New weapons/Armour list

[Lupus]

I've been tinkering with a revised weapons and armour list for a tentative Lord of the Rings game. My aims:

* Incorporate piercing points into the weapons list itself.
* Create a couple of other stat entries for weapons.
* Balance weapons, so that none is better at everything.
* If possible, give every weapon something that it CAN be best at - but something else it fails to do well at all.

I know the arguments for and against a balanced weapons chart, I've read that thread. I think a balanced (at least semi-balanced) chart is good, and so I'm going for it. I'm not wanting to open that argument again.

Anyway, I haven't finished it yet, just wondering if this is something other people were interested in too. If so, I'll post what I have so far and we can work over it, maybe come out with a consensus design.

The basics so far: I've reduced the damage from axes, but they have a piercing point or two, and they also do increased knockdown. (Basically, 'knockdown' adds or subtracts from BODY damage to determine if an opponent falls down, just like piercing adds damage for the purpose of penetrating armour.) Swords all have OCV mods, many have DCV mods. They remain fundamentally the same, other than that. Maces have increased knockdown - big hammers have a small number of piercing points, and BIG knockdown. Spears have piercing points (more than axes), and often reach.

Things like that. Generally, I'm keeping the numbers of piercing points and knockdown small - 5 would be the MOST I would expect to see on any single weapon. For the record, so far I've given most axes 1 or 2 piercing points, the longspear got 3 piercing, and the maul got knockdown 5 (and 1 piercing).

The damage values should stay much the same as in FH, but with some lowering of damages (such as axes), but the introduction of piercing points into the weapons table itself should compensate for that, while bringing them into line with other weapons.

So, anyone else feel interested in something like this?

(I have an idea for doing something similar with firearms, but this has taken my interest first.)

[mudpyr8]

We have a revised list of weapons for our setting that addresses many of your points, especially about balanced weapons. In playtest it has been very well received. I think having such a chart can prove very useful and enhance your game.

I think the biggest thing is recognizing the STR/Mass/Damage ration. That shouldn't change. A giant wielding a giant sized broadsword should not get any more of a damage bonus than a human wielding a human sized broadsword. DCs are linear but the damage is exponential. The current weapon chart is not linear (bigger weapons are more efficient STR wise). That's the biggest issue to me.

[NuSoardGraphite]

For giant-sized weapons, I add +1DC for every step on the size chart the weapon is meant for. Since a Two-handed sword is 6DC (2D6K), a giant-sized two-handed sword meant for someone 2 hexes tall (+3 steps on the size chart) does 9DC (3D6K).

However, to balance this issue, the STR minimum is increased by +5STR per step on the size chart as well. Thus, the 18 STR Min of the 2-handed sword increases to 33 STR Min for the giant-sized 2-handed sword....thus the giant doesn't really get to add much more Str to the damage equation than a normal sized warrior does...

I would like to see the damage charts you guys have figured out. Thats something I was likely to do myself, since I've been in the mood for Fantasy Hero lately and I'm not particularly cool with the way some of the melee weapons in Hero 5 have been laid out (yes, swords should get +1 OCV, damnit!)

Did they put Piercing back into the 5ER? I've seen a few referrences to it lately. That would definately solve a few issues some people might have with AP. I like your idea about certain weapons having a few points of Piercing to represent their armor piercing abilities, without giving them full AP. Pics and certain pole-arms should definately have this ability. High levels of piercing could also be used to represent super-sharp magic swords that have enhanced AP abilities (10pts or more?)

[Steve Long]

Did they put Piercing back into the 5ER?

No. It's in Dark Champions.

[mudpyr8]

Piercing is not in 5ER.

The way I dealt with light piercing weapons is AP vs. Flexible armor only and -1 STUNx. That makes them really good against people and really bad against zombies or guys in plate.

The list we assembled is as clean as possible with the rules. I don't like weapons that have STR min 8, then 13, then 15 and so on since that's not how HA or HKA work anyway. I also needed to accomodate not only large creatures/races but small creatures.

[AlHazred]

I'd like to see these weapons lists. Are they in HD format?

[Curufea]

In general I've always found hard armours to be unrealistically handled - they were generally easily penetrated by slashing/cutting weapons. Which is not the case. Unless you're putting a great deal of force behind a thrust, you have no chance. Most damage would be from the impact of the weapon and likely crushing/breaking bones or bending the armour such that it penetrates your body.
This may be a game balance issue - because hard armours are much easier to come across in fantasy settings. As most settings don't figure in the costs of smelting the ore into metal, and the labour of shaping the metal.

Mail in general is great at lessening crushing damage, and transitional plate - despite it being the heaviest and most cumbersome of the armours, is one of the best combinations for stopping damage.

Lamellar, I think, is one of the best for crushing damage - very light as well. But it is quite easily cut.

Now, I'll stop reminiscing about my dark age re-enactment days :)
Otherwise I might start boasting about how superior a dagger and mobility is compared to anything at all in combat.

[mudpyr8]

HD Format: They are not. Excel. I can only release them to our playtesters, which you are welcome to visit our site and sign up.

[Lupus]

Okay, I'll post what I have so far.

What I mainly need is comments - have I gone the right way in balancing/incorporating new stuff? Is it, in fact, workable? My FH and other heroic-level play experience is limited, so I don't have the benefit of experience guiding me.

Battleaxe: 1d6+1, Str 11, stun +1, piercing 1, knockdown 1, 1.5H
Greataxe: 2d6, str 16, stund +1, piercing 1, knockdown 2, 2H
Dagger: +1 OCV, 1/2d6, str 6
Longsword: +1 OCV, +1 DCV, 1d6+1, str 11
Greatsword: +1 OCV, +1 DCV, 2d6, str 17, 2H
Mace: 1d6+1, str 11, stun +1, knockdown 2
Maul: 1.5d6, str 18, stun +1, piercing 1, knockdown 5, 2H
spear: 1.5d6, str 15, piercing 3, 2H, reach, set
Flail: 1.5d6, str 15, stun +1, piercing 1, knockdown 2, 1.5H

I've tried to stick with the book stuff, since I reckon it's close enough. I've changed only what I really wanted to, instead of frivolously.

Armour is even less certain - I've mostly kept armour values, but used varying ED values and incorporated hardness points. I'm posting only a few examples, since most of the list is identical to the book.

Hard leather: PD 3, ED 2
Brigandine: PD4, ED 3
Lamellar: PD 5, ED 2, Hardened 1
Banded: PD 6, ED 3, Hardened 1
Chain: PD 6, ED 1,
Double chain: PD 7, ED 1
Plate: PD 8, ED 5, Hardened 2

I especially seek advice on the ED values. I am talking from no experience there.

Um... that's me.

[Markdoc]

Now, I'll stop reminiscing about my dark age re-enactment days :)
Otherwise I might start boasting about how superior a dagger and mobility is compared to anything at all in combat.

Of course! That would explain why lightly armed, unarmoured warriors were so effective historically.... oh, wait.

Never mind.

Cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Hard leather: PD 3, ED 2
Brigandine: PD4, ED 3
Lamellar: PD 5, ED 2, Hardened 1
Banded: PD 6, ED 3, Hardened 1
Chain: PD 6, ED 1,
Double chain: PD 7, ED 1
Plate: PD 8, ED 5, Hardened 2

I especially seek advice on the ED values. I am talking from no experience there.

Um... that's me.

I'll pass on the weapons, since that's very much a matter of taste: FWIW, none of them appear grossly out of whack. On the matter of armour, though I have a few questions.

First, Double Chain? I didn't think people still believed in Double Chain (or tasselled mail, or reinforced mail or brevetted mail or....)

Secondly, I'm not sure about the lowered ED values, paticularly for mail - sure the metal bit has holes, but underneath is usually heavy leather or cloth (or both), which should give very good protection against cold-based energy attacks, and decent against fire-based attacks. The mail itself would give good protection against electricity-based attacks.

Plate should also give good protection against energy attacks for much the same reason - anything hot enough to heat up plate to the point where it is hot enough to do damage on its own is going to char flesh pretty effectively: anything NOT hot enough to heat the metal up, is going to do no damage at all... OK, I realise that we don't want to be excessively logical when dealing with energy blasts, but I'm not sure that I can see a logical reason for decreasing their defence.

cheers, Mark

[Old Man]

Just for the sake of reference and dang good reading you should get

Lord of the Rings Weapons and Warfare (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618390995/qid=1104860548/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-8322440-2717427?v=glance&s=books)

It kicks butt.

[AlHazred]

I've often thought about giving medieval/fantasy armors about half their rPD value as rED, but I've refrained due to a lack of hard data (and the ease of use in just saying, "Take it out of the book.")

The main problem is the lack of hard data regarding, you know, hot poker/torch/lightning bolt attacks against fantasy armor-wearers. Is there anywhere information on "flamethrower vs. plate mail"?

[Killer Shrike]

I use a custom weapon/armor list of my own design for Fantasy HERO; it's detailed here:

http://www.killershrike.com/FantasyHERO/HighFantasyHERO/armamentsNotes.shtml

[Curufea]

Of course! That would explain why lightly armed, unarmoured warriors were so effective historically.... oh, wait.

Never mind.

Cheers, Mark

Heh.

Strangely enough - one to one fighting, despite what the movies and roleplaying games show, was incredibly rare amongst warriors.

They had this thing called armies, Mark. Which is kinda different.

[Lupus]

Re: Armoured vs unarmoured.

What I'm going for here, since I'm trying to come up with something for a tentative Lord of the Rings game, is a mix of unarmored and armoured stuff.

Basically, armour is heavy and slows you down. So it's no good for when you're travelling around. Aragorn has to get from place to place quickly, so he doesn't wear armour usually. His fighting style lends itself to being freely able to move.

However, when he gets stuck in Helm's Deep, he piles on the chainmail. (In the movies, at least - I believe he did the same in the books.) He knew he'd be in heavy fighting, that there would be a LOT of opponents. While he's able to take care of himself against the orc throngs, there's always the chance of the unseen attack that he'll need armour to defray. Besides, with all the crush, he might not be able to dodge well. So, he packs on the armour.

So, while I want unarmoured to be a viable fighting style (yay for combat luck), I want armour to largely be better, overall, for the truly heavy fighting. But for most everyday use, it's heavy and sweaty and it sucks.

Meanwhile, you can make a character who generally wears armour. Boromir, in the films, wore chainmail - I'd see this as applications of 'move in armour' levels. Aragorn spent his points elsewhere.

Anyway, that's the philosophy behind some of my decisions here. :) With regards to armour vs no armour, anyway.

[Lupus]

Markdoc - thanks for the commentary. Very handy. I'll re-think the ED values. I had forgotten about chain having leather backing, so it should have at LEAST the ED of leather.

As for double chain, I have no idea about its historical existence. I took armour types from FH. In there, it talks about mail knitted with more interlinking rings... this didn't exist?

Barring that, the entry could refer to other types of chain... were there types with heavier rings, or double layers?

My players aren't medieval scholars, so they wouldn't know the difference, but I'd like to keep it consistent even if just in my own mind.

Shadowpup - yah, it's a great resource. :) I'm finding it indispensible when deciding on weapon/armour technology levels and the like.

For the record, as I'm envisioning the game at the moment, it'll be a book/movie hybrid. Taking what I like from each. Mostly, the movie visuals will be used (with some alterations), as that's what the players have in their heads.

[Curufea]

As someone who does know a bit about history-

The various versions of mail did exist and were used - but weren't common as they required extra work and weren't always as effective as expected.
There was no "chainmail factory" churning out size M and size L hauberks of mail. Every suit of mail was individually made and a custom fit. However they often outlasted the original owner - and were looted, handed down to heirs, or taken apart to be used for other mail items (gauntlets for example, or coifs).
Wiremaking was an art.

So yes, you could have double-linked mail, six link mail, mail with plate inserts, banded mail and other variants. They were used. As were suits of plate made to look frightening, or experiments in articulation of joints for plate.

I'll see if I can find you a link to one of the mail sites that shows the various kinds of mail hauberk.

[edit]
Article on making mail - http://www.the-exiles.org/Article%20chain.htm
Site on mail types and patterns - http://artofchainmail.com/patterns/index.html
- on the above site, "King's Mail" in the European patterns section is what is most commonly called double link mail.
- also note, these mail suits use links that aren't rivetted - mainly because we have better quality steel these days and it is easily obtained so we don't mind replacing lost links. Historically links had hammered ends with holed drilled in for a staple/rivet.

[Lupus]

As someone who does know a bit about history-

The various versions of mail did exist and were used - but weren't common as they required extra work and weren't always as effective as expected.
There was no "chainmail factory" churning out size M and size L hauberks of mail. Every suit of mail was individually made and a custom fit. However they often outlasted the original owner - and were looted, handed down to heirs, or taken apart to be used for other mail items (gauntlets for example, or coifs).
Wiremaking was an art.

So yes, you could have double-linked mail, six link mail, mail with plate inserts, banded mail and other variants. They were used. As were suits of plate made to look frightening, or experiments in articulation of joints for plate.

I'll see if I can find you a link to one of the mail sites that shows the various kinds of mail hauberk.

[edit]
Article on making mail - http://www.the-exiles.org/Article%20chain.htm
Site on mail types and patterns - http://artofchainmail.com/patterns/index.html
- on the above site, "King's Mail" in the European patterns section is what is most commonly called double link mail.
- also note, these mail suits use links that aren't rivetted - mainly because we have better quality steel these days and it is easily obtained so we don't mind replacing lost links. Historically links had hammered ends with holed drilled in for a staple/rivet.
Thank you for the links! I shall read and get back to the thread once I'm done.

[Curufea]

I've seen better lists and piccies of armour types on the web though - I just can't seem to track them down at the moment. So keep looking if you can, too.

[Lupus]

I've seen better lists and piccies of armour types on the web though - I just can't seem to track them down at the moment. So keep looking if you can, too.
It looks pretty cool. The second site you pointed me to seems to be saying that there's no real historical basis for double mail or the like... I'm probably just going to drop it from the chart. Thinking of putting Lamellar into the DEF 7 slot, as a step between chain and plate...

There was a comment earlier on the thread, about lamellar being vulnerable to slashing weapons. Anyone else heard of this?

Of course, one problem is there's much confusion about what particular names mean. This is prevalent both in weapons and armour - ask two people what 'broadsword' means and they'll give you two different answers, both historically accurate. 'Course, the most egregious offender there is 'morningstar.' Or maybe 'spear.'

In armour, there seem to be similar worries over terms like 'scale armour.' 'Banded armour' can cause some concerns, too.

Anyway, by 'lamellar' I'm talking about small plates/splints/scales/etc riveted together or stuck onto a backing. I'm getting this mainly from FH...

Yeah, I know, gets confusing.

[Curufea]

Ah, well I've been using re-enactment terms ;-p
Lamellar is overlapping leather scales, used by the Turks mainly during the Crusades. The leather is usually hardened with wax and hot water.
Mainly it was a shortening of leather lamellar - which is why it is ambigiously misleading when I mentioned it earlier.

For metal scales, we just called it scale mail, or scale.

There is also a coat of plates or jack of plates - which is a leather hauberk with metal plates riveted to the inside (or outside). The plates were either rectangular and small (although sometimes they were round), or large shaped strips similar to the Lorica Sementata of the Marian Romans (ie the guys in red you see in movies, rather than Romans of other periods that wore other armours).

Leather lamellar is easy to cut or thrust through - I had a suit I sometimes repaired. Great for training though, light and cushions a lot of crushing blows.

I recommend looking up "medieval re-enactment" and the "Living History Movement". I know of at least a dozen clubs of various periods in Australia - there are bound to be MANY more in other countries.

[Lupus]

Ah, well I've been using re-enactment terms ;-p
Lamellar is overlapping leather scales, used by the Turks mainly during the Crusades. The leather is usually hardened with wax and hot water.
Mainly it was a shortening of leather lamellar - which is why it is ambigiously misleading when I mentioned it earlier.

For metal scales, we just called it scale mail, or scale.

There is also a coat of plates or jack of plates - which is a leather hauberk with metal plates riveted to the inside (or outside). The plates were either rectangular and small (although sometimes they were round), or large shaped strips similar to the Lorica Sementata of the Marian Romans (ie the guys in red you see in movies, rather than Romans of other periods that wore other armours).

Leather lamellar is easy to cut or thrust through - I had a suit I sometimes repaired. Great for training though, light and cushions a lot of crushing blows.

I recommend looking up "medieval re-enactment" and the "Living History Movement". I know of at least a dozen clubs of various periods in Australia - there are bound to be MANY more in other countries.
Excellent, thank you. :) I always enjoy learning about real-world details.

It's a curse, not having a unified lexicon of armour and weapon types. Fun, though, at the same time.

[Lupus]

Now, I've also been pondering bows. I pretty much like the bow lists as presented in FH. I was thinking of adding in perhaps a point or two of piercing (one point for lower-powered bows, maybe up to 3 points for the biggest longbows).

On the other hand, this may make them a little too powerful. Could be an idea to lower the damage values to compensate.

I have also been considering an additional rule - something to allow for arrows to lodge in the target. Perhaps if an arrow does more than 2 BODY, it reduces CV, and does additional damage each phase (if the target keeps moving, that is). I've heard repeatedly that someone with an arrow in them, even if it isn't going to kill, is unlikely to be doing much of anything, presumably due to pain and discomfort.

This could, alternately, be an adaptation of the 'twisting the blade' rules from FH - if you make the shot by 3 or more points, and do 3 or more BODY past armour, you get the equivalent of twisting the blade each time you perform a strenuous action (applied to the hit location you took the damage to, and obviously past armour).

This would, obviously, be accompanied by a lowering of the damage of bows. Under this system, you'd be less likely to score a single-hit-kill with a bow, unless you hit somewhere important... but you'd be more likely to take the target out of the fight. Alternately, it could simply compensate for the problems such as 1/2DCV for firing a bow.

How does that sound to other people? Unbalancing? Unrealistic? Too harsh?

[Curufea]

I like the idea of arrows sticking out of people but not killing them. There are quite a few accounts of this happening. Mind you - vital points being hit should be quick kills. I've just been reading about doubling killing damage based on hit locations in FH, which may also be a way to go.

[Lupus]

I like the idea of arrows sticking out of people but not killing them. There are quite a few accounts of this happening. Mind you - vital points being hit should be quick kills. I've just been reading about doubling killing damage based on hit locations in FH, which may also be a way to go.
I'm probably going to keep the damage from hit locations the same, but use the disabling/impairing rules. Including the option of impairing wounds to vital areas (especially head and vitals) killing NPCs outright. So to most humans, 4-5 points of BODY to vitals will kill... that's after doubling, so 2-3 points before.

That's about what I want. If a PC gets hit with that kinda thing, then the arrow... I dunno, just misses the really vital area. :) Still going to be a nasty wound that will take ages to heal, however... and, naturally, you risk killing the patient if you remove the arrow. "Hey... is this your aorta?"

I think I'll go with this. :) Arrows do less damage (but get piercing points, so they are still good against armour), and stick in the target... yeah, I think I like that. Has a nasty flavour to it, without (at first glance) unbalancing things.

(So, is anyone else still reading this thread, or is it just us two Aussies?)

[Curufea]

Wrong time of day for them - must be after midnight. Anyhow I'm off to see Deep Blue at the theatre now, catch ya later!

[Eosin]

I am reading.

I have also been building my own FH weapons and armor lists. I am also incoprorating piercing into the rules -- it works much better than AP for heroic level games. The document still has a bit of work to go - but it is illustrated and gets pretty deep into cultural weapons (variant axes, swords, spears, etc). Right now I have 45 weapons or so done. Half in HD2 and half on a word soon to be PDF sheet.

[Lupus]

I am reading.

I have also been building my own FH weapons and armor lists. I am also incoprorating piercing into the rules -- it works much better than AP for heroic level games. The document still has a bit of work to go - but it is illustrated and gets pretty deep into cultural weapons (variant axes, swords, spears, etc). Right now I have 45 weapons or so done. Half in HD2 and half on a word soon to be PDF sheet.
Cool. :) I'd be interested in seeing yours. Anyway, gonna post mine...

[Lupus]

Okay, here's what I've come up with. I've included notes in the document where appropriate, as well as specific rules (mainly the 'arrow sticking in target' one).

It's not intended to be comprehensive, just give a broad base. It's also supposed to reflect Middle Earth weapons, as opposed to general fantasy.

Um... well, here it is. (Word document format. Crappy, I know, but most people will be able to read it. The original WordPerfect file was 49k, this one's 143k. Bleah!)

[Markdoc]

Heh.

Strangely enough - one to one fighting, despite what the movies and roleplaying games show, was incredibly rare amongst warriors.

They had this thing called armies, Mark. Which is kinda different.

They did. However right up until the Sengoku Jiddai era, among samurai, a well-described tradition of one to one combat existed, in which armour clearly played a crucial role. In the roman gladitorial games, where one on one combat was major feature and where we also have good contemporary evidence, fighters with heavier armour were matched against fighters in lighter armour. The heavily armoured fighters were always handicapped so that they would not win too easily. We have near-contemporary writings from the icelandic sagas also describing individual combat in which the benefit of armour is plain. And in a thousand and one small conflicts - Irish versus viking, Irish versus norman, Highland feuds, the crusader era and so on and so on, where combat was often in very small groups or individuals versus other individuals. In such combats the best armoured individuals usually prevailed - which is why armour was always so highly prized and highly sought after, even in cultures where large-scale organized combat was rare.

cheers, Mark