Post by cupboardgnome on Feb 14, 2022 4:54:00 GMT -5
Hi. When fighting skeletons a common rule is edged weapons do only half damage. But, do people take that as half the total damage or half the rolled damage? Given that your Combat Adds apply equally to a sword, a mace or a spoon, there is an argument by some players to say only the roll is halved. For me it is the total that is halved because, flipping it around, felling a tree with an axe is a lot faster than using a mace, regardless of your strength, etc.
It could go either way, depending on circumstances. I don't generally halve damage for edged weapons anyway, so it's normally a moot point for me.
Here are further things to consider:
Should the halving occur before or after comparing the combatants' totals? If before, and the skeleton wins, you're essentially saying that edged weapons are at half effectiveness for defending against them as well. (Which is a valid interpretation, of course.)
How do you play it if the character is using 2 weapons, 1 blunt and 1 edged? Are personal adds split evenly between the 2 weapons, or assigned at the discretion of the character, or something else?
A related sort of question could arise for creatures that require magic weapons to hit them - if they are hit by something non-magical, do the striker's personal adds still affect the strikee? I'd probably go with 'No' on this one in most circumstances, since the entire attack is effectively negated.
In general, I'd probably run the combats normally to determine whose attack total is greater, ignoring the halving or negating of damage for the moment. Once I'd determined which side is potentially taking damage, then I'd factor in any reductions due to the special characteristics involved. The fact that you can't damage a monster without a magic weapon does not mean that you can't prevent it hitting you.
Post by bigjackbrass on Feb 14, 2022 9:14:03 GMT -5
It doesn't seem a very logical idea to me, certainly in the context of the game's lengthy combat rounds and abstracted fighting. Reducing damage from impaling weapons makes sense, perhaps, but I don't see how hitting a bone with a sword (an iron bar with a very narrow edge) would be less effective than hitting a bone with an iron bar, not to mention how quickly a cutting weapon becomes blunt in melee.
Still, if you like the idea then I suggest applying the rule in the way that you can most easily remember. The difference in the numbers might not be worth worrying about since it's all so abstract anyway.
I'd go with a doubling of Damage rather than the Combat Totals, personally. A superior combatant could conceivably hold one or more Skeletons at bay while still not hitting any vital spots with his slicing/cutting attacks-likewise a blunt weapon against a Jelly or Amoeba, arrows verses Zombies, etc.
Sig Under Construction...please reduce surfing speed.