Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Upper_Krust" data-source="post: 237011" data-attributes="member: 326">Hi SableWyvern! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I agree. But as a logical basis for extrapolating 'core' damage its technically flawless.Well, before I address the above. I was considering the following (this incorporates Armour as Damage Reduction incidently).Crushing Weapon/Slam (Armour normal)Slashing Weapon/Claw (Armour 1/2)Piercing Weapon/Bite (Armour 1/4)Damage Reduction for armour could be double current AC bonuses?Balancing weapons could be as simple as making Crushing weapons do more damage (after all they will affect a greater surface area).eg. Mace 1d12; Longsword 1d8; Spear 1d4.Or maintain current damages and rework weapon Critical Hits.eg. Mace x4; Longsword x3; Spear x2.Obviously variant armour types will be available, with variant mechanics.Weapons themselves could be subdivided into particular categories. Notably missile weapons.ie. Bodkin (even greater armour piercing, less damage)Broadleaf (typical armour piercing)Blunt (less armour piercing, more damage)This could parallel your above comments "Does it tumble, fragment, or punch straight through?"ie.Punch as per BodkinRifling as per Blunt Other than the basic E=mc2 principle; you would only need a few rules (as I mentioned above) to govern impact/armour and injury/damage.I don't see whay not!?I am not advocating a system that details every feasible aspect of combat; simply one that has its roots in reality.I doubt it would be too hard to create a capable system governing the above. I know our DM has used rules for Beaten Zones in the past, and I am sure another friend has rules for Grazing Fire (since he devised a WWII based RPG). I'll see if I can dig out any answers.</blockquote>

Verification