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'.
Glorelendil
Posts: 4835
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:20 pm

Re: Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

Post by Glorelendil » Fri Mar 04, 2016 2:12 pm

Dunkelbrink wrote:You can choose between axe and spear in the beginning of a round, and the weapon has two different Called shots.
Oh that's really interesting. A different kind of "versatile" from Long Sword and Long-hafted Axe. Conceptually I like it.

What would people think of Warhammer and Great Hammer ("Maul") having the same stats as comparable axes, but with a Called Shot as I was describing elsewhere: "Daze: for one full round your foe is Moderately Hindered"
The Munchkin Formerly Known as Elfcrusher
Journey Computer | Combat Simulator | Bestiary | Weapon Calculator

Dunkelbrink
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2013 9:18 am
Location: Stockholm, Sweden

Re: Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

Post by Dunkelbrink » Fri Mar 04, 2016 2:50 pm

If you want to add Warhammer, and maybe Maul as well, I think the stats should probably be more unique than just using the Axe stats. Either raise Damage to 6 (Warhammer)/10 (Maul) and Edge G-rune and Injury 16/18

Through this, crushing weapons are being effective against armour and good at causing Endurance loss but not as effective in causing dangerous wounds.

I like your "Dazed" suggestion.

Or, maybe a more powerful version of "Dazed", making the opponent Severely hindered (-4) on a Called shot. Damage then stays on the usual level 5/9 and Edge is G-rune and Injury 16/18. I.e. stats worse than an comparable axe but with a more useful Called shot.

Glorelendil
Posts: 4835
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:20 pm

Re: Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

Post by Glorelendil » Fri Mar 04, 2016 3:14 pm

Dunkelbrink wrote:If you want to add Warhammer, and maybe Maul as well, I think the stats should probably be more unique than just using the Axe stats. Either raise Damage to 6 (Warhammer)/10 (Maul) and Edge G-rune and Injury 16/18

Through this, crushing weapons are being effective against armour and good at causing Endurance loss but not as effective in causing dangerous wounds.
I thought about exactly that, but you have to raise damage by two to balance either Injury 2 or Edge 1, which means 7 damage for the Warhammer and 11 for the Maul...which feels like it's getting excessive.

Maybe the answer is it give it 1 more damage and 1 more encumbrance? That would give:

Warhammer
Damage: 6
Edge: G
Injury: 18
Encumbrance: 3
Called Shot: Custom
Balance: 0

Maul
Damage: 10
Edge: G
Injury: 20
Encumbrance: 5
Called Shot: Custom
Two-handed Close Combat
Balance: 0
I like your "Dazed" suggestion.

Or, maybe a more powerful version of "Dazed", making the opponent Severely hindered (-4) on a Called shot. Damage then stays on the usual level 5/9 and Edge is G-rune and Injury 16/18. I.e. stats worse than an comparable axe but with a more useful Called shot.
Interesting...

EDIT: I just noticed that an Edge of G was showing up in the forum markup as "11"; fixed it.
The Munchkin Formerly Known as Elfcrusher
Journey Computer | Combat Simulator | Bestiary | Weapon Calculator

User avatar
zedturtle
Posts: 3202
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:03 am

Re: Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

Post by zedturtle » Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:49 pm

Okay, I told myself that I wasn't going to touch this thread with a ten-foot pole*, but I decided to run Brethilhiril, the Staff of the Eldar through it and see what came out:

Staff of the Eldar
Damage: 4
Edge: G
Injury: 14
Encumbrance: 1
Parry: 1
Called Shot: Disarm
Two-handed Close Combat
Balance: 6

So, at first glance, it's way underpowered. But this is a staff that gives a Feat die reroll to (at this point) Inspire, Search, Stealth and Riddle. It also can make an adversary automatically Weary and allows the wield to count as two heroes for the purpose of figuring out the number of people who can take a Rearward stance. {It's essentially a refluffed and modified Hound of Mirkwood in dead tree form.}

So that +6 is probably okay.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————
* Cause I didn't want to stat it up either.
Jacob Rodgers, occasional nitwit.

This space intentionally blank.

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 » Sun Mar 06, 2016 7:32 pm

Glorelendil wrote:I thought about exactly that, but you have to raise damage by two to balance either Injury 2 or Edge 1, which means 7 damage for the Warhammer and 11 for the Maul...which feels like it's getting excessive.
I'm not sure this follows logically, actually. At the moment, no one-handed weapon does more than 5 damage and no two handed weapon more than 9.

Violating that unwritten rule might well cost more, and has reason to do so, given the sheer commonness of Endurance 12 on enemies (a Grievous Maul would be the only non-magical weapon that could take them out in one hit all the time, and a non-grievous warhammer the only one-handed baseline weapon that could do it in two all the time).

Or that's how I'd be inclined to rule, anyway, and make weapons accordingly.

Otaku-sempai
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 2:45 am
Location: Lackawanna, NY

Re: Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

Post by Otaku-sempai » Sun Mar 06, 2016 8:01 pm

Yeah, D-man, there are fundamental design differences between the maul and the warhammer, so I don't think that would equate a maul with a "great warhammer". My wife is telling me that the distinction might not be as great as I'm making it, but a maul is nothing more and nothing less than a weaponized sledgehammer. I don't think that a warhammer should do 7 damage, but the maul, with its heavy, broad head and longer haft, might do 8 or 9. Damage 9; Edge 10; Injury 18?

Maul
Damage: 8
Edge: 10
Injury: 18
Encumbrance: 4
Called Shot: Knockdown
Two-handed Close Combat
Balance: 1

I'm not sure that a warhammer should vary too much from a similarly sized mace except that the shaped head might give it a Piercing called shot and perhaps an improved Edge, maybe ever better Injury.

Warhammer
Damage: 4
Edge: 10
Injury: 16
Encumbrance: 2
Called Shot: Pierce
Balance: 1

Mace
Damage: 4
Edge: 10
Injury: 14
Encumbrance: 2
Called Shot: Break Shield
Balance: 3

Maces tend to be heavy, so the Encumbrance might be increased to 3 increasing the Balance to 4. If we treat the mace fairly realistically then it does seem a bit underpowered. I admit, I am more interested in seeing what a build extrapolated from the Weapons Table in the Adventurer's Guide looks like using this calculator than in seeing how much it has to be fluffed to achieve a net balance of 0.

The Adventure's Guide does feature a shocking lack of blunt-force weapons.
Last edited by Otaku-sempai on Sun Mar 06, 2016 11:34 pm, edited 9 times 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."

Otaku-sempai
Posts: 2838
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 2:45 am
Location: Lackawanna, NY

Re: Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

Post by Otaku-sempai » Sun Mar 06, 2016 8:59 pm

I see a flaw in the methodology. There should be a factor covering weapons that are usable by Dwarves but not by Hobbits (worth 1 point less?). What might fit into this category besides sword, great axe and mattock? Warhammer, mace, quarterstaff(?), heavy club, maul...
"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."

User avatar
Robin Smallburrow
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon May 13, 2013 10:35 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

Post by Robin Smallburrow » Mon Mar 07, 2016 1:25 am

Hate to make this even more complicated, but one of the Houserules that I use is Weapon Reach (from my Fan Supplements):

Reach

The target of a close combat attack who is aware of the attack and able to defend themselves is harder to hit if the weapon they are using has a significantly greater reach than that of their opponent. Subtract the Relative Reach of the attacker's weapon from the Relative Reach of the target's weapon and add it to the TN of the attack.
Relative Reach : Weapon
0 : Unarmed
2 : Dagger
4 : Short Sword, Axe
6 : Sword, Great Axe, Mattock
8 : Long Sword, Spear
10 : Great Spear

Reach is the real reason why polearms, spears etc. are more popular. Any chance you can factor this into your weapon calculator, or is this just making it too complicated?

Robin S.
To access all my links for my TOR Resources - please click on this link >> http://bit.ly/1gjXkCo

Glorelendil
Posts: 4835
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:20 pm

Re: Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

Post by Glorelendil » Mon Mar 07, 2016 2:35 am

Otaku-sempai wrote:I see a flaw in the methodology. There should be a factor covering weapons that are usable by Dwarves but not by Hobbits (worth 1 point less?). What might fit into this category besides sword, great axe and mattock? Warhammer, mace, quarterstaff(?), heavy club, maul...
I looked into it when coming up with the model, but it doesn't seem to be in the official numbers. That is, Francesco didn't differentiate give Dwarf-usable weapons a different point allocation. I.e., a Great Spear and a Great Axe are essential equal, but one is usable by Dwarves and other isn't.
The Munchkin Formerly Known as Elfcrusher
Journey Computer | Combat Simulator | Bestiary | Weapon Calculator

Glorelendil
Posts: 4835
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:20 pm

Re: Toward a Theory of Weapon Stats

Post by Glorelendil » Mon Mar 07, 2016 2:37 am

Robin Smallburrow wrote:Hate to make this even more complicated, but one of the Houserules that I use is Weapon Reach (from my Fan Supplements):

Reach

The target of a close combat attack who is aware of the attack and able to defend themselves is harder to hit if the weapon they are using has a significantly greater reach than that of their opponent. Subtract the Relative Reach of the attacker's weapon from the Relative Reach of the target's weapon and add it to the TN of the attack.
Relative Reach : Weapon
0 : Unarmed
2 : Dagger
4 : Short Sword, Axe
6 : Sword, Great Axe, Mattock
8 : Long Sword, Spear
10 : Great Spear

Reach is the real reason why polearms, spears etc. are more popular. Any chance you can factor this into your weapon calculator, or is this just making it too complicated?

Robin S.
I'm not sure how I would bake it into the model because it would affect the point allocations of existing weapons.
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