Jump to content

Thoughts on encumbrance from a medieval historian


Christopher R Taylor

Recommended Posts

Medieval historian and arms expert Clint Staples on weapons, reach, damage, armor, encumbrance, etc.  I don't really agree with his philosophy on "reach" (a halberd is not going to attack before a short sword, its just going to attack further away, for instance), that's more a game mechanic thing for the abstracted combat system in Runequest.

 

He includes weapons/armor charts with runequest stats which you can extrapolate from by relative stats for Fantasy Hero.  I don't know how accurate or proper this all is, but its an interesting bit of additional data to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think it's way to late for cherrypicking realistic elements anywas, seeing that we already operate in a highly abstract environment, with hit points, mutually exclusive "actions", rigid time frames, etc..

Never mind that introducing too much real-world stuff often reads like a bodice ripper written be Herman Melville, where, after Lord Dorkcy just swept away the Indian Princess into his boudoir of dreams, we're getting a treatise on the relevant reproductive organs, genetic markers and period bed linen embroidery…

 

To be honest, one reason why some games have multiple stats for weapons (i.e. not just damage) is to give the weapon a certain "shape". This doesn't have to be utterly realistic (although a bit of verisimilitude within context doesn't hurt). I don't think we necessarily gain that much from moving the weapon closer to what actually exists and how it's used, maybe it's the other way round: We'd like to add some more game elements and look for bits and pieces of realism to justify that ;)

 

Which is also one reason why I wouldn't want halberds to be the initiative kings. I don't need a world where every weapon, from knife to nodachi is equally valuable, but the basic distinction between "quick" and "oomph" is something that's easy to imagine and creates well differentiated characters, so rapier vs. poleaxe is good for the game (IMHO, of course). Just like I get that armor ain't that bad, but I don't mind unreasonably reinforcing a swashbuckler vs. plate dude dichotomy. At least in a game like HERO, in a campaign where all kinds of combatants are welcome. If I would be doing something historic -- or Pendragon, where everyone's a knight, things would be different.

 

Actually, I probably will use some formula here, deriving the bonus from length and weight and damage type, just because I don't want to rule-of-thumb dozens of weapons ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Medieval historian and arms expert Clint Staples on weapons, reach, damage, armor, encumbrance, etc

 

It should be noted that when he writes "Medieval historian and arms expert" he actually mean "enthusiastic role-player". He writes well enough, and his enthusiasm is undoubted, but real life is not like roleplaying. Reach is important, of course, but has nothing really to do with speed. It just means that you can stick the other guy when he can't as easily stick you, and in any fight, that's normally a floating variable (i.e., it changes from second to second as people move). In a battle, where you are part of a line and can't as easily move back and forth, it's not quite so easy, but the basic idea is the same.

 

How to simulate it in a game? The two most important things I can think of, off-hand is that:

1) reach gives you an advantage. Two guys with similar swords? The taller guy, with longer reach, has an advantage as long as both parties can move. He will have that advantage throughout the fight because he can move back a bit and retain that advantage - and if he knows how to fight, he will. And he can move forward with his sword forcing his opponent to defend - which, again, he will, if he knows how to fight. In the open, a spearman against a swordsman has similar advantage - though that is reversed, in enclosed quarters like inside a building or in a forest. Miyamoto Musashi, who knew a thing or two about swords, makes these points. The idea that you can somehow "get inside" the reach of a weapon and gain the advantage is not very realistic, except for a few, edge examples (like a long pike) because your opponent can simply move and suddenly you're where you started. If he's even decently skilled, he'll move as you advance so you are always in his advantage zone.

2) If you are waiting for an opponent, having reach gives you the first opportunity for attack.

 

That said, looking at world class fencers, although they tend (on average) to be taller, there are plenty of short champions. The oft-quoted rule of thumb from fencing is that a 10% advantage in reach can be countered by a 5% advantage in technique: in other words, it's an advantage, but not a huge one.

 

So, game mechanics? If you want to worry about it, I'd give the party with reach a +1 CSL in open spaces. Note that doesn't mean "Halberds get +1 CSL" - because two halberdiers would be evenly matched with regard to reach. In enclosed spaces, the opposite is true: the shorter weapon gets a +1 CSL. So if you are grappling, you want a knife, not a sword. If you are fighting in a corridor, a sword, not a two handed axe. If you are fighting on open ground, a spear is preferable to a sword ... at least to the extent that you get a +1. 

 

Personally, I think even a +1 CSL is probably too much, and the only thing I do is allow people with reach weapons to reserve an action for "I stick him when he gets close enough" allowing the person with reach to get in the first blow regardless of SPD or DEX ... as long as they are not surprised.

 

cheers, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the reach/initiative thing is an artifact of the Runequest combat system more than an argument that long weapons make you faster.

 

When I've toyed with the initiative modifier, I gave heavy polearms a -4 to dexterity (daggers -1, no weapon = no modifier) for who goes first.  That way two polearms are roughly equivalent - nobody has a greater modifier to DEX rank.  That plus the rules for clutter and cramped spaces does a good job simulating the limitations of the weapon.

 

But I do really like mhd's thoughts on leaning more toward game play and simulating the genre over realism.  The purpose of these games is to simulate genre conventions more than create a totally hyperrealistic combat experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's a problem with games you're invested in, especially if they're on the simulationist side of things, you often try to shoe-horn your actual experience into their terms, which often turns into some kind of system apologia. I bet there are blog posts out there that describe how well the 10 minute rounds of OD&D fit their personal Pennsic experience...

Sometimes handling reach can almost get into "grapple rules" territory. A bit of reach might be nice, but you might want to put a limit on it, or you got everyone carrying around sarissas. And can you only attack at the end of your reach or every point within it? If not, cue the Can Can, as you'll get more high kicks than a Van Damme movie. Or spiked armor. Okay, so I get the first swing with my pollaxe, but now I get an initiative penalty on my next turn, as I have to "recover". Assuming I don't stab. And as Markdown pointed out, things might be different depending on whether we're talking about keeping people at bay (delaying) or the general chaos of a full-fledged battle. Possibly including tentacled monstrosities.

 

I'm sure someone in the GURPS mansion is writing a "Technical Grappling" detail article about all those ramifications right now, and I'll probably buy and read it, even if that means badwrong things like equations with imperial units.

 

But the perfect being the enemy of the good, so for my personal games I mainly have to look at a ) what I actually want to achieve and b ) how much does it cost me. As I said earlier "a" isn't necessarily about realism for me, especially if this conflicts with the themes of the campaign (e.g. plate armor being as great as it actually was would work out perfectly fine in a Arthurian game). And "b" doesn't just depend on how much auxiliary and spot rules I'd have to introduce to compensate for this, but also on more mundane factors like the group size. When I had a game with just two or three players, I was much more likely to adopt additional rules, even if it meant additional steps during combat. These days I'd like to be able to not have to worry about additional NPCs on either side.

 

So right now that means: Make weapon difference matter, err on the side of variety (I know, I know, polearms are awesome, Gary). I'm okay with smallswords being better than they actually were/are. And whatever is done works in all situations, no modifiers dependent on my current state, no if-thens. Yes, that means I've given up on closing distance and just avoid exposing the group to fights in enclosed spaces given the amount of axe wielders.

 

And I'm seriously considering giving unarmed combat an irrationally large bonus, so that kicking or punching the enemy as oft seen on TV actually makes sense in some situations ("Do I have to potentially abort to block if he attacks first or crotch-prevent him?")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the reach/initiative thing is an artifact of the Runequest combat system more than an argument that long weapons make you faster.

 

When I've toyed with the initiative modifier, I gave heavy polearms a -4 to dexterity (daggers -1, no weapon = no modifier) for who goes first.  That way two polearms are roughly equivalent - nobody has a greater modifier to DEX rank. 

 

Yeah, I get the problem that RQ has with this - I was a long-time player of RQ2E. But the problem with the whole dex- or initiative-modifier thing (which pops up in multiple contexts) - is that a dagger-man or a barehanded combatant can charge a line of pikemen and get in the first blow, all other things being equal. That's just .... odd. Now of course, you can get around it by rules allowing held actions, etc, but in general I hold the view that if your basic rule needs special cases, extra situations, addenda, then you should look at it. And it's not just pikemen and daggers.The fact that such dex- or initiative-modifier approaches means that the dagger-wielder has a speed advantage in straight combat against a swordsman - which is the exact opposite of real life - makes me more than a bit suspicious of the underlying concept.

 

I agree that we are aiming for a fun game, and that a complex simulation of medieval combat is neither desirable (nor, probably possible, in playable format) but I'm not keen on extra rules that detract from reality. My rule of thumb is that if a rule makes me screw my face up and go "Wait, what?" then it's probably not something that I want to add to my game.

 

One thing gamers are terribly bad at (as a whole) is the whole combat/weapons thing. There's a desire to slice categories ever-finer and then try to define them in ways that make some kind of sense. But in reality, all the different forms of medieval handweapons, and all the different forms of handgun or ammo, etc differ in relatively few aspects from each other. Longsword, broadsword, shortsword, smallsword, scimitar .... they all shade into each other. When you look at real weapons that really were used on the battlefield, you become struck by how useless the RPG categories are. You find yourself trying to differentiate short longswords from long shortswords, and long longswords from short greatswords, or unusually curved longswords from unusually straight scimitars* ... the truth is, they are all medium-sized blades. The dividing lines are purely arbitrary and make every bit as much sense as RPG arguments about what "real elves" should be like.

 

The skill and experience of the wielder makes far more difference than the relatively trivial difference in shape. Roleplayers in general (in my experience) hate to hear this. They insist - with no evidence whatsoever - that it does too make a real difference! But really, medieval weapons can be divided up into pointy things, crushy things and slashy things, in small, medium and large sizes. The exact shape of said things seems to have more to do with cultural preferences and individual resources than actual measurable utility.

 

cheers, Mark

 

*my wife and I like to play this game when we travel - in fact last week, in Bruges we were playing it with polearms, which are the best for this game. Is that a Glaive, a Glaive-guisarme, or a Bill-bec-de-bardiche-glaive-guisarme? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, stuff like this frequently makes me want to adopt WFRP 1/2e's weapon categories of Hand Weapon & Great Weapon, with modifiers for special cases (flail, piercing, etc).  Maybe go a littel broader into Pointed/Edged/Blunt types with Small/Medium/Great sizes plus special features.  Things like straight vs. curved blade, single or double edged and so on are simply descriptive effects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew few games that differentiate weapons more than the categories you propose, if it's even possible to do that (most dice systems would preclude that). That amount of nitpicking is usually left to the gun enthusiasts...

Quite often we're mixing up fighting styles with the actual weapons used, too. If the game doesn't treat those separately, I don't see a big problem with changing one weapon's values a bit. There might be nothing inherently faster or more damaging in the weapon itself if wielded with the same technique by the same guy familiar enough in the weapon. I'd have no problem with a game where the styles themselves determine most combat factors and the weapon is just an enabler... But goshdarnit, I wanna put numbers somewhere ;)

 

But getting back to initiative, I think one of the core problems here is that it's used for a lot of things all related to quickness in fighting situations. First strike might be different from frequence of strikes -- which also depends a lot on reach. At extremes reach isn't just a bonus or penalty, it's a straight-forward yes/no question. Which in game terms then often involves turns spent maneuvering to be able to strike at all. Which can get a bit wasteful in player time, especially if there are lots of combatants around. Footwork in melee is often as exciting as logistics in battles...

 

We do have another statistic in HERO for some of that, but I don't think SPD could really be abused for weapons. Mostly because this could change from one action to another, and varying speed is really not something I'd attack lightly. Tick-based combat systems have the advantage here.

 

So in the end, without special rules that take care of corner cases, we're putting a lot of stuff in one single statistic. But that could probably be said about almost every number we've got on our character sheets. Either we're going all out, remove it totally (e.g. simultaneous actions, no individual exchanges) or just live with the fact that some parts are more "game-y" than others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

But the perfect being the enemy of the good, so for my personal games I mainly have to look at a ) what I actually want to achieve and b ) how much does it cost me. As I said earlier "a" isn't necessarily about realism for me, especially if this conflicts with the themes of the campaign (e.g. plate armor being as great as it actually was would work out perfectly fine in a Arthurian game). And "b" doesn't just depend on how much auxiliary and spot rules I'd have to introduce to compensate for this, but also on more mundane factors like the group size. When I had a game with just two or three players, I was much more likely to adopt additional rules, even if it meant additional steps during combat. These days I'd like to be able to not have to worry about additional NPCs on either side.

 

 I've actually taken a different approach: I try to make armour just as awesome as it really was (see other recent threads for that) and then say "No, you can't have it" to the players :)

 

The reason that "You can't have that" is the same solid historical reasons that make armour awesome: it's heavy, hard, stiff, it wears away your skin, makes you sweat and chafe. Taking off armour after a couple of hours gives you exactly the same feeling as taking off skiboots after a few hours on the slopes: even the best fitting versions make you sigh in delicious relief. Basically armour was something that (historically) you did not wear if you didn't have to, and many places you couldn't wear it even if you wanted. The flip side of that is that the heavy fighter gets to be awesome when he does get to wear all his coverings, but he can also be assured that he will get to spend plenty of time without it. In contrast the light fighter is a lot squishier in a battle that permits the heavy fighter to shine - but he shines when combat starts in the middle of the grand ball, or in a rowboat, or after a cave crawl that involves high slippery slopes, crawls and deep water.

 

I don't need any new rules for any of that. Just common sense and the encumbrance rules.
 

As for weapons, I have a detailed weapons list, because players like detailed weapons lists, but I don't bother with any kind of speed or initiative modifier, or indeed, any new rules at all. I find that letting players say "I delay and hit him as soon as he gets into range" covers all my "reach" needs.

 

What I do have instead, is the hero system rules and a fairly free approach to "powers as skills/talents". If a player decides to buy some powers and call them "magic" I see no problem with another player buying some powers and calling them "amazing prowess with a blade". In this case players have far more freedom to define (and with what) they fight than by trying to choose the precise weapon that gives them the most favourable modifiers and it shifts the emphasis back to where (IMO) it should be: on the PC's skill at arms, not on what specific weapon he chooses. So I don't need to add any modifiers to daggers or unarmed combat - player can do that themselves. In our last game, despite plate armour, greatswords and small swords, there were plenty of punches and kicks exchanged. One PC preferred a great axe, another daggers and a shortsword and one PC spent several sessions fighting with ... an oar. It made a nice heavy club and for him, that was "good enough". It all worked pretty well.

 

cheers, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

But the problem with the whole dex- or initiative-modifier thing (which pops up in multiple contexts) - is that a dagger-man or a barehanded combatant can charge a line of pikemen and get in the first blow, all other things being equal.

 

I'm not as concerned with the dagger vs polearm DEX mod dilemma you mention because as you noted, its going to vary a lot based on the DEX of the characters.  If everyone had the same dexterity, yeah, the dagger always moves first.  But because DEX values vary a lot, that's almost never going to be an issue.  And frankly, getting that dagger into play is going to definitely be quicker than the polearm.  The offset would be reach: the polearm has a 1-3 meter reach which makes it easier to whack someone with as they close.

 

Reach is another issue; its almost never a factor in hero combat unless someone is forced at a distance by barriers.  Perhaps having reach could give a temporary bonus to dex based on its meter reach (a 2 meter weapon gives +2) for closing in combat?  The problem is more modifiers = more complex and it gets crazy.

 

I personally like giving people a free 1m move in combat to represent the shuffling around, people don't usually just stand there and bash on each other.  And having played Savage Worlds some, it seems obvious that allowing people to move after attacking is not the ghastly game breaker that every rule system seems to imply.  In miniature games, sure, its super abstracted.  But hero, it works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I'm obtuse, but I can't really see why you'd want to give weapons DEX bonuses in the first place (in Hero system). It produces results exactly the opposite of what you can observe in real life, and adds complexity, for no apparent benefit that I can see. Saying "Yeah, it can give weird results but it doesn't happen that often" just work for me.

 

As for not standing still in combat, I agree that people don't usually just stand still and wail on one another, but I have not generally found this to be a problem: combat in my games tends to be mobile as people manoeuvre for advantage: I haven't found any need to give extra move - PCs generally have plenty of move already, if they want to move.

 

But as for allowing people to move after an attack, it can very easily be used to abusive effect if there is not some counterbalancing penalty. We tried this in the past, but it became common to see move-attack-move-to-where-you-can't-reach-me: that can get particularly hideous when flight or teleport is in play and it also makes for a very frustrating fight if you have a fast, ranged attacker: they can move-shoot-move-into cover. There are already plenty of ways to combine movement and attack - move-by, move-through, strafe, triggered attacks, etc, but all of them have counterbalancing negatives. I'd need to see a pretty compelling argument to consider letting movement after attacks back into into any game I run.

 

cheers, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't it be better to place initiative penalties on larger, slower weapons rather than granting a bonus to smaller, lighter weapons? It would be like a reverse form of Lightning Reflexes. Unarmed or small weapons like a knife would be -0, but a weapon like a greatsword would have a penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I wasn't being clear.  My brainstorming on this was like so:

 

1) All weapons have a DEX penalty, based on their weight and encumbrance.  Big slow weapons have a bigger penalty

2) When closing in combat, not all the time, but only when closing toward a target to engage them, longer weapons could be assigned a temporary bonus to DEX rank to represent their length allowing people to engage more quickly.

 

Is that... more clear?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've actually taken a different approach: I try to make armour just as awesome as it really was (see other recent threads for that) and then say "No, you can't have it" to the players :)

The reason that "You can't have that" is the same solid historical reasons that make armour awesome: it's heavy, hard, stiff, it wears away your skin, makes you sweat and chafe.

But it beats a sword in the gallbladder. I don't really see that restricting armor usage that much, esp. compared to societal constraints. Sure, tourney quality full plate might not be something your wear all the time, but if you're adventuring in a dungeon or venture forth into similar high-risk territory, why not travel with at least soldiery equipment?

City and courtly scenes obviously are different, as are roadside ambushes. And the latter get tiresome pretty easily, and this time not for encumbrance reasons...

 

IMC we ditched the hit location rules, so armor is definitely on the awesome side for us, too. All things considered, the heavily armed and armored fighter is the best deal, I definitely don't want or need to put Steve Smallsword on the same level. In the last campaign, I basically said that only certain styles (favoring unarmored) are likely to produce fighters with a SPD value higher than three. This time we ditched SPD and don't have a lot of points going into powers, so some minute adjustments elsewhere are being considered.

 

Our setting's original rules actually did have initiative modifiers, so that's been brought up at the table. Then again, it also had rather elaborate distance class rules...

 

Theoretically Endurance is also part of the "weapon speed" cluster, although I don't see that working out at all (I'm this close to ditching END altogether for lack of benefits in a mana-pool-magic heroic game)

 

Wouldn't it be better to place initiative penalties on larger, slower weapons rather than granting a bonus to smaller, lighter weapons? It would be like a reverse form of Lightning Reflexes. Unarmed or small weapons like a knife would be -0, but a weapon like a greatsword would have a penalty.

Mathematically the same, and bonuses are just more, well, positive sounding.

 

My current line of thought would center it around 0, so both bonuses and penalties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I wasn't being clear.  My brainstorming on this was like so:

 

1) All weapons have a DEX penalty, based on their weight and encumbrance.  Big slow weapons have a bigger penalty

2) When closing in combat, not all the time, but only when closing toward a target to engage them, longer weapons could be assigned a temporary bonus to DEX rank to represent their length allowing people to engage more quickly.

 

Is that... more clear?

 

Oh it's clear - this is what I understood. What's not clear to me is the rationale. Why would you want to make a dagger "faster" (or "less slow" if you prefer) than say, a rapier or a longsword when in reality the reverse is true? I'm guess what I am not getting is what benefit accrues in exchange for the extra complexity and reduced "reality" (we're talking about a fantasy game, so this is flexible concept :)) the rules would add?

 

cheers, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But it beats a sword in the gallbladder. I don't really see that restricting armor usage that much, esp. compared to societal constraints. Sure, tourney quality full plate might not be something your wear all the time, but if you're adventuring in a dungeon or venture forth into similar high-risk territory, why not travel with at least soldiery equipment?

City and courtly scenes obviously are different, as are roadside ambushes. And the latter get tiresome pretty easily, and this time not for encumbrance reasons...

 

Oh, no question. Players recognise that armour is good.  But in general, players favour a balance between protection and mobility most of the time (a breastplate and helmet or a chain byrnie or similar) when they venture into risky territory, and pile on as much armour as they can, when expecting a fight. But a combination of social factors ("You can't come in here dressed like that!") environmental factors (fights on rooftops, in waist-deep water, inside a working watermill, in a desert, in a palace) and practical rules (long term END (LTE) - unless he is very strong, a player in heavy armour will tire faster than his more lightly armoured colleagues) militate against the D&D fantasy trope of "all of the the armour, all of the time".

 

This gets players to think about when, and how much armour they want to wear, so that they don't routinely don full plate before going down to breakfast.

 

For our games, there are relatively few house rules. We did drop routine END use and free post-12 recoveries. Initially I did that because I was introducing a group of newbies to Hero, and wanted to keep it as simple as possible. But after playing for some months and seeing how little difference it made, that became a fixed rule. However, PCs still have an END stat. I use the long term END (LTE) rules, so having END is still useful: it allows me to calculate how long PCs can go before they become exhausted, and I also use LTE as "mana" for spellcasting. This allows players to buy reduced END powers if they want, so that they have "effortless" powers that they can use as long as they want without any problems - one player for example in the last game bought 0 END on his running so that he could run all day without tiring.

 

cheers, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, no question. Players recognise that armour is good.  But in general, players favour a balance between protection and mobility most of the time (a breastplate and helmet or a chain byrnie or similar) when they venture into risky territory, and pile on as much armour as they can, when expecting a fight. But a combination of social factors ("You can't come in here dressed like that!") environmental factors (fights on rooftops, in waist-deep water, inside a working watermill, in a desert, in a palace) and practical rules (long term END (LTE) - unless he is very strong, a player in heavy armour will tire faster than his more lightly armoured colleagues) militate against the D&D fantasy trope of "all of the the armour, all of the time".

Thanks to my players pedigree, that's something I rarely had to fight against: People who entered fantasy gaming with D&D 3E already favored lighter armor (thanks to the egregious use of stat boosters) and our own local fantasy game had excruciating armor penalties for most of its history. And then some larpers with bad backs ;)

 

Where do you actually see LTE penalties accrue in your games? Given the regular encumbrance rules and the usual PC stats, that would require quite heavy armor and/or long periods of exhaustive work. Do you run a lot of "Let's chase those hobbit-kidnapping orcs" scenarios or am I too lenient in applying the rules?

 

 

But let's not digress entirely: My personal intention for adjusting weapons or fighting styles somehow isn't necessarily about giving daggers and halberds equal footing. It's more about the middle ground, where we're talking about e.g. axes vs. swords or one-handed vs. two-handed weapons. Or empty off hand vs. shield.

 

Part of that is already covered by the core stats. It also could be expressed by e.g. limiting martial maneuvers or powers (e.g. no Martial Dodge for stereotypically "stand your ground" combat styles, no matter how the Thalhoffer enthusiasts might complain about unfair treatment). As always with HERO, there's more than one way to do it, all depending on how common some things are in your campaign, point values etc.. In some campaign it might just be that the fencing types are usually the ones with Lightning Reflexes or higher speeds. Due to it being tied to the PC and not the weapon, it might look less unrealistic...

 

I think the bigger difference is probably stabby vs. swingy, not weapon length. Not that this makes it any easier on how to express this in game terms.

 

Maybe it's time to rethink my stance on Martial Arts, as the different "Strike" incarnations aren't exactly bad for this -- defense penalties are yet another speed issue, this time not being able to switch fast enough between attack and defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks to my players pedigree, that's something I rarely had to fight against: People who entered fantasy gaming with D&D 3E already favored lighter armor (thanks to the egregious use of stat boosters) and our own local fantasy game had excruciating armor penalties for most of its history. And then some larpers with bad backs ;)

 

Where do you actually see LTE penalties accrue in your games? Given the regular encumbrance rules and the usual PC stats, that would require quite heavy armor and/or long periods of exhaustive work. Do you run a lot of "Let's chase those hobbit-kidnapping orcs" scenarios or am I too lenient in applying the rules?

 

 

But let's not digress entirely: My personal intention for adjusting weapons or fighting styles somehow isn't necessarily about giving daggers and halberds equal footing. It's more about the middle ground, where we're talking about e.g. axes vs. swords or one-handed vs. two-handed weapons. Or empty off hand vs. shield.

 

Part of that is already covered by the core stats. It also could be expressed by e.g. limiting martial maneuvers or powers (e.g. no Martial Dodge for stereotypically "stand your ground" combat styles, no matter how the Thalhoffer enthusiasts might complain about unfair treatment). As always with HERO, there's more than one way to do it, all depending on how common some things are in your campaign, point values etc.. In some campaign it might just be that the fencing types are usually the ones with Lightning Reflexes or higher speeds. Due to it being tied to the PC and not the weapon, it might look less unrealistic...

 

I think the bigger difference is probably stabby vs. swingy, not weapon length. Not that this makes it any easier on how to express this in game terms.

 

Maybe it's time to rethink my stance on Martial Arts, as the different "Strike" incarnations aren't exactly bad for this -- defense penalties are yet another speed issue, this time not being able to switch fast enough between attack and defense.

 
 
With regard to LTE, it’s rarely a problem for someone who just wants to wear heavy armour and fight. It’s only really occurred in situations where someone wants to do a field march across rough terrain in full plate, carrying several weapons and backpack full of rope, lanterns, tools and assorted geegaws. Remember that ordinary movement uses END as well …That’s a problem that can be solved at the cost of some transport animals or serfs and a slower pace, but it has been an issue from time to time. The more common case has been post-adventure, when the PCs are trying to toil back to town laden with loot, or they want to spend some time hacking a hole in the side of some tomb. Players are all too fond of saying “My fighter can spend 12 hours pickaxing his way through the stone wall, no problem …” In general, treating encumbrance sensibly and just using the LTE guidelines with a light hand has been enough to stop any egregious abuse.
 
As for the weapons thing, I agree that (within limits) size is a red herring. As noted, a dagger or a fist is no faster than an epee or a shortsword (actually, they’re a tad slower due to the question of reach, leverage and – as you note – thrust versus swing). In truth, the difference is so small as to be below the level of granularity of Hero. I’d also agree that stabby vs. cutty vs. crushy (ie thrust vs. swing, or piercing vs. slashing vs.  or however you want to define it) is far more relevant in terms of effect. The problem is A. how to define that in a useful way for gaming and B. how to define it in a “real world” terms. For example, is a sword a thrusting or a slashing weapon? In almost all cases, the answer is “Both”. The same is true for most halberds, broad bladed spears, daggers,  axes with spikes, etc One can easily question whether “cutting and thrusting” actually means anything useful at all given it is such a broad category. It’s almost like saying “weapon”. You have the same problem with impact weapons – both axes and maces are typically thought of as impact weapons … but one has a cutting blade, while the other doesn’t. And what about a mace with a spiked head? That’s pretty clearly a piercing weapon, since it’s designed to punch holes. What about a hammer with a backspike (a common design) or a hammer with an axeblade on the backside (also a common design)? Is one Impact/piercing and the other impact/slashing? That way lies the madness of the runequest table already posted, and it ignores one giant, staring fact  … that in real life these two weapons were used exactly the same way by the same typoes of soldiers against the same type of opponent and had as far as we can tell exactly the same effect.
 
My rue of thumb for this kind of thing is that a difference that makes no difference is no difference. So all this stuff about crushing/slashing vs crushing/piercing is just RPG geek obsessing. Certainly the people who used these things as actual weapons of war did not seem to care very much. Just look at the countless variations that existed in real life – people seemed to be at least (if not more) concerned about how it looked over specific forms.
 
That said, we can trace some specific trends. There does seem to be a correlation between improving armour and an increase in two-handed weapons and axe/mace type weapons (not just in Europe, but also in Asia), suggesting that heavier weapons and/or impact weapons were better against plate armour. To my mind, the current rules giving axe/pick like weapons AP and heavier “impact weapons” +1 Stun Mod. seem to work OK.
 
You could howver, if you really wanted to work out a similar list from first principles, assigning active points by weapon size, then adding AP or +1 Stun Mod for piercing or impact,  stretching for longer weapons and finally adding +1 OCV for weapons that are hard to counter (like a flail). That way you could make your own weapons, such as an unusually heavy lochaber axe (AP and +1 stun Mod and stretching!) I suspect that that would probably lead to a frenzy of player fiddling until they designed the optimal weapon, which everybody would then use, which is why I have never been tempted to do this.
 
Last of all, I’d agree with your comment about martial arts. I’m not a fan of the use of martial arts to mean “fights real good”. IMO that’s what CSLs are for. But most fighty-types in my experience like martial arts and this differentiates them in combat far more than whether they use a spetum or a partisan. I’m also no longer a fan of the standard martial arts rules and instead simply use multipowers: that system been heavily discussed on the boards in the past, so no need to go into it here.
 
Cheers, Mark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So all this stuff about crushing/slashing vs crushing/piercing is just RPG geek obsessing. Certainly the people who used these things as actual weapons of war did not seem to care very much. Just look at the countless variations that existed in real life – people seemed to be at least (if not more) concerned about how it looked over specific forms.

I don't quite think that e.g. the Estoc was mostly an aesthetic choice ;)

 

But I wouldn't really want to micromanage this too much, I'm definitely not going to create a table of the different game effects of swords according to each Oakeshott type...

Actually, my ideal list would even be simpler and more formulaic than the default list, closer to the alternative size-based one in FH. Don't quite see why a hammer has a stun multiplier, but a mace wouldn't. Or swords and their OCV bonuses...

So a "medium size stabby/slashy" weapon would have a given set of stats, no matter what it was called in real life. All the minor differences mostly boil down to personal preference, e.g. a weapon-specific CSL because a top-heavy curved one-edged weapon is just better for PC A, not inherently better than a double-edged straight one. Although I'm not quite sure whether I'd really consider an axe with a backspike to be functionally identical to a cut and thrust sword, despite it being the same size category, damage types etc.

 

I've experimented with something that's actually a bit close to RuneQuest: Weapon specific critical effects. My current ad hoc version is a bit too specific, but I think boiling it down to e.g. "Slash" or "Impale" would work out fine. That would give an additional benefit to versatile weapons. As long as that doesn't lead to everyone carrying around glaive-guisarme-voulges.

 

I wanted to do more with CSLs, but haven't found a usable solution. Codifying different maneuvers per weapon/style is way too much work and different OCV/DCV/DC ratios would probably be unbalanced or simply not granular enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you want to make a dagger "faster" (or "less slow" if you prefer) than say, a rapier or a longsword when in reality the reverse is true?

 

Because... a lighter, smaller weapon is faster than a heavier, larger one.  The reach is better on a rapier, but not the speed.  I can deploy a dagger and attack with it faster than a rapier with identical strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...