Thoughts on encumbrance from a medieval historian

[Lucius]

This has truly been an interesting read. I was always of the idea that smaller/lighter equals faster. Even if that is true, I am taking away from this that the margins are relatively small. I've been in favor of using a Weapon Speed type reverse Lightning Reflexes but now I wonder if it is worth it or if the differences at range versus close up make it a wash. I can't remember which variant of D&D (Pathfinder, 4E, etc.) had the bonus for reach until some condition (character with reach missed and/or less reach successfully attacked) but that seems like it would also make a difference. Some interesting concepts can be formed with that. Somebody truly skilled and lucky might keep an opponent at bay for some time with a spear or similar polearm.

 

I think Martial Arts are cost broken, but conceptually sound ways of demonstrating superior skill. In some ways, using predefined allocations of CSLs (maneuvers) to represent martial training drills is how I would approach that alternative. Now how would you cost in Martial Arts elements like "Target Fall, Grab, Target is Disarmed" into a CSL package. Would those elements just be extensions of the standard (0 cost) maneuvers?

This is an idea probably worthy of its own thread

 

Lucius Alexander

 

This is an idea worthy of a palindromedary tagline

[Old Man]

I'd agree completely that reach/range is very important - see my earlier posts. But I simply can't agree with you about knives vs swords, having seen the lunging knife guy get hit 3 times before he lands a blow. Yes, reach is that important and yes, you can still slash someone well inside arm's reach.

 

Certainly, but don't conflate reach with speed here.  There's no argument that you're better off with a sword than a knife, because of the reach advantage.  But the knife, at knife-fighting range, can make effective attacks at a much greater rate than the sword can at its.  I don't think that has anything to do with mass, it has more to do with shape.

[Old Man]

Meanwhile in Russia:

 

[Markdoc]

Certainly, but don't conflate reach with speed here. There's no argument that you're better off with a sword than a knife, because of the reach advantage. But the knife, at knife-fighting range, can make effective attacks at a much greater rate than the sword can at its. I don't think that has anything to do with mass, it has more to do with shape.

Oh I agree with that 100%. In my own games, I don't have rules for that, per se, I simply adjudicate it as part of "combat conditions". So in a clinch, I'd just tell sword guy he's at -3 OCV. In a narrow corridor, axe guy gets a -2, when fighting on a pitching ship, everyone without the appropriate skill takes a -1, etc.

 

What I object to (and where the thread started) is the idea of giving weapons a DEX penalty based on weight/type, under the idea that "it's lighter, so it gets to go first". The reason for that is simple. If you do so, a knife becomes a superior duelling weapon - other factors being equal or near equal, it would let you strike first against a swordsman, and that's a really big advantage. But in real life, a knife is a distinctly *inferior* duelling weapon, and gets to go last. So to me, giving a knife a "first strike" advantage is just wrong.

 

The same goes for rapier vs longsword. In this case, despite the weight difference, they're more or less matched for speed. Ninja-bear commented that you'll tire faster with the heavier weapon, and that's definitely true (I've already stated exactly that up-thread) but it's very rare for a fantasy hero swordfight to go much more than a minute, so it's not that relevant - for longer fights, we already have END if we want to track fatigue, and you use more STR (and thus END) to meet the STR min with larger weapons.

 

The advantages of a knife are not that it's faster (it isn't) but that it's handier, easily concealable, etc.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Ninja-Bear]

Sorry Markdoc that I missed that your comment about getting tired up thread. Speaking of endurance I see why in a cinematic game weapons should be zero endurance, how ever in a more "realistic" game I think that weapons should add to your endurance as normal.

[Ninja-Bear]

Certainly, but don't conflate reach with speed here.  There's no argument that you're better off with a sword than a knife, because of the reach advantage.  But the knife, at knife-fighting range, can make effective attacks at a much greater rate than the sword can at its.  I don't think that has anything to do with mass, it has more to do with shape.

What do you mean by more effective attacks at a much greater rate?

[The Weapon]

One thing you should bear in mind, weapons where you can use leverage are faster than those that can't.  That's why people used swords two handed, because you can pull with one hand, push with the other.  That way the sharp bits move faster.  The longer the lever, the faster the end of it goes.  So with pikes you can strike at one guy, then switch to attacking the guy 3 to his left in a flash.   

[Ninja-Bear]

Another thought about mass, which to be honest I'm flabbergasted that  several people seem to think is minimal, is that we really need to pick a weapon and attack because even if the difference in mass between two weapons seems small, the technique in which to use them can make a great difference. For example the difference between a jab and a reverse punch in mass is greatly different. How can that be you say? Its do to the technique involved. A jab by definition is a snap technique usually used from the front hand. The mass is the hand with some shoulder behind it. The jab's power comes from the speed and snap of the arm. A reverse punch has more power because if done properly, the fist is thrust out like a piston being driven not just with the arm, but starting from the legs going to a twisting of the hips then shoulders, in other words the whole body. Therefore a reverse punch has the mass of the entire body behind it. Jabs are quicker but reverse punches are more powerful and slower.

[Markdoc]

Another thought about mass, which to be honest I'm flabbergasted that  several people seem to think is minimal, is that we really need to pick a weapon and attack because even if the difference in mass between two weapons seems small, the technique in which to use them can make a great difference. For example the difference between a jab and a reverse punch in mass is greatly different. How can that be you say? Its do to the technique involved. A jab by definition is a snap technique usually used from the front hand. The mass is the hand with some shoulder behind it. The jab's power comes from the speed and snap of the arm. A reverse punch has more power because if done properly, the fist is thrust out like a piston being driven not just with the arm, but starting from the legs going to a twisting of the hips then shoulders, in other words the whole body. Therefore a reverse punch has the mass of the entire body behind it. Jabs are quicker but reverse punches are more powerful and slower.

True, but something which argues completely in support of the point I and others are making. In fact, I made exactly the same point above, noting that the weight difference of a dagger or a one-handed sword is trivial in comparison to the weight and muscle effort involved in using and moving your upper body or whole body. Which is why we do not give weapons speed bonuses or penalties to reflect such trivial differences. The technique and physical skill is what counts, not whether your weapon weighs a touch more.

 

I would point out that the difference between a jab and a reverse punch in mass is not "greatly different" - in fact it is not different by even the mass of an atom. What *is* different is the way that mass is deployed - as I keep saying, and as you note, it's technique that counts ... not mass.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Lucius]

Who was it who said "Past a certain point it is the man, not the weapon or system, that matters." ?

 

Lucius Alexander

 

The palindromedary helpfully says that I just said it but I mean, who said it FIRST?

[mhd]

I think that was Mao. Your go-to guy for medieval weaponry

[pinecone]

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

I think I have to agree with this...I know that violates the Prime Directive of the interwebz...lol

 

I have always dealt with this as a "circumstance mod"  Example: "The woods are close here so short weapons get a +2 Lightning reflex"

 

So you could likely put together a short list of Environments like "Close quarters" "Open ground" "Shield wall" "Chaotic melee" and call it "good".