Grand Goremaul damage 2nd ed

[Persell]

I was wondering if the damage rating of the grand goremaul was an error. It is listed as 16L, but the ordinary goremaul has 16B. That is a strange difference. Does anyone have a good explanation for this?


I think I will just change it to 18B instead. That seems more in line with the hammer concept.

 

[Hjallnagel]

Well...stumbled over this, too. But after thinking about it, it's OK. The grand goremaul is so astonishingly huge that it just doesn't fit IMO to let it deal out bashing. But I think that maybe the goremaul should deal out lethal damage, too, but that's just me. These things don't bruise. They shatter...

 

[Persell]

They should, at least, deal out the same kind of damage. They are not that  different.

 

[Silence In Daylight]

A goremaul deals bashing, while an artifact goremaul deals lethal. Is that a problem as well?

 

[Hjallnagel]

Ehm... there are ONLY artefact goremauls. The small ones deal bashing damage and the big ones lethal, but they're both artefacts.

 

[Silence In Daylight]

Oh, right. I meant hammer/club and goremaul.


 [raises eyebrow] That's an interesting stat adjustment for 2nd Ed. What kind of damage does a non-artifact Grand Goremaul (Sledge) do?

 

[Persell]

Well the reasoning behind this is that the goremaul is a blunt weapon, therefore bashing its enemy to death in his armour while the grand goremaul is so huge that it does lethal damage right away. I am actually fine with this.

 

[Solfi]

[raises eyebrow] That's an interesting stat adjustment for 2nd Ed. What kind of damage does a non-artifact Grand Goremaul (Sledge) do?

... probably not much, as without the attunement, even Exalts would be having trouble swinging one of those about ...

 

[Persell]

Oh, right. I meant hammer/club and goremaul.
 [raises eyebrow] That's an interesting stat adjustment for 2nd Ed. What kind of damage does a non-artifact Grand Goremaul (Sledge) do?

Hammers, maces and sledges do bashing damage.

 

[Jeppe]

Well the reasoning behind this is that the goremaul is a blunt weapon, therefore bashing its enemy to death in his armour while the grand goremaul is so huge that it does lethal damage right away. I am actually fine with this.

I always thought of the difference between lethal and bashing damage as the difference between having your skin pierced or not. When a blade of some kind severs the tissue and whatnot, the damage is lethal. When an impact weapon knocks the bejesus out of you, it's bashing, because nothing is shed, merely turned to pulp.


Thus, I reason that the grand goremaul should deal bashing damage. I'd maybe rate it to 20B/5B.


Jeppe

 

[Persell]

I always thought of the difference between lethal and bashing damage as the difference between having your skin pierced or not.

And broken bones, organ trauma, stuff like that. Remember, the main mechanical difference between B and L is how long they take to heal. A broken arm does not heal more quickly than a deep gash, thus both are lethal.


I've never been ahppy with the way they handled the distinction in practice. The subject of this thread is just another example of the botch.

 

[Persell]

Well the reasoning behind this is that the goremaul is a blunt weapon, therefore bashing its enemy to death in his armour while the grand goremaul is so huge that it does lethal damage right away. I am actually fine with this.

I always thought of the difference between lethal and bashing damage as the difference between having your skin pierced or not. When a blade of some kind severs the tissue and whatnot, the damage is lethal. When an impact weapon knocks the bejesus out of you, it's bashing, because nothing is shed, merely turned to pulp.


Thus, I reason that the grand goremaul should deal bashing damage. I'd maybe rate it to 20B/5B.


Jeppe

Well obviously the developers define it differently than you.

 

[Quorlox]

I've never been ahppy with the way they handled the distinction in practice. The subject of this thread is just another example of the botch.

I agree.  The idea that getting hit by a sledge hammer is less dangerous than a sword doesn't make sense IMO.  Sledge hammers don't knock people unconscious like a billy club; they break bones, crush internal organs, etc., which you don't quickly recover from.

 

[Persell]

I've never been ahppy with the way they handled the distinction in practice. The subject of this thread is just another example of the botch.

I agree.  The idea that getting hit by a sledge hammer is less dangerous than a sword doesn't make sense IMO.  Sledge hammers don't knock people unconscious like a billy club; they break bones, crush internal organs, etc., which you don't quickly recover from.

Well sure, but their damage output is pretty high now for mundane weapons, so you prolly still kill people with damage overflow.

 

[Persell]

I find the distinction a little strange too. But there shouldn't be that much of a difference between the ordinary artifact goremaul and the grand version. It works fine for me making the damage bashing as long as they deal out enough damage to reflect them crushing bones.

 

[Persell]

I'd say 16B compared to the 6L of a daiklaive qualifies as enough damage to symbolise the shattering of bones.

 

[The Scorp]

I think Safim has got it right.  I believe the developers gave it a high bashing damage output so that it will give damage overflow.  The impact would be that horrible that the overflow signifies the breaking of bones and squooshing of organs that it becomes Lethal REAL quick.   I think it equals out.  A 6 lethal blade effects a 7HL char, vs a 12B mace effecting an effective 14HL char (same 7HL char, but its counted twice due to overflow).


This is also assuming that I have the overflow rules correct.  I didnt get a chance to really read into it.

 

[Persell]

These are good points, and the number-crunching has convinced me. I suppose it makes sense that someone with a high enough soak will take bashing damage from these weapons, while those with a low soak will get pulped.


I still prefer the way our gaming group handled it in 1st Ed: we said that any Lethal attack that didn't beat soak had its damage applied as Bashing levels. Thus, getting hit with a sword that doesn't penetrate your soak is roughly similar to getting hit with a blunt weapon.


We never had to deal with the question of what sort of damage Grand Goremauls did, because we were all blade junkies. If I were making up rules for use in 2nd Ed I'd probably either leave it as-is or use our houserule and have GGs deal lethal.


The idea was to get a combination of lethal and bashing applied regularly, so that bashing-regen powers weren't redundant against most foes, and super-powerful against others.

 

[Jeppe]

And broken bones, organ trauma, stuff like that. Remember, the main mechanical difference between B and L is how long they take to heal. A broken arm does not heal more quickly than a deep gash, thus both are lethal.

When you're hit hard enough to break your arm, it definately qualifies as lethal. But if the mace doesn't do damage enough to start converting it to lethal, then it makes fine sense that a mace should deal bashing, even though it is fully capable of crushing bones.


One thing that worries me, though, is wound penalties. It seems odd that with goremauls and grand goremauls, you easily max out your opponents wound penalties. With 16B as base damage, he quickly reaches -4 or inc. I find this somewhat unbalancing.


Jeppe

 

[Jeppe]

Well obviously the developers define it differently than you.

Page reference, please.


Jeppe

 

[Persell]

One thing that worries me, though, is wound penalties. It seems odd that with goremauls and grand goremauls, you easily max out your opponents wound penalties. With 16B as base damage, he quickly reaches -4 or inc. I find this somewhat unbalancing.

Well it's gotta hurt being beat to a pulp with a big fucking hammer I guess it's ok. Unbalanced maybe, but credible non the less.

 

[Persell]

I still prefer the way our gaming group handled it in 1st Ed: we said that any Lethal attack that didn't beat soak had its damage applied as Bashing levels. Thus, getting hit with a sword that doesn't penetrate your soak is roughly similar to getting hit with a blunt weapon.
...


The idea was to get a combination of lethal and bashing applied regularly, so that bashing-regen powers weren't redundant against most foes, and super-powerful against others.

That is a great way to handle it, I think. Makes combat way more lethal, though. But then again, people are going to think twice before engaging in combat and the fights will flow quicker. I do think there should still be ways of avoiding damage altogether, though. Maybe subtract hardness from the damage pool or something.

 

[Persell]

Well obviously the developers define it differently than you.

Page reference, please.


Jeppe

Look at the damage code.

 

[Jeppe]

Look at the damage code.

That's a bit vague...


Jeppe

 

[Jeppe]

Well it's gotta hurt being beat to a pulp with a big fucking hammer

No doubt.

I guess it's ok. Unbalanced maybe, but credible non the less.

Though i do not think that is credible, that a hit that breaks your arm (i.e. translates into lethal damage) without exception is a hit, that makes you pass out, as is the case in the mechanics, as the inc. HL would be ticked off with bashing damage.


Jeppe