you have posted. It is just that things such as "cheap and easy" generalyl don't apply in RQ/BRP. PCs, like most poeple who regualrly stake thier lives on their weapons, will try to buy the best avialbe, and spend the time to improve.

And that's usually it; unless you start people very light on money (and if so, they certainly aren't going to have appreciable armor above the level of heavy leather), they're liable to chose more generally functional weapons than the spear for their weapon choices, and carry the same.

But, skill pays too too. A man skilled with a spear can be a very formidable adversary for someone with a sword or axe. They pretty much have to knock the spear out of the way prior to any real attack, and then step in.

That adds up, in essence, to the spear having a slight strike rank edge, and that's if using strike ranks. So in practice, you end up giving them one shot at the start that you still get to parry.

The real benefit to the spear in most RQ games, is that it impales, which can be quite grim; but that also often risks you losing the spear. So even if someone does want to go that route, they'll almost always carry a sword or the like as a secondary weapon.