Daggers vs "darts" when hurled.

Should darts be at up 2x (+10 to AvD) more effective then a thrown dagger?

I see that when daggers are wielded, they have low RT and low AvD, and when hurled they don't act as darts.

When a dart is wielded as an edged weapon it's going to follow the AvD of a dagger (if i'm reading correctly), but when a dagger is hurled it remains the AvD of a dagger.

Could it be fixed so that a hurled dagger would follow the AvD of a dart? or better? (just one man's opinion but I feel a hefty dagger is going to have a greater advantage then a teeny dart vs any kinds of armor....)

I believe the DF of the dagger is much better than the dart.

Dart:

.125 .100 .075 .055 .050

Dagger:

.250 .200 .100 .125 .075

There is your advantage. Pretty substantial... in a tiny, dart v. dagger kind of way.

Kerl

I believe the idea is that a dart is center-balanced and has fletchings that stabilize it in flight, making it easier to hit the target.

A common dagger isn't typically center-balanced to be thrown with equal reliability. Now if there was a true "throwing knife" in Gemstone, that might raise a question in my mind. A true throwing knife is designed to have center-balance and allow the blade to travel through the air as intended.

The fact that anyone can throw a normal dagger/knife with accuracy, without significant training, definitely allows for some suspension of disbelief. But we also have magic here. So there you go.

GM Marstreforn

<<That being said, I'd love it if players would bring up their thoughts (Preferably with math to show their points) about weapons that they currently feel are way out of whack. -GS4-KONACON>>

Well...

1. Quarterstaves should be two things: faster and add a two-strike feature. No math for you, cause while I love me some Fibonacci Sequence, I am no mathamagicatician! And,

2. I want want want to be able to hurl smooth stones, table legs and chipped bricks. Do this first. And last but not least,

3. The vial bombs are a complete swing and a miss in their execution. From this player's viewpoint, it looks as though someone was afraid they'd be too powerful when they were implemented, and thereby made them wet noodles instead; problem avoided. They're bombs for crying out loud! It needs to go boom with at least a little bit of gusto! They don't. If you want to look at something that should be cool and isn't, that's this. Also, hurling a vial should require thrown weapons training to do effectively. You want to use those nifty powerful bombs? Learn to throw.

Kerl, not a mathamagicatician

They don't do much when you're fully trained in hurling either, and there's no evidence that hurling training makes a difference. If it does, it doesn't really matter in the end result. Also, it doesn't use hurling mechanics, so my suspicion is it matters very little if at all.

Kerl

Don't critters tend to have lower DS against thrown?

>Don't critters tend to have lower DS against thrown?

It depends on the type of creature, how it's DS is generated (spells, shield), etc, but for the most part yes. Is that enough to make up for it's short comings? No. Especially when you compare it against ranged weapon use.

If the thrown review ever comes, it needs to be decided whether or not it's meant to be a stand alone or complimentary hunting style. If it's meant to be relegated to complimentary, the costs need to come down to match that. If it's meant to be a stand alone style there are so many things that need to change.

Tep

Yes, I too like the spreadsheets.

Rolf

This thread activity makes me sad.

Then I remember why I finally quit thrown after years doing it.

-farmer

>So what's the point of making a comparison between thrown and melee that assumes the same DS?

The comparison in the table in Tep's post was between thrown and thrown. Thrown weapons when thrown v. melee weapons when thrown.

~Vanah

>All fiddling with the AvD and DF numbers would do is make those items even more valuable than they are already. It would do nothing for the viability of the technique with standard equipment.

I hurled with off the shelf equipment for years. "Fiddling" with the AvD and DF numbers would be of great value both TP wise and in general combat efficiency.

>So what's the point of making a comparison between thrown and melee that assumes the same DS? At cap there is potentially something like 250 in parry DS. What are the rolls needed to cause a rank 5 wound when the thrown weapon is being used against a DS thats 250 lower? That seems like a more reasonable comparison than rank 1 with the same DS, which is the way to compare ambush from hiding weapons with one another.

I intentionally picked rank 1 since nothing significant happens before that. Once you start factoring in critical randomization, etc, it gets a little more fuzzy. But hey, let's look at some real world examples that I generated just a few minutes ago. Our hurler in the equation is a level 68 warrior throwing a handaxe who is fully trained in all relevant skills (CM, perception, edged, hurling). I'll include both the melee DS and the hurled DS, since you were making a point.


You see a fairly typical lesser minotaur.
He appears to be in good shape.
He has some rough dark grey brigandine armor (worn) and a curved silvery white greataxe.

The lesser minotaur is medium in size, about seven feet high in his current state, appears to be of very hardy constitution, is in an offensive stance, and is in relatively good shape.
You might be able to take on the lesser minotaur, but with some risk to your health.

You swing a vultite crescent axe at a lesser minotaur!
AS: +433 vs DS: +263 with AvD: +32 + d100 roll: +45 = +247
... and hit for 48 points of damage!
Large gash to the left arm, several muscles torn.
The lesser minotaur is stunned!



With a quick flick of your wrist, you deftly send an austere vultite crescent axe into flight.
You throw a vultite crescent axe at a lesser minotaur!
AS: +418 vs DS: +259 with AvD: +32 + d100 roll: +58 = +249
... and hit for 50 points of damage!
Hearty smack to the head.
The lesser minotaur is stunned!

The max critical of this throw is 5, but with randomization and the apparent padding of minotaurs it moves down to a 2. Let's look at what the results would be if we had a quoit (0.155 DF against scale, +24 AvD against brig) with equal stats. I'm going to assume that the minotaur has 10 points of padding and will use the crush table against the head.

AS: +418 vs DS: +259 with AvD: +24 + d100 roll: +58 = +241

Raw damage ((241-100)*.155))= 21.85 = 21
Expected critial (((249-100)*.155-10)/7)= 1.87 = 1 (Blow to the head causes the [target]'s ears to ring! 5 bonus damage)

For a grand total of 26 damage. Almost half of what the handaxe did with no stun.

Let's look at best case scenarios, with no setup, now and assumed I rolled 100 on my d100 roll. We'll still be working with critical tables on the head.


Handaxe: AS: +418 vs DS: +259 with AvD: +32 + d100 roll: +100 = +291

Raw damage ((291-100)*.270)= 51.57 = 51
Expected critical (((291-100)*.270-10)/7)= 5.93 = 5

With randomization it could be 3,4, or 5. Since handaxes can do crush or slash I'll do both.

Crush

3 15 You broke the [target]'s nose! S4 R2
4 20 Skull cracks in several places. S8 R3
5 25 Solid strike caves the [target]'s skull in,resulting in instant death! F R3

Possible total damage outcomes: 66 (rank 2 head wound, four round stun), 71 ( rank 3 head wound, eight round stun), 76 ( fatal)

Slash

3 15 Blow to head! S3 R2
4 20 Quick flick of the wrist! The [target] is slashed across its forehead! S6 R2
5 25 Hard blow to the [target's] ear! Deep gash and a terrible headache! S8 R3

Possible total damage outcomes: 66 (rank 2 head wound, three round stun), 71 (rank 2 head wound, six round stun), 76 (rank 3 head wound, eight round stun)



Quoit: AS: +418 vs DS: +259 with AvD: +24 + d100 roll: +100 = +283

Raw damage: ((283-100)*.155)= 28.365 = 28
Expected critical: (((283-100)*.155-10)/7)= 2.62 = 2

With randomization 1 or 2. Quoits only slash.

1 5 Quick slash catches the [target]'s cheek! Dimples are always nice. none R1
2 10 Blade slashes across the [target]'s face! Nice nose job. S1 R1

Possible total damage outcomes: 33 ( rank 1 head wound), 38 ( rank 1 head wound, one round stun).

There is no question which weapon is better here against our friend the minotaur. I'll throw up a quick tofu monster with no padding and see if it holds out.

Handaxe: AS: +418 vs DS: +259 with AvD: +32 + d100 roll: +100 = +291

Raw damage ((291-100)*.270)= 51.57 = 51
Expected critical (((291-100)*.270)/7)= 7.36 = 7

Randomized to 4, 5, 6, or 7. Five of the eight total possible outcomes are fatal. Here's the ones that aren't.

C4H = 71 damage, eight round stun, R3 head wound
S4H = 71 damage, six round stun, R2 head wound
S5H = 76 damage, eight round stun, R3 head wound.


Quoit: AS: +418 vs DS: +259 with AvD: +24 + d100 roll: +100 = +283

Raw damage: ((283-100)*.155)= 28.365 = 28
Expected critical: (((283-100)*.155)/7)= 4.05 = 4

Randomized to 2, 3, or 4.

S2H = 38 damage, one round stun, R1 head wound
S3H = 43 damage, three round stun, R2 head wound
S4H = 48 damage, six round stun, R2 head wound.

Again, it's no contest which weapon I would use.

>So what its showing is that melee weapons are too good when thrown?

No, it's showing that thrown weapons other than the javelin are terrible. Nets have the distinct honor of being the absolute worst. While they have the unbalance critical table they have almost 0 shot of ever getting a significant critical. Gemstone has a long history of keeping trap options around in the name of "tradition". I think it's time that tradition was finally buried.

Tep

>I don't think the actual rolls to do significant damage are anything like as badly skewed against thrown as people are making out.
RATHBONER

Opinions are nice. What facts and data points are you using to base this thought on?

Tep has provided data for his points, can you do the same?

-farmer

>This is by no means a promise or indication of anything, I'd just like to know what issues players currently see because it's of great interest to me.

>Gamemaster Konacon
>Squares Team


Throwing Net vs plate (Armor Group 5) DF .010:

A 249 endroll = 1 HP damage ((249 - 100) * .010)

Minimum endroll required to achieve a rank 1 crit: 1150 (100 + (10.5/.010)

Minimum endroll required to achieve a rank 9 crit: 9950 (100 + (98.5/.010)


Mark

This has been a really helpful thread so far, and I hope it keeps moving in the same fashion. However, I'm starting to see a few tempers rising, so let me jump in and say something real quick.

First off, when I said I wanted people's opinions/thoughts/suggestions, that was exactly what I was asking for. I am FAR more interested in what people have to offer than the ways in which they can put another person's ideas down. Keeping that in mind, if we keep this POSITIVE then the thread won't have to get closed and I won't have to be sad.

Given that, let's all do what we can to keep things constructive here. There's no reason to bash people for throwing out their ideas whether you think it's the worst thing you've ever heard in your life or not. -IF- you feel like you need to point out it's flaws, do so in a manner which might allow the person to make some changes in an attempt to make it better.

The people coming who are willing to add their voice to this thread care about the topic, just like you. Try to keep that in mind even if your opinions differ. Whether anything could come out of this conversation or not, I guarantee you that nothing will come out of a thread that gets closed because people get temperamental.

Gamemaster Konacon
Squares Team

I'm too lazy for another table, so here's the rank 1 thresholds by armor group starting with skin. 224, 237, 265, 276, 364. It's pretty bad.

Tep

And as if to prove a point, I just lost my skinning knife to the environs. Boo. Accidentally hurled it instead of my axe and rather than grab it first thing, I was battling a couple of liches. Forgotten in the heat of combat, never to be seen again.

Kerl

The fact that it's possible means it will happen. They get lost, you don't see them, and sometimes you're left with a choice to leave or to sit there in RT searching for it, risking death. The problems with hurling might possibly all stem from this simple premise:

When hurling was originally designed, the designers went for a realistic look and feel, including doing their best to simulate distance by allowing things to go sailing off and being too far away for you to reach, burried in the environs, critters can pick them up, etc. That all makes sense. Trouble is, little else in GS goes to that length to find realism: we have no breakage, rarely get disarmed, and hold onto things with a death grip when we die. Our corpses usually don't get looted by our foes, and we can even get resurected!

It makes sense that you can't get the same force behind a thrown dart as a stabbing one, (different DF's), and that you're probably going to lose some darts. But in Gemstone, "makes sense" doesn't always make sense.

Kerl

Please stop helping to spread that misconception of hurling. It is categorically impossible to lose a hurling weapon to the environs. If you walk off without searching it out, that's user error. Hurled weapons do not disappear into the ether the way arrows sometimes do.

-Richard/Fjalar.

---

Thanks for this clarification. I have an archer and did get the impression that hurled weapons could be permanently lost, through no error on the part of the hurler, the same way that arrows can sometimes be lost.

-- Robert

RATHBONER,

I'm having a lot of trouble understanding your point of view. If you could respond to the following questions and comments it would help me immensely. I am really, really trying to grok the divide.

>RATHBONER: It wouldn't cost Kerl stamina, because Kerl could keep using your toys with the old style hurling. If you wanted to hurl a smooth stone, you would have to invest some CMan points and stamina in it, but so you should, because you would be getting the sort of results from it that you get elsewhere with CMan points and stamina. You would just be able to get them via throw rather than via dirtkick or shield bash, and you would do it because setting an opponent up by throwing something at them appealed to your idea of your character.

Do you play a square or physically inclined semi? If so, at what level? What sort of CMAN choices have you made? Could you feasibly add another choice that would define that character as a hurler without sacrificing efficiency at the current costs? I personally couldn't. Any thrown CMAN that comes out would have to be mind blowingly awesome for me to currently train in. Or the costs across the board for training in CMANS would have to drop.

>ARCHIGEEK: As for nets, I've long lobbied for a change to the crit table for entanglement. If nets actually entangled on a regular basis, their secondary damage might be acceptable. This would require a redo of the entanglement table, taking away the damage end replacing it with results involving tangled feet, arms, tripping, binding, etc, as the NORM, not an exception akin to a flare. Bolas should work the same way.

>RATHBONER: This is exactly the sort of thing which is pretty easy to get a CMan to do and pretty much impossible to do via normal weapon attack mechanics. They have to be able to do damage before they can reference the crit table. If you want crits without damage, it requires CMan not standard weapon attacks.

I actually agree that something like BOLA TRIP or NET ENTANGLE might be better uses of those particular weapons as CMANs for people who like set up maneuvers.

>ARCHIGEEK: The DF's for the hurling weapons are woefully anemic. Bumping those up to where they can actually do damage worth bothering with would go a long way towards fixing one problem.

>RATHBONER: and it would create another by making them woefully overpowered against critters that depend on parry DS. Hurled weapons at the moment have low DF to compensate for bypassing DS. A capped character can have up to roughly 350 worth of DS that can be bypassed. If a capped critter uses the same sort of mechanics then giving a weapon style the equivalent of several hundred extra on its AvD in some situations is going to mean it has to be wet noodle in other situations. Find a critter with a weakness to thrown, and you could uphunt 50 levels with ease. It would be even worse than ranged.

OK. Here is where you and I are having the biggest disconnect.

I showed, in both a real situation (one that I deal with every day) and a theoretical situation, why the DF's for thrown weapons are out of line verse a baseline weapon (OHE). Mark was kind enough to post the requirements of causing ranked criticals with a net. And yet you're still beating the same drum.

Do you find ranged weapon combat out of line mechanically? Bolt Spells? Ambushing? All of these methods of combat have one or more of the following: higher DFs than most thrown weapons, the ability to aim, phantom critical weighting, and DS push downs.

You also keep mentioning capped creatures and the game in general at cap. I am not capped. Most characters are not capped. It's myopic to focus just on cap when that's just one part of the game.

Let's look at the capped game anyways though. If Kerl, or anyone else would be kind enough to give me some shots, I'd be happy to do the same kind of break down I did previously. Here's what I want.

1) A melee swing at a creature in stance offensive.
2) A thrown weapon attack at a creature in stance offensive.
3) The creature should be free of any wounds.

I'd prefer if we could have baseline numbers (no weighting, enhancives, spell boosts, etc), but I'll take what's given. Go ahead and e-mail any clips you want to my play.net.

Tep

>Re: Kerl's comment on realism -- I couldn't agree with you more here (Remember that I'm not necessarily making decisions here, this is just my personal opinion). There's a fine line between realism in a game being a good thing vs realism in a game being anti-fun. Which side hurling fits and the 'distance' mechanic fits on is questionable here. Here are some things I think could be done about that:
>- Remove it.
>- Consider it fine and balanced as is.
>- Add positive aspects to the 'distance' mechanic rather than only negatives.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. Distance mechanic as in DS? As in weapons out of reach? As in missing the target and flying in to the environs to be searched out?


>Re: Parry DS. It would be interesting to see how much of a problem this actually could cause. Sure, a capped character under the BEST circumstances might be able to have 350 points of Parry DS in defensive stance. What about offensive? Neutral? Considering the extremes is good, but considering the more average hunting situation is also worthwhile. Just because in the most perfect of circumstances something could be overpowered, does that mean it has to be terrible in all other circumstances? What do people think?

It's no worse than archery, bolt spells, or ambushing. I really don't see the issue.