Does anyone know whether any of the following systems for hand-to-hand weapons is more realistic?

• Better weapons do more damage.
• Better weapons are more likely to hit.
• If you attack someone who has a better weapon (eg you have a dagger, they have a polearm), they're likely to get a free hit on you instead, or prevent you closing with them.

depends on the game system.

And I understand you are asking realistically, but the answer depends on certain game factors, like if you have DR/Prot or just try to wash it all with an AC system, and much of #3 depends on how important weapon speed is considered.
#1 is often a question of degree, as well.

Exactly LV.

Consider

QuoteBetter weapons do more damage.
Better weapons are more likely to hit.
If you attack someone who has a better weapon (eg you have a dagger, they have a polearm), they're likely to get a free hit on you instead, or prevent you closing with them.

Depends on what damage and hit mean in the context of the game system. Also "better".

But look, in real life, a better sword has better balance, it's made of harder yet more resilient steel, and it's sharper. It's easier to move, you can do stuff with it that might break another sword, it'll defeat light armor better, and it'll cut better.

That's for two weapons that have similar design, just better execution in manufacture.

With fundamentally different weapons, it's a whole different question. A Celto-germanic long sword vs. a Roman gladius? Well, the long sword is more of a cutting/hacking weapon, the gladius a cut & thrust weapon. Similar if you compare a broadsword and a rapier. It's a matter of training, doctrine, and employment. (E.g. the gladius was intended for use by Roman soldiers fighting in  close formation with armor and large shields.)

Quote from: Age of Fable;369275Does anyone know whether any of the following systems for hand-to-hand weapons is more realistic?

• Better weapons do more damage.
• Better weapons are more likely to hit.
• If you attack someone who has a better weapon (eg you have a dagger, they have a polearm), they're likely to get a free hit on you instead, or prevent you closing with them.

My Delbrückian viewpoint:

• Better weapons don´t exist except re: metallurgy etc.
• Weapons must match tactics, which must match training (see the Longbow vs Crossbow debate that was one of the first threads on this site after Punditian takeover)
• In a realistic situation, polearms will psychologically deter you from closing, because that possible "free hit" could kill you. Still, if the Polearm wielder is alone or insecure, if you manage to slap away the sharp end, you can go for an infight-kill. This is what Rontartschiere were all about.

If you are in an HP environment, then tactics and psychology change UTTERLY. Sword & Shieldfighting would become paramount, paralelling the "fullplate brawls" of late middle ages.

There's also:

- Better weapons are less likely to break/shatter (metal weapons vs. bronze weapons)
- Better weapons reach farther (polearms)
- Better weapons strike faster (rapiers vs. longsword)
- Better weapons nullify this or that common defence/armor at the time (i.e. firearms in Europe)
etc.

It's specific to each weapon, first, IMO, with setting considerations next.

I guess kind of what we are all saying isdepends how you want to model them, how 'simulationist' you want to go, and in what way.  
I like weapons to hurt PCs, NPCs, and everyone in between.  And you'd be surprised how rare that is.

I´d suggest only to compare weapons of the same era. A rapier is basically a longsword, only better metallurgy. Arguments like Rapier versus Chainmail are a bit like Star Destroyer vs. Enterprise.

Quote from: Settembrini;369320I´d suggest only to compare weapons of the same era. A rapier is basically a longsword, only better metallurgy. Arguments like Rapier versus Chainmail are a bit like Star Destroyer vs. Enterprise.

(Boy, that is both the truth and part of the fun I enjoy...)

Quote from: Benoist;369313- Better weapons reach farther (polearms)
- Better weapons strike faster (rapiers vs. longsword)

These two were what I was getting at with the idea of attacking someone who has a better weapon than you leading to them getting a free strike.

But it sounds like it'd be too complicated to try and simulate to that degree.

Quote from: Age of Fable;369340These two were what I was getting at with the idea of attacking someone who has a better weapon than you leading to them getting a free strike.

But it sounds like it'd be too complicated to try and simulate to that degree.

When you say better, do you mean longer in this case?

Quote from: LordVreeg;369342When you say better, do you mean longer in this case?

Yes, in that case.

Rapier = longsword...depends on what you mean by "longsword".

I think of the term as primarily referring to the Celto-Germano-Roman spatha. Tolkien I think used the term in his Middle Earth stories, apparently meaning something similar, or maybe one of the swords used by knights in the high middle ages.

If you visit Wikipedia, you'll find an article which is heavily influenced by ARMA research, about which I'm personally a bit dubious, and in any case the terminology is probably anachronistic. You'll note that the article also relies on the "Oakeshott typology"...but that in turn doesn't refer to "longswords", just numbered types of swords.

"Broadsword" seems to be a more popular term these days but it's equally imprecise and anachronistic.

About the general problem, AoF, how familiar are you with games outside of D&D?

I can't say I've ever swung a sword or stabbed with a spear in anger--closest was backyard "melees" using sticks, and a brief fencing unit in high school.

Still, to me the most credible combat systems I've seen are Runequest/Elric, Harnmaster, and GURPS. Many others probably follow similar patterns. Burning Wheel might be worth a look if you can make heads or tails of it.

In general (for all the games I just mentioned), longer weapons get to strike first, particularly when first engaging. Better balanced weapons get to strike more often or with greater accuracy, thus it's easier to hit with a sword than an axe or a ball-and-chain. Smaller weapons are also faster (daggers). Bigger weapons cause more damage, and sometimes the system takes into account whether the weapon is made to deliver a heavier blow. (Thus, axes hit harder because their weight is distributed toward the end the shaft. Certain swords might also get a small bonus based on their design, e.g. the falchion.)

Some games also take into account the idea of "ideal range" so that as Sett describes, a spearman or halbardier has the advantage against someone with a dagger, unless the dagger-holder manages to dodge inside, and then the person with the pole weapon is at a disadvantage.

If you're designing a system then, after you've answered why you're bothering to do so, you should decide how you want it to play in a rough sense, how much complexity you're willing to tolerate, and then pick a few salient points that you'd like to emphasize.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;369353Rapier = longsword...depends on what you mean by "longsword".

I think of the term as primarily referring to the Celto-Germano-Roman spatha. Tolkien I think used the term in his Middle Earth stories, apparently meaning something similar, or maybe one of the swords used by knights in the high middle ages.

If you visit Wikipedia, you'll find an article which is heavily influenced by ARMA research, about which I'm personally a bit dubious, and in any case the terminology is probably anachronistic. You'll note that the article also relies on the "Oakeshott typology"...but that in turn doesn't refer to "longswords", just numbered types of swords.

"Broadsword" seems to be a more popular term these days but it's equally imprecise and anachronistic.

You sound like my SCA boys.
I have 4 players who are deep into this, and well studied.  Keeps me on my toes.

Really? If so my opinion of SCA just went up a few notches. I thought they were basically anachronistic-detail-obsessed antiquarians.

Our problem today is that we have a bunch of contemporary representations of weapons, both in vocabulary and visual art, then we have modern terms applied after the fact (18th-20th century), and finally we have the remains of some of the weapons themselves. People are tempted to try to match vocabulary to types 1 to 1, when in fact you could have the same word referring to multiple things, the same thing referred to by multiple words, things evolving over time, etc.