Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!amd!pesnta!pertec!scgvaxd!trwrb!cepu!ucla-cs!mccolm From: mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.games.frp Subject: Re: Blunt Weapons Message-ID: <5445@ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Wed, 15-May-85 22:32:20 EDT Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.5445 Posted: Wed May 15 22:32:20 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 20-May-85 04:19:27 EDT References: <5128@ukc.UUCP> <5441@ucla-cs.ARPA> Reply-To: mccolm@ucla-cs.UUCP (Eric McColm) Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 58 Summary: Blunt weapons are for Trolls Stand back. This is going to be messy. > >But what advantage(s) do blunt weapons have over axes of equivalent size? > >The edge of an edged weapon has to hit in order to do much damage, while >most blunt weapons (ie., mace) are symmetrical and hence can be wielded >somewhat more sloppily without loss of effectiveness. This probably means >that blunt weapons can be learned to greater proficiency more quickly than >edged weapons (but in general won't do as much damage?). Do we have anyone >out there in the SCA who would like to comment? > Scott R. Turner > ARPA: (now) srt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA (soon) srt@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU > UUCP: ...!{cepu,ihnp4,trwspp,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!srt > SPUDNET: ...eye%srt@russet.spud True, on an edged weapon, the edge hitting the opponent is all-important. This is based on the physical intrusion of the blade to do damage. Blunt weapons, on the other hand, impart kinetic energy to the target, which causes internal injuries, hemmoraging (sp?), and broken bones. The blunt weapon will generally take out the limb it hits, if it strikes with force, while the edged weapon will generally just impair one or two arcs of motion. Rule for the SCA: Pelvic shots with swords cripple; pelvic shots with maces kill. Blunt weapons are easier to make, are more durable in combat, easier to use, generally cheaper, available at lower technology, and due to the transfer of kinetic energy, are usually more effective against metal armor than swords. (Example: morning stars break armor; maces buckle it; swords just leave dings.) BUT swords do more damage faster to unarmored foes (longer cutting edge), hurt more, tend to cause much blood loss, take opponents out of combat faster, and if a sword strikes a non-vital spot, it will likely do more damage than a mace. In general: swords usually injure, while maces sometimes severely injure. Swords are harder to use, but they are favored by *fast* warriors, as opposed to *strong* warriors. Blunt weapons rely on their mass, and this makes them *SLOW*. And they typically have a shorter reach to avoid pulling the wielder off his/her feet due to long lever arms. In all, I'd take a sword any day. Axes are a compromise; they have a short cutting edge backed by a large head (mass). They're usually used to cut through armor, and they're pretty good at it. But they're still slower than swords. It is illustrative to look at Champions to explain these weapons. My inter- pretation is that edged weapons do less damage points, but have large stun multipliers (like whips), while maces do more damage, but little stun. You must include bleeding rules to this, to reflect the effects of edged weapons, but slow down the bleeding rate in the case of blunt weapons. As for axes, assign them some middle ground. It is very easy to get an axe wound to stop bleeding, in game terms. (Reality is another story.) --fini-- Eric McColm UCLA (oo' - kluh) Funny Farm for the Criminally Harmless UUCP: ...!{trwspp,cepu,ucbvax,sdcrdcf,ihnp4}!ucla-cs!mccolm ARPA: (still) mccolm@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA (someday) mccolm@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU Q1: "The world is round. The rest is up to us." Q2: "Reason is Peace; Fanaticism is Slavery; Tolerance is Strength."