Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

The unique One Ring rules set invites tinkering and secondary creation. Whilst The One Ring works brilliantly as written, we provide this forum for those who want to make their own home-brewed versions of the rules. Note that none of these should be taken as 'official'.
Deadmanwalking
Posts: 579
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:14 pm
Location: The Wilds of Darkest Montana

Re: Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

Post by Deadmanwalking » Wed Mar 09, 2016 1:19 am

I think my post above got missed in the shuffle...

Otaku-sempai
Posts: 2889
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 2:45 am
Location: Lackawanna, NY

Re: Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

Post by Otaku-sempai » Wed Mar 09, 2016 1:35 am

Deadmanwalking wrote:I think my post above got missed in the shuffle...
Yeah, I think my response to it actually had more to do with one of the other posts than with your own. Or maybe I just got side-tracked.
"Far, far below the deepest delvings of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he."

Glorelendil
Posts: 4905
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:20 pm

Re: Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

Post by Glorelendil » Wed Mar 09, 2016 5:57 pm

Not lost/unnoticed, just didn't have a whole lot to say. Having one weapon in the game that, with a Reward point, can one-shot the weakest enemies in the game...when they are encountered...doesn't seem that OP to me. Between Tengwars and Pierces and Called Shots (not to mention Dunlendings with Wild Onset) one-shots happen all the time anyway, and to stronger enemies than Snaga Trackers and Attercops.

But to each his own. If you've got another suggestion for how to find a new design space for hammers that doesn't duplicate an existing weapon*, increase damage, violate the weapon design budget (or does, I guess, if that's what you prefer) by all means post it.

*The only reason I think new weapons should not duplicate the stats of other weapons is that I hate to go down the road of creating new rules that are really only fluff. That way lies madness. That said, I think a new Called Shot...such as "Daze"...is sufficiently different that a hammer with stats otherwise identical to sword or axe would be fine.
The Munchkin Formerly Known as Elfcrusher
Journey Computer | Combat Simulator | Bestiary | Weapon Calculator

Otaku-sempai
Posts: 2889
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 2:45 am
Location: Lackawanna, NY

Re: Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

Post by Otaku-sempai » Wed Mar 09, 2016 8:33 pm

I agree that there is little point to new weapons that just duplicate the stats of an existing weapon, the difference could be as small as the result of a called shot or the increment of range (when applicable). The Damage rating for the mattock makes me wonder if even-numbered ratings for Damage were meant to represent weapons that were primarily tools not normally intended for battle.
"Far, far below the deepest delvings of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he."

Deadmanwalking
Posts: 579
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:14 pm
Location: The Wilds of Darkest Montana

Re: Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

Post by Deadmanwalking » Wed Mar 09, 2016 10:01 pm

Glorelendil wrote:Not lost/unnoticed, just didn't have a whole lot to say. Having one weapon in the game that, with a Reward point, can one-shot the weakest enemies in the game...when they are encountered...doesn't seem that OP to me. Between Tengwars and Pierces and Called Shots (not to mention Dunlendings with Wild Onset) one-shots happen all the time anyway, and to stronger enemies than Snaga Trackers and Attercops.
Well, Wild Onset only helps when you roll a Tengwar. And that's certainly true, I'm not saying it's game-breaking, I'm just arguing that having a higher base damage than anything else in the game is valuable in it's own right. Frankly, I'd have anything that violates the existing limits cost double, with an Edge of 8 or an Injury above 18 for one-handed or 22 for 2-handed weapons also costing double.
Glorelendil wrote:But to each his own. If you've got another suggestion for how to find a new design space for hammers that doesn't duplicate an existing weapon*, increase damage, violate the weapon design budget (or does, I guess, if that's what you prefer) by all means post it.
I think being the single highest Endurance damage weapon in the game, but with not-great chances to pierce, and not-great injury is a pretty solid design space.

One way to do it would be to follow the Mattock's example and make them one lighter than they would be otherwise.

That'd make a Club (the short-sword equivalent) Encumbrance 0, Damage 6, Edge G, Injury 12. A warhammer or mace Encumbrance 1, Damage 6, Edge G, Injury 14, and a maul Encumbrance 3, Damage 10, Edge G, Injury 18.

Those are all balanced with the mattock, and make the way they work pretty unique. The high Encumbrance way also works, but I worry that makes them too much better than other weapons.
Glorelendil wrote:*The only reason I think new weapons should not duplicate the stats of other weapons is that I hate to go down the road of creating new rules that are really only fluff. That way lies madness. That said, I think a new Called Shot...such as "Daze"...is sufficiently different that a hammer with stats otherwise identical to sword or axe would be fine.
This I'll agree with, though having only a different Claaed shot and nothing else feels wrong.

Glorelendil
Posts: 4905
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:20 pm

Re: Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

Post by Glorelendil » Thu Mar 10, 2016 4:05 am

I think you meant to give your hammer an Edge of 16; otherwise it has 3 leftover points instead of 1.

If you're pricing damage at 2:1 it throws the whole formula out of whack. And I'm not sure I believe a single point of damage is worth as much as a full two-step increment for Injury, or a reduction in Edge. It would mean that Mattock should have either 9 Edge or 20 Injury.
The Munchkin Formerly Known as Elfcrusher
Journey Computer | Combat Simulator | Bestiary | Weapon Calculator

Deadmanwalking
Posts: 579
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:14 pm
Location: The Wilds of Darkest Montana

Re: Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

Post by Deadmanwalking » Thu Mar 10, 2016 7:18 am

Glorelendil wrote:I think you meant to give your hammer an Edge of 16; otherwise it has 3 leftover points instead of 1.
You're right, I did mean to do that. My bad. That'd up the Club to 14 as well.
Glorelendil wrote:If you're pricing damage at 2:1 it throws the whole formula out of whack. And I'm not sure I believe a single point of damage is worth as much as a full two-step increment for Injury, or a reduction in Edge. It would mean that Mattock should have either 9 Edge or 20 Injury.
I was actually pricing damage normally on those, just basing them on the Mattock as opposed to anything else. And thus having their Encumbrance one lower.

User avatar
Falenthal
Posts: 2144
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:46 am
Location: Girona (Spain)
Contact:

Re: Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

Post by Falenthal » Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:54 am

Otaku-sempai wrote:The Damage rating for the mattock makes me wonder if even-numbered ratings for Damage were meant to represent weapons that were primarily tools not normally intended for battle.
I always thought that a hammer weapon could/should be included in a group such as (Tools) or similar.
It would include the mattock, of course, and the Cultural Weapons of Dwarves could be (Tools). But it's also nice to have Mattock, so I never came to develop the idea any further.

Mattock would be the 2H only weapon.
A second weapon (maybe Morning-star or similar?) could be the 1H/2H weapon (as Long Sword or Long-hafted Axe).
And another weapon (Hammer probably) could be the 1H only weapon.

And they would all have an even-numbered damage, because it looks cool. :)

Otaku-sempai
Posts: 2889
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 2:45 am
Location: Lackawanna, NY

Re: Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

Post by Otaku-sempai » Thu Mar 10, 2016 2:01 pm

Well, if we talk tools that are well-suited as weapons, a standard-sized hammer or mallet (as opposed to a warhammer) come up a bit short because of the size of their handles. Simply treat either as an improvised weapon. But we could add the sledgehammer, and the pick to the mattock, as well as others such as: the belaying pin; farmer's flail; pitchfork; hoe; sickle; scythe; hatchet; machete; shepherd's crook; pry bar; spade; etc. Only a few tools, though, should probably count as being more effective than any other improvised weapon. A sledgehammer is pretty much the same as a maul, for instance. Technically, the whip is a tool first and a weapon second.

I would think that the adze, the miner's pick and the pick-axe would be the lesser cousins to the mattock; however, as a weapon, we could extend that to the military pick.
Last edited by Otaku-sempai on Thu Mar 10, 2016 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Far, far below the deepest delvings of the Dwarves, the world is gnawed by nameless things. Even Sauron knows them not. They are older than he."

Glorelendil
Posts: 4905
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:20 pm

Re: Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

Post by Glorelendil » Thu Mar 10, 2016 2:23 pm

Otaku-sempai wrote:Well, if we talk tools that are well-suited as weapons, a standard-sized hammer or mallet (as opposed to a warhammer) come up a bit short because of the size of their handles. Simply treat either as an improvised weapon. But we could add the sledgehammer, and the pick to the mattock, as well as others such as: the belaying pin; farmer's flail; pitchfork; hoe; sickle; scythe; hatchet; machete; shepherd's crook; pry bar; spade; etc. Only a few tools, though, should probably count as being more effective than any other improvised weapon. A sledgehammer is pretty much the same as a maul, for instance. Technically, the whip is a tool first and a weapon second.
Don't forget chainsaws.

And, of course, there's the Captive Bolt Pistol
The Munchkin Formerly Known as Elfcrusher
Journey Computer | Combat Simulator | Bestiary | Weapon Calculator

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest