Bashing axes and other damage type nonsence.

[Mikolaj]

I know this is not the fault of Blackguards but nonsense from the Dark Eye (why all popular RPG systems seem to be designed by people who never left their rooms?) but still damage types could really do with a re-do, or at least some small corrections. Two examples off the top of my head:

1. Axes have bashing damage. Not only this makes them identical to clubs/maces but also is totally illogical (the nice person who came up with it should be given a club and asked to cut down a tree, maybe that would make him see the difference).

2. Weapons seem to have only one damage type, so a magic weapon does only magic damage (the metal in it I guess disappears), instead of a combination of both, and swords can only cut, it is not possible to thrust with them. (the pointy end is just your imagination)

All of this becomes and issue when enemies have immunities, instead of them being logical it becomes a random restriction (again my favourite not being able to cut with an axe)

[MeepdragonVII]

Just to clarify: This actually IS the fault of Blackguards, not "nonsense from the Dark Eye".

In the P&P version you don't really have the distinction of different dmg types; it's only important if you fight certain enemies (skeletons suffer minimal piercing dmg; incorporeal beings are only affetced by magical weapons, spells) which happens rarely enough.
And those cases actually tend to be logical...
Also, armor has a fixed dmg reduction (like 4 AP for long chainmail) and doesn't reduce certain dmg types by x%; would be an awefully impractical system for a P&P anyway.

Your point is still valid, but don't blame TDE developers for it.

[Mikolaj]

Originally posted by PendragonVII:

Just to clarify: This actually IS the fault of Blackguards, not "nonsense from the Dark Eye".

In the P&P version you don't really have the distinction of different dmg types; it's only important if you fight certain enemies (skeletons suffer minimal piercing dmg; incorporeal beings are only affetced by magical weapons, spells) which happens rarely enough.
And those cases actually tend to be logical...
Also, armor has a fixed dmg reduction (like 4 AP for long chainmail) and doesn't reduce certain dmg types by x%; would be an awefully impractical system for a P&P anyway.

Your point is still valid, but don't blame TDE developers for it.

In that case I'm sorry, my experience in TDE is only through computer games based on it, hence my assumption.

But if that's the case, all the more reason for the devs to have a look at it.

[Nergui]

Most weapon damage can be categoirised as piercing, slashing, chopping and/or blunt. Axes wopuld be chopping, however this damage type doesn't exist in Blackguards (no idea about TDE). Even your standard flanged mace which most RPGs classify as a blunt weapon is actually chopping. It's basically 6-8 axe blades mounted radially on the haft. Also, axes aren't as 'clean' as a sword as their damage is around 50/50 blunt trauma and open wound.

TLDR - "Bashing" is an adequate substitute for the lack of "Chopping".

[Mikolaj]

Originally posted by Nergui:

Most weapon damage can be categoirised as piercing, slashing, chopping and/or blunt. Axes wopuld be chopping, however this damage type doesn't exist in Blackguards (no idea about TDE). Even your standard flanged mace which most RPGs classify as a blunt weapon is actually chopping. It's basically 6-8 axe blades mounted radially on the haft. Also, axes aren't as 'clean' as a sword as their damage is around 50/50 blunt trauma and open wound.

TLDR - "Bashing" is an adequate substitute for the lack of "Chopping".

I'm sorry there is no such thing a chopping damage, sure you may use the term to try to show the different between the damage caused by a sword and an axe, but this game is not detailed enough to show such small differences. The type of wounds caused by axes are much closer to those caused by swords than those caused by hammers, clubs or maces. To show the differences between axes and swords in game terms parry, initiative and damage should be used (sword having much higher parry, more initiative and axes much higher damage), also axes should be cheaper and have lower AP cost as a skill, in RL lower cost and it being easier to learn where the major factors when choosing axes over swords.

[illustrious.jfunk]

Originally posted by Mikolaj:

To show the differences between axes and swords in game terms parry, initiative and damage should be used (sword having much higher parry, more initiative and axes much higher damage), also axes should be cheaper and have lower AP cost as a skill, in RL lower cost and it being easier to learn where the major factors when choosing axes over swords.

No way are axes easier to fight in hand-to-hand combat with than a sword. Sure, it's easier to chop wood than it is to sword fight, but I'd say it's a heck of a lot harder to axe fight than it is sword fight. Axes an way more unwieldly.

And I'd also argue that an axe is no closer to slashing damage than it is to bashing. It's somewhat a combination, but the majority of the "damage" done by an axe is certainly from impact rather than slicing. It's a "wedge". It's basically a "sharp mace" rather than a "husky blade".

Regardless, the reason that axes are grouped with blunt weapons frequently has more to do with the way they must be wielded rather than the type of wound they cause. Parrying and attacking another armed person with an axe is very similar to a mace, and nothing like using a sword.

Yes, this doesn't make sense in the context of damage resistances in this game, but does make sense in terms of which skills you character must learn to use them efficiently.

[Penitent Pilgrim]

Yes, war axes are impact weapons, except for some early axes like the Danish axe which had a thin blade. In addition, you generally don't parry with an axe either, that is what your shield is for. The weight of an axe is distributed like the weight of a mace, most of it at the end of a shaft, making it clumsy and much less agile than a sword. That said, in reality maces and axes penetrate armour much more easily than a sword.

For purposes of a game, putting axes in the bashing category makes perfect sense.

[Kyutaru]

Yep, bashing is purely a game mechanic usage word. Swords do slashing which is generic damage with no weaknesses or advantage. Bashing weapons represent armor penetrating types including axes and maces. Piercing weapons are weak against armor such as arrows, fencing, and daggers. They only went with three standard designations because you don't NEED any other types. Everything falls into one of those categories, it's either bad against armor, good against armor, or average against everything. Infantry, magic, and fire damage are special types with their own resistances and game effects, such as fire damage causing explosions while magic damage can be negated by resistance and spells. Infantry just acts like generic magic weapon damage that ignores most resistances.

[Mikolaj]

Originally posted by illustrious.jfunk:

Originally posted by Mikolaj:

To show the differences between axes and swords in game terms parry, initiative and damage should be used (sword having much higher parry, more initiative and axes much higher damage), also axes should be cheaper and have lower AP cost as a skill, in RL lower cost and it being easier to learn where the major factors when choosing axes over swords.

No way are axes easier to fight in hand-to-hand combat with than a sword. Sure, it's easier to chop wood than it is to sword fight, but I'd say it's a heck of a lot harder to axe fight than it is sword fight. Axes an way more unwieldly.

And I'd also argue that an axe is no closer to slashing damage than it is to bashing. It's somewhat a combination, but the majority of the "damage" done by an axe is certainly from impact rather than slicing. It's a "wedge". It's basically a "sharp mace" rather than a "husky blade".

Regardless, the reason that axes are grouped with blunt weapons frequently has more to do with the way they must be wielded rather than the type of wound they cause. Parrying and attacking another armed person with an axe is very similar to a mace, and nothing like using a sword.

Yes, this doesn't make sense in the context of damage resistances in this game, but does make sense in terms of which skills you character must learn to use them efficiently.

Yes, axes are easier, because contrary to what the game does they should not be used for parrying, the whole difficulty of wielding a sword is learning how to parry. Also, while my experience with using axes is limited I do believe you have far less swing combinations than with a sword. Also axes are very different from one another, and there is no reason for them not to be sharp, while their weight does influence heavily, true, they can cut things.

And I did not mean all of this as a discussion of weapon modelling in the game, e.g. I have no problem with axes and maces using the same talent, that's fine. I have a problem with enemies who are resistant to crashing damage (this how it should be called btw) being resistant to axes too. If they can be damaged by a blade (e.g. sword), they should get some damage from axes (even if not 100%). The same with swords, if something is immune to slashing damage, well you should be able to thrust with a sword. Again common talent for swords and sabers is fine, not being able to thrust with a sword is not.

Also, I do not know what's the popular opinion about it, but magical weapons doing 100% magical damage means they are less useful than nonmagical ones, more enemies are immune to magical damage than ordinary one, the game assumes the metal part of the weapon doesn't exist.

The game implements percentage for armour and at the same time it has absolute damage immunities, which basically are immunities to talents and not weapons. Bashing immunity doesn't mean immunity to bashing damage as it should, it means immunity for anything that use axes/maces talents. This - detailed percentage in one respect and 0/1 system in the other I what I find annoying and breaking immersion.

[illustrious.jfunk]

Originally posted by Mikolaj:

The game implements percentage for armour and at the same time it has absolute damage immunities, which basically are immunities to talents and not weapons. Bashing immunity doesn't mean immunity to bashing damage as it should, it means immunity for anything that use axes/maces talents. This - detailed percentage in one respect and 0/1 system in the other I what I find annoying and breaking immersion.

This is 100% inaccurate. An enemy immune to Slashing damage is not immune to Rondracomb, a sword that does Magic damage. An enemy immune to Bashing damage is not immune to the Neethan Axe, a bashing weapon that does Infantry damage. An enemy immune to Piercing damage is not immune to Bloodletter, a spear that does Infantry damage. The immunities are to the specific damage done, not the talent/weapon type.

Regardless, you're looking for realism, and you're not going to get it, either here or any other game's combat rule system. The damage types and immunities are merely mechanics/tools to create situational challenges. There's no point in using realism to argue against them. They'd merely have to balance things differently (and more complexly) to get the same result if they changed around all the damage types and immunities.