Weapon damage confusion....

[MurderCityDisciple]

Ok I've noticed some inconsistencies as far as damage ratings for weapons in Dead Reign.

For instance a .38 caliber round does 3D6 on page 108, 2D6 on page 109 and 3 or 4D6 on page 216. Also the falchion/scimitar does 2D4 on page 116 and 2D6 on page 215. There are a few other situations like this in the book.

Anyway, my question is which set should I use? I'm thinking just going with the deadliest of the group, but still it makes things more difficult than it should be.

Have any of you noticed these rule screwups as well?

[Icefalcon]

None of the damages make sense. For example, pistols doing the same damage as a high power rifle.

[G]

I expect the confusion comes from a combination of copying and pasting old material into a new book, then changing the damage to zombies.

I believe PBs intent is to have weapons do the same damage they do in all the other books against everything except zombies, who take different (usually less) damage.

Damage by caliber is to everyone except zombies for a non specified weapon. This would be copied and pasted from other books. So in general it does 3d6.

Page 109 is talking about an average guns damage to Zombies, not everyone else. 2d6 for an unnamed .38 to Zombies

Ignore the entries under 216, they are generalizing too much.

[flatline]

My personal favorite bad example is that a survival knife (as listed in the starting equipment of the OCCs from Endless Dead) does 2d4, but a machete and claymore (as listed in Dead Reign) do 1d6 and 2d6 respectively.

Although I do notice that the damages listed under the weapon proficiencies are a little more reasonable for melee weapons (claymore does 3d6 according to the W.P. description).

I think it's fair to say that weapon damages (and the number of hit points + SDC a typical human has) need to be rescaled. This applies to all Palladium settings, but is most apparent in Dead Reign since the characters are meant to be regular humans.

--flatline

[Icefalcon]

I rewrote all of the firearm damage codes into a Word file. They make a lot more sense now. I also did away with the bows and arrows do half damage to a zombie nonsense.

[MurderCityDisciple]

I did a major houserule fix of damage myself (I ran a game tonight).

Firearms I went with the table listed on pg. 108 (as well as the bonuses for ammo types)

I made shotgun damage depend on distance...so at point blank/close they do +1D6, normal = normal, -1D6 50 yards/meters out, -2D6 50+ yards/meters out. Also I came up with rules for shot spread, so the pellets can hit multiple targets possibly.

Melee weapons I generally went the the damage from the WP's.

Somebody needs to pay more attention to the editing process...it makes Palladium look really stupid. I've met the Palladium folks and I know they aren't. I should volunteer to edit some...I've done it before for my friends book...which was a frikken disaster.

[Rockwolf66]

I rewrote all of the firearm damage codes into a Word file. They make a lot more sense now. I also did away with the bows and arrows do half damage to a zombie nonsense.

I've done a word file and I used to have an Excel file that I cross referanced the round, the system and the damage done. Alas I lost it to a computer crash. The largest collum was for Twilight 2000 with Shadowrun being second on the list due to a couple of web pages that did huge amounts of work.

[Icefalcon]

I rewrote all of the firearm damage codes into a Word file. They make a lot more sense now. I also did away with the bows and arrows do half damage to a zombie nonsense.

I've done a word file and I used to have an Excel file that I cross referanced the round, the system and the damage done. Alas I lost it to a computer crash. The largest collum was for Twilight 2000 with Shadowrun being second on the list due to a couple of web pages that did huge amounts of work.

I think I am going to have to do something like this. I would much prefer to have a further chart that modifies damage and range for various ammo types.

[Torval]

I rewrote all of the firearm damage codes into a Word file. They make a lot more sense now. I also did away with the bows and arrows do half damage to a zombie nonsense.

Any chance I could snag this word file?

[Icefalcon]

I rewrote all of the firearm damage codes into a Word file. They make a lot more sense now. I also did away with the bows and arrows do half damage to a zombie nonsense.

Any chance I could snag this word file?

Send me a PM with your e-mail and I would be happy to. That goes for anyone that would like a copy.

[Icefalcon]

So for those of you that asked for a copy of my revised firearm damage, how did you like it?

[dargo83]

i loved it thanks

[Icefalcon]

i loved it thanks

Your welcome. I realized I had not gotten around to the machine guns after I sent it but they are easily extrapolated from the info provided. Next I will be tackling the melee weapon damages.

[Torval]

Thank you very much. I am considering working these new damages into my game.

[Icefalcon]

Thank you very much. I am considering working these new damages into my game.

Let me know how they work for you.

[Ravenwing]

Is it sad that in order to find Dead Reign enjoyable/playable you have to toss out at least 60% of the games rules and mechanics?

Or is that just me?

[Icefalcon]

Is it sad that in order to find Dead Reign enjoyable/playable you have to toss out at least 60% of the games rules and mechanics?

Or is that just me?

It is kind of sad that the rules have to be changed to make it playable. I would say it is more like 15% of the rules that need work though. If it was any more than that, I would have sold the books and got a different zombie game.

[flatline]

Is it sad that in order to find Dead Reign enjoyable/playable you have to toss out at least 60% of the games rules and mechanics?

Or is that just me?

You can definitely play it as written, but like any RPG, it's totally up to you to decide if you want to play it as written or if you want to change the rules or setting to suit your tastes.

In my case, I'm not interested in the rules at all, just the setting. I see dead reign as the perfect setting to try running a game system-less.

--flatline

[Ravenwing]

Is it sad that in order to find Dead Reign enjoyable/playable you have to toss out at least 60% of the games rules and mechanics?

Or is that just me?

It is kind of sad that the rules have to be changed to make it playable. I would say it is more like 15% of the rules that need work though. If it was any more than that, I would have sold the books and got a different zombie game.

IDK......
I know we've hashed over it before, the High AR of zombies, their HP, etc. Looking through the DR book thats most of the rules for them. Then there's the wacked out weapon stats which make no sense etc.

So seems to me closer to 60% of the rules.

[Icefalcon]

As for the zombies themselves, I have not really adjusted anything other than their ability to see life force at great distances. Everything else on the zombies I have left alone.

The combat rules are where I have made a few adjustments, especially about damages (but that is more because Palladium does not have the experience to make it believable). I have done away with the natural 17 for headshot, and the no bonuses applied to headshots. I have changed the rules on pointed weapons sticking in a zombie (they do stick, unless the weapon has a blood groove, which is what the groove was designed for). There are three or four other minor rule changes in my games.

This is why I say for me it is more like 15% rules change.

Besides, skills, combat, character creation make up about 90% of the rules. Even if you changed everything about the zombies, it would only amount to 5% or 6% of the rules.

[Icefalcon]

Sorry, that last post was a little off topic.

As far as melee weapons and bows, I feel the rules do them a serious disservice. A good knife (fixed blade, full tang, blood groove, no serrations or other junk to make it look nice) would not always stick in a zombie. Even if it did stick, a good twist as you pull back would open the wound track long enough to extract the weapon. Same with swords, with even better leverage and almost always designed to be pulled out of wounds quickly. Blunt weapons should be causing broken bones (with the attendant movement penalties, attack penalties, or even perception penalties if the neck is broken and the zombie can't even look around easily), concussions (only on the living), and even torn muscles (in the case of maces or morningstars).

Taking a look at bow, Palladium is flat out wrong in telling people that bows do half damage against zombies. That would only be true of those cheap ones that you buy for target practice only. If a hunting bow is powerful enough to drop grizzly bears, moose, even lions and tigers in one shot. It is strong enough to do full damage to a zombie. Of course, a broadhead arrow is going to be needed, this is because it tears a gigantic wound track in the body it hits. It can be argued that an arrow causes more damage than some firearms (but I won't start that argument). Heck, In history, the bow was the most dangerous weapon until the invention of firearms.

[Ravenwing]

Sorry, that last post was a little off topic.

As far as melee weapons and bows, I feel the rules do them a serious disservice. A good knife (fixed blade, full tang, blood groove, no serrations or other junk to make it look nice) would not always stick in a zombie. Even if it did stick, a good twist as you pull back would open the wound track long enough to extract the weapon. Same with swords, with even better leverage and almost always designed to be pulled out of wounds quickly. Blunt weapons should be causing broken bones (with the attendant movement penalties, attack penalties, or even perception penalties if the neck is broken and the zombie can't even look around easily), concussions (only on the living), and even torn muscles (in the case of maces or morningstars).

Taking a look at bow, Palladium is flat out wrong in telling people that bows do half damage against zombies. That would only be true of those cheap ones that you buy for target practice only. If a hunting bow is powerful enough to drop grizzly bears, moose, even lions and tigers in one shot. It is strong enough to do full damage to a zombie. Of course, a broadhead arrow is going to be needed, this is because it tears a gigantic wound track in the body it hits. It can be argued that an arrow causes more damage than some firearms (but I won't start that argument). Heck, In history, the bow was the most dangerous weapon until the invention of firearms.

I would disagree about the broadhead tip, but otherwise agree. I've seen what appear to be heads made for punching through bone for arrows before, and they're always bullet shaped. My Wife Bow hunts, last season she bagged a Brown Bear, with one arrow.

Conversely it took me two shots with my 30-06 to take a similar sized bear.

[Icefalcon]

I was not even taking into account specialty arrow heads. I was using broadheads as an alternative to target points as target points are just for practice but can do a fair amount of damage to flesh on their own.

[Shawn Merrow]

I have changed the rules on pointed weapons sticking in a zombie (they do stick, unless the weapon has a blood groove, which is what the groove was designed for). There are three or four other minor rule changes in my games.

Just a note the "blood groove" or Fuller as its actual name is, has nothing to do with blood. The purpose is to lighten the blade while maintaining the strength of the blade.

[Icefalcon]

I have changed the rules on pointed weapons sticking in a zombie (they do stick, unless the weapon has a blood groove, which is what the groove was designed for). There are three or four other minor rule changes in my games.

Just a note the "blood groove" or Fuller as its actual name is, has nothing to do with blood. The purpose is to lighten the blade while maintaining the strength of the blade.

I knew the name to be fuller but most people do not which is why I stated it by its much more common name. As to the purpose of the fuller, I was not aware that "experts" had now classified the "so it does not stick in the body" part as a myth. I knew it was also there to reduce weight (of course it would by removing material from the center of the blade) and that the ridges from the groove out towards the edge are meant to maintain structural integrity so the blade does not simply snap. I have always been told by historians, bladesmiths and sword trainers (during my own training) that it also allowed for blood to pass through a wound to avoid vacuum. It seems that because they cannot, now, prove that stabbing it into flesh does not create a vacuum, it has changed the reason for this "groove". But I wonder how many living bodies they stabbed a sword into?

[flatline]

I have changed the rules on pointed weapons sticking in a zombie (they do stick, unless the weapon has a blood groove, which is what the groove was designed for). There are three or four other minor rule changes in my games.

Just a note the "blood groove" or Fuller as its actual name is, has nothing to do with blood. The purpose is to lighten the blade while maintaining the strength of the blade.

I knew the name to be fuller but most people do not which is why I stated it by its much more common name. As to the purpose of the fuller, I was not aware that "experts" had now classified the "so it does not stick in the body" part as a myth. I knew it was also there to reduce weight (of course it would by removing material from the center of the blade) and that the ridges from the groove out towards the edge are meant to maintain structural integrity so the blade does not simply snap. I have always been told by historians, bladesmiths and sword trainers (during my own training) that it also allowed for blood to pass through a wound to avoid vacuum. It seems that because they cannot, now, prove that stabbing it into flesh does not create a vacuum, it has changed the reason for this "groove". But I wonder how many living bodies they stabbed a sword into?

How can you have a vacuum in a fluid filled body?

--flatline

[Icefalcon]

I have changed the rules on pointed weapons sticking in a zombie (they do stick, unless the weapon has a blood groove, which is what the groove was designed for). There are three or four other minor rule changes in my games.

Just a note the "blood groove" or Fuller as its actual name is, has nothing to do with blood. The purpose is to lighten the blade while maintaining the strength of the blade.

I knew the name to be fuller but most people do not which is why I stated it by its much more common name. As to the purpose of the fuller, I was not aware that "experts" had now classified the "so it does not stick in the body" part as a myth. I knew it was also there to reduce weight (of course it would by removing material from the center of the blade) and that the ridges from the groove out towards the edge are meant to maintain structural integrity so the blade does not simply snap. I have always been told by historians, bladesmiths and sword trainers (during my own training) that it also allowed for blood to pass through a wound to avoid vacuum. It seems that because they cannot, now, prove that stabbing it into flesh does not create a vacuum, it has changed the reason for this "groove". But I wonder how many living bodies they stabbed a sword into?

How can you have a vacuum in a fluid filled body?

--flatline

When muscle contracts around the blade, sure.

[Shawn Merrow]

I have changed the rules on pointed weapons sticking in a zombie (they do stick, unless the weapon has a blood groove, which is what the groove was designed for). There are three or four other minor rule changes in my games.

Just a note the "blood groove" or Fuller as its actual name is, has nothing to do with blood. The purpose is to lighten the blade while maintaining the strength of the blade.

I knew the name to be fuller but most people do not which is why I stated it by its much more common name. As to the purpose of the fuller, I was not aware that "experts" had now classified the "so it does not stick in the body" part as a myth. I knew it was also there to reduce weight (of course it would by removing material from the center of the blade) and that the ridges from the groove out towards the edge are meant to maintain structural integrity so the blade does not simply snap. I have always been told by historians, bladesmiths and sword trainers (during my own training) that it also allowed for blood to pass through a wound to avoid vacuum. It seems that because they cannot, now, prove that stabbing it into flesh does not create a vacuum, it has changed the reason for this "groove". But I wonder how many living bodies they stabbed a sword into?

Never been able to find any good source that backs the blood thing. I have seen this subject debated many times on the net and read books on the subject. The problem once something is considered common knowledge its very hard to get rid of it even when proven wrong.

[Icefalcon]

Never been able to find any good source that backs the blood thing. I have seen this subject debated many times on the net and read books on the subject. The problem once something is considered common knowledge its very hard to get rid of it even when proven wrong.

Too true Shawn, too true. For the last hour, I have been looking at all of the sources I can on the subject (including a few older books I have on swords and swordmaking) and the answer varies wildly depending on who is stating it.