Re: weapon list to peruse

[Joel Gunderson <belgarat@expert.cc.purdue.edu>]

Absorbant.

Joel, Grammar Lord and Muffin Man

On Tue, 8 Sep 1998, Greg Mowczko wrote:

> > From: Wright Frazier <khelek>
> >
> > > Ummm. With Lyle here. There is no concensus with what a DP is. The best I
> > > can get is as you fight more you learn to take the hit more. So while the
> > > hits keep coming you can ignore them more. I don't like the "tired out"
> > > part of your reasoning. A hit needs to mean a hit that impairs you. Get
> > > punched in the face a couple of times and you fall down and maybe get
> > > back up. If you don't get back up you have less DP. Most of DP damage I
> > > would guess is bruising damage. The weapon hits you/your armor and you
> > > feel it but aren't down for the count. In real life you get shot while
> > > wearing a bullet proof vest you go down and then get up with a bruise. The
> > > difference is our armor can take all the repeated hits without detriment.
> >
> > I completely disagree with your examples.  If you get hit with a sword
> > while wearing no armor in your example you get bruised?  Wrong, you
> > get cut, and cut bad.  You can't 'soak' a broad sword hit that cuts
> > you in the chest, and probably very badly.
> 
> Obviously they didn't hit you where you are unarmored and did I say that
> the hit was an edge hit? nope. Since in AQ we can't differentiate between
> a sidelong whack and a cleave those not as bad hits are whacks.
> 
> > You can't 'absorb' a hit swith a battle axe by what you define a
> > hit as.  You're hit is a full on wack, no dodging or defense at all, you
> > flat out get hit buy the guy as hard as he can.  That has absolutely
> > no bearing on reality.
> 
> No it isn't a full on hit. My thing still allows for those glancing blows
> that you use and your defence is in there as well.
> 
> > Also, armor does not absorb damage in AQ.  Further your example breaks down
> > for the guy in a t-shirt who gets hit.  He has nothing to absorb the
> > blows he's taking.  How does your example of getting a solid hit in
> > explain how a guy in no armour that just got wacked with a broadsword
> > survive?  I wack you with one under these conditions, you  are gonna
> > be dead or disabled.
> 
> See you keep thinking that when I say you are hit it is a solid hit. Where
> do crits fall into your scheme of things? As for the armor not absorbing
> no duh, armor in AQ is not absorbative ( did I make a word up :) ) and
> along time ago we tried to devise a way to do that but it wouldn't 
> work with everything else so it got absorbed into DP.
> 
> > In your gun example.  You get shot, you are gonna be down sucking
> > on air _IF_ your vest protects you(i.e. it didn't hit a limb or
> > your head).  However if you are not wearing a vest, and you get
> > shot in the chest, you are probably gonna be dead.  Marine Corps rated
> > the 12gauge shotgun-with buckshot ammuntion, as having a 86% casualty
> > rating.  You example breaks down here.  If by the example you
> > give, you get a full on shot with a shotgun, you should die or become
> > incapacitated 86% of the time, or in AQ terms be reduced to 1 dp or so.
> > Hmmm..thats a bit convoluted, but regardless.  By your example of how
> > a hit works, people should not survive being shot or hit by anything
> > intent on killing them and capable of massive bodily harm.
> 
> Obviously my hit with a gunshot was not a shotgun I was using the example
> of being hit WHERE your vest is not where it isn't. 86% casualty comes
> from the 8 or so pellets hitting you for multiple trauma points and a
> higher statistical possibility of hitting a vital. My example does not
> break down here my example is not a shotgun.
> 
> > By my idea, you can explain why a shotgun does not put you down 86%
> > of the time, and how some people can take getting shot 6 times and
> > surviving.  By my system you get shot at, and you might get grazed(high
> > damage), or you just duck and tucker yourself out a bit(low damage).
> > By my system, you catch the blow on your shield and it stings a bit(low
> > damage) or you catch it on the side of your breast plate and get a
> > bit of bruising(high damage).  This works for armored and unarmored
> > combat.  In unarmored combat you spend much more time and energy
> > dodging your foes and parrying.  This will tire you out eventually.
> > In armored combat you take the blow on a shoulder plate getting a
> > bruise, but proceed onwards and hack at the guy who might parry it
> > back.  My system also takes the concept of built in defense in to account.
> > Yours does not.  By yourse you just stand there and take the shot.
> 
> > Wright
> 
> I never say your just standing there. Your example for DP fails to account
> for why a miss ( which is probably due to your avoidance ) doesn't
> tucker you out as well. By your example you should lose a DP or two for
> just being in a melee. My reasoning always implies a hit does some type
> of impact to you. I don't say it is the best impact but there is one.
> My case does not give adaquate reasoning for unarmored combat but yours
> misses a few points as well. My thought train worked on the fact avoidence
> and not getting hit shouldn't damage you at all and as you get better
> at the whole being hit thing you can take more and more abuse ( which
> works well for lower impact and slight cuts than it does for high impact ).
> 
> The problems with a game vs. reality there is no place for DP. 2 people
> standing side by side get "hit" with a sword cross the midsection they
> both go down to pick their entrails back up no matter how long they've
> been at it. But DP is there to make you feel happy that as you can dish
> out more you can take more.
> 						Greg
> 
>