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.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;369369Really? 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.
Maybe I got the scholars?
They are really good, my boys. they really understand the fluid development
of weapons and armors
If you really look into it, you´ll find that we know jack shit about much of the medieval stuff. The jury is still out of what a "Godendag" actually is, for example.
Quote from: Settembrini;369720If you really look into it, you´ll find that we know jack shit about much of the medieval stuff. The jury is still out of what a "Godendag" actually is, for example.
I enjoy it when people contradict what IS known through simple analysis. We do have a certain amount of this equipment still in our possession.
I can't say about the Godendag, but possibly what Sett is referring to is, as I said, we lack contemporary words for the things that have survived. Or if the words exist, we don't know for sure how they match to the things.
And regarding the things, we may have no contemporary description, and no living tradition, of how they were used. So e.g. people make various attempts to reconstruct how a flail was swung, but we don't really know (AFAIK).
First, the term 'better' is entirely relative to situation. Its an imprecise term at best and you need to dismiss it from your mind. Or not.
Better is Situational.
Are you in a city, wearing 'street clothes' and the like? Then a light, thin fast blade is 'better'.
Are you on a battlefield where everyone is wearing fifty pounds of steel and lugging about great walloping blades? Then your poncy little city blade is faffing useless. On the other hand, depending upon what sort of armor is being worn it may very well be that a broadsword (longsword, arming sword, oakshott type umpteen dozen...) is better. Or it may mean that a big fucking whackum mace is best. On the other hand, if everyone else is lined up with a shield wall you might want a nice large bendy flail to flatten their skulls over that wall.
Better is Situational.
Personally? I'm all for giving weapons a fairly standardized damage for the most part (a la WHFRPG) and noting the differences in other sections of the rules.
Quote from: Spike;369736First, the term 'better' is entirely relative to situation. Its an imprecise term at best and you need to dismiss it from your mind. Or not.
Better is Situational.
Are you in a city, wearing 'street clothes' and the like? Then a light, thin fast blade is 'better'.
Are you on a battlefield where everyone is wearing fifty pounds of steel and lugging about great walloping blades? Then your poncy little city blade is faffing useless. On the other hand, depending upon what sort of armor is being worn it may very well be that a broadsword (longsword, arming sword, oakshott type umpteen dozen...) is better. Or it may mean that a big fucking whackum mace is best. On the other hand, if everyone else is lined up with a shield wall you might want a nice large bendy flail to flatten their skulls over that wall.
Better is Situational.
Personally? I'm all for giving weapons a fairly standardized damage for the most part (a la WHFRPG) and noting the differences in other sections of the rules.
You know, I did the opposite. Not saying I am right.
I use protection as well as avoidance, and becasue of the high damage of any weapon, and really high damage of big ones, protection (your fifty pounds of steel) is far more useful in most pitched battles than avoiding a few blows.
I did it to deal with situational better. My online game has 2 guys that use rapier-type weapons. And they are finding that against heavily armored humanoids, they need to do a lot of chipping away...a lot...
I enjoy this site (http://www.thearma.org/essays/2HGS.html)a lot for this and use it regularly for modelling weapons.
Quote from: LordVreeg;369725I enjoy it when people contradict what IS known through simple analysis. We do have a certain amount of this equipment still in our possession.
The discussion re: Godendag is about whether it was more of a halberd/bill or more of a pike, which has repercussion as to the tactics involved in the Battle of Kortrijk aka Courtray for example. EDIT: Just do a google picture search on Godendag to get a glimpse on the confusion.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;369353Rapier = longsword...depends on what you mean by "longsword".
Sometimes, longsword refers to a primarily thrusting weapon with a blade like a narrow triangle, balanced near the hilt, as became more common in the middle ages as heavier armor became more common. This is contrasted with the broadsword that has parallel sides and a bit of a point at the end, with more weight in the blade that was the norm in the dark ages, such as most viking swords. This is how the terms are used most commonly in rpgs.
But as you said, these are recent labels. Designations varied both over time and region. Most classifications come out of the Victorian obsession with systems of classification.
Quote from: Spike;369736First, the term 'better' is entirely relative to situation. Its an imprecise term at best and you need to dismiss it from your mind. Or not.
Better is Situational.
Are you in a city, wearing 'street clothes' and the like? Then a light, thin fast blade is 'better'.
Are you on a battlefield where everyone is wearing fifty pounds of steel and lugging about great walloping blades? Then your poncy little city blade is faffing useless. On the other hand, depending upon what sort of armor is being worn it may very well be that a broadsword (longsword, arming sword, oakshott type umpteen dozen...) is better. Or it may mean that a big fucking whackum mace is best. On the other hand, if everyone else is lined up with a shield wall you might want a nice large bendy flail to flatten their skulls over that wall.
Better is Situational.
Personally? I'm all for giving weapons a fairly standardized damage for the most part (a la WHFRPG) and noting the differences in other sections of the rules.
Can I just tell you that in my online game, I am being somewhat taken to task for 2 characters being frustrated their rapier's aren't pentrating medium armors well.
Too bad I made the rules to mimic reality. silly me.
There is a lot of shifting around the word 'better' and also trying to place it into context. To try and answer your question allow me yo make the following assumptions:
1) You are comparting like for like weaponry of similar design (weight, length etc.), so rapier vs rapier, pole-axe vs pole-axe, etc.
2) Both combatants wear comparible armour, leather jerkin vs lether jerkin, chainmail vs chainmail etc.
3) Both compatants are equally skilled with the weapon and other combat techniques
You are asking should someone have a 'better' weapon, on balance would the person with the better weapon do more damage, more likely to hit, or 'what' compared to the other combatant with the 'inferior' weapon. I believe it depends on the weapon, to overly simplify:
'Hacking' swords or axes have the weight in the blade to better cut into the opposition and defeat armour. Note this does not mean the weapon is heavy, there a many examples or war axes which have very small heads as they were designed to be fast and break collar bones. For hacking weapons a 'better' weapon would do more damage in my opinion.
a 'cut and thrust' one-handed weapon (and some 2-handed) had the balance nearer the hilt to allow the blade to be controlled and constantly in motion. I would say a 'better' blade would have greater chance to hit.
A 'stabbing' weapon (I would not be keen to put spears in this area, asthey slice terribly well, ask any boar hunter who has used one), I would say is more likely to do damage OR less likely to break/become trapped in the victim.
I have a theory, possibly w/o merit, still firmly believe in it, though: the concept of "damage done" is utterly not how combattants ever thought about the matter.
Quote from: LordVreeg;370245Can I just tell you that in my online game, I am being somewhat taken to task for 2 characters being frustrated their rapier's aren't pentrating medium armors well.
Too bad I made the rules to mimic reality. silly me.
I like that. Have they parried any heavier weapons with their flimsy little blades yet?
I am sure we agree on the particulars (you said something before about being opposite...): a rapier is a fine, and deadly, weapon to wear about town where speed and skill(?) are important and armor is almost non-existant. Plus: Its fashionable.
Which is why they were so very popular after firearms made heavy armor less attractive, even on the battlefields (though to my understanding the cuiriassers at waterloo were virtually immune to musket fire. Though not so much to cannon...)... less armor means slim, fast blades are more universally applicable.
Quote from: Spike;370468I like that. Have they parried any heavier weapons with their flimsy little blades yet?
I am sure we agree on the particulars (you said something before about being opposite...): a rapier is a fine, and deadly, weapon to wear about town where speed and skill(?) are important and armor is almost non-existant. Plus: Its fashionable.
Which is why they were so very popular after firearms made heavy armor less attractive, even on the battlefields (though to my understanding the cuiriassers at waterloo were virtually immune to musket fire. Though not so much to cannon...)... less armor means slim, fast blades are more universally applicable.
few people use the parry maneuver in the system...more should try, based on the attrition rate. I'll describe what is happenning mechanically.
Rapiers are very fast in our setting, and are made for exactly what you describe. They have a base speed of three+roll (less with a higher coordination), and are much faster than most other weapons, but they do only (13-26)/d6 damage (normally plus a point or 2 for strength after the divider.
The last set of gnollics they were fighting have Ring Mail and silk, which makes them pretty easy to hit, but they have moderate protection ((32-d10)/(2d6*.5)), which gives a max prot of 32, an average of 8, and a minimum of 4.
So while the rapiers are attacking faster and often getting 3-4 hits for every 2-3 hits of other weaps, the damage of the rapiers barely get through.
Dear lord! If that's how you resolve DAMAGE no wonder no one wants to try parrying!!! :)
As a gamer it took many years for me to learn that all out offensives have their place in games...and that place IS NOT 'every attack'.
Running RQ I've seen that my players must occasionally be promted to worry about defense or I'll steam roller them quickly. After a year or so of playing they seem to have gotten the idea.
Quote from: Spike;370485Dear lord! If that's how you resolve DAMAGE no wonder no one wants to try parrying!!! :)
As a gamer it took many years for me to learn that all out offensives have their place in games...and that place IS NOT 'every attack'.
Running RQ I've seen that my players must occasionally be promted to worry about defense or I'll steam roller them quickly. After a year or so of playing they seem to have gotten the idea.
Arr, the parry mechanic is pretty simple. anyway...
Our system is low HP, high damage potential...someone pokes you with a sword and you aren't armor, you can die pretty easily
The Rapiers I´ve seen are swords by any meaning of the word. "not getting through", compared to what? Metallurgy is metallurgy.
"Rapier" is also used to cover a variety of swords from a long period. So it depends on what you mean by "rapier", too.
Nevertheless over time from, say, 11th century to 18th century, swords changed. A quick review of the Oakeshott typology here (http://www.algonet.se/~enda/oakeshott_eng.htm) indicates that they first got bigger, then introduced fundamental changes in design to better support use as thrusting rather than cutting weapons. (Removal of the fuller, diamond cross-section, tapering to a point.)
The Wikipedia article on "Rapier" is consistent with other things I've read, which you can take at face value. The point is that when we say "rapier" we're most often referring to a civilian weapon, used for fighting in the style advocated by 16th-century dueling theories. Over time it became lighter and shorter to better suit those specific needs.
I highly doubt that any sword thrust is going to penetrate armor plate, so the question is whether your weapon is heavy enough that it won't deform when pushed into the cracks. "Rapiers" in general, and later ones in particular, arguably didn't measure up to what in modern terminology are often called "estocs". Let alone to weapons that actually could crack armor, like pikes & halberds.
Exactly.
Well, the point I think is that if you're fighting someone or something with articulated or overlapping plates of armor, then most swordstrikes are all-or-nothing. Personally I'd be surprised if even a greatsword/zweihander/hand-and-a-half-sword could penetrate a plate when swung. (There would be some bruising and the possibility of knocking the other person down.)
If used for thrusting, then if you can find a crack, you'll do some real damage. (This is a problem with most "armor absorbs" systems: the technique of going around instead of through armor just doesn't work. OTOH this is a good argument in favor of Elric/Stormbringer's variable armor absorption approach.)
A heavier, more rigid sword should work better for this because it'd be less likely to be deflected and more likely to slide into a crevice.
If you buy this model/analysis, then (again) what we think of as a "rapier" isn't going to be as effective as an "estoc".
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;370587Well, the point I think is that if you're fighting someone or something with articulated or overlapping plates of armor, then most swordstrikes are all-or-nothing. Personally I'd be surprised if even a greatsword/zweihander/hand-and-a-half-sword could penetrate a plate when swung. (There would be some bruising and the possibility of knocking the other person down.)
If used for thrusting, then if you can find a crack, you'll do some real damage. (This is a problem with most "armor absorbs" systems: the technique of going around instead of through armor just doesn't work. OTOH this is a good argument in favor of Elric/Stormbringer's variable armor absorption approach.)
A heavier, more rigid sword should work better for this because it'd be less likely to be deflected and more likely to slide into a crevice.
If you buy this model/analysis, then (again) what we think of as a "rapier" isn't going to be as effective as an "estoc".
this is why i dumped slash/mash/thrust and varaible absorbtions of same.
I have enough to keep track of, and I managed to achieve 90% of what I wanted with the weap speeds in a continuous init system/as well as changing the damage and protection bell curves through the use of dividing dice. But 'penetrating' the heavier armors was rarely the affect.
I agree very much with Eliot that the point of whacking overlapping plates with a large sowrd was often percussive and very often trying to use the 'edge' (such as it was after whacking metal) to direct the maximum force to a minimal area, hopefully finding a spot to 'catch' in the armor.
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.
I "model" some of these differences in my mechanics with two variables, Weapon Speed and Penetration.
(1) "better" weaopns do more damage or "hit" versus armored opponents because they have higher Penetration so can ignore more armor (which absorbs damage).
(2) "better" weapons are more balanced so they are faster (they have less of an Initiative penalty and greater chance to swing more than once) and thus are more likely to "hit" the other guy before he hits you.
(3) On this last one I use an off the cuff zone of control idea, the guy with such a longer weapon gets a first swing at you, but if you get past that he's in trouble, penalties for close in use, slower weapon.
Quote from: Spike;369736First, the term 'better' is entirely relative to situation. Its an imprecise term at best and you need to dismiss it from your mind. Or not.
Better is Situational.
Are you in a city, wearing 'street clothes' and the like? Then a light, thin fast blade is 'better'.
Are you on a battlefield where everyone is wearing fifty pounds of steel and lugging about great walloping blades? Then your poncy little city blade is faffing useless....
In rules terms, does this mean that old D&Ds optional weapon vs armour rules are realistic?
Quote from: Age of Fable;370669In rules terms, does this mean that old D&Ds optional weapon vs armour rules are realistic?
Yes and no. they had an additional element of realism but the fundamental system is still faulted. By which I mean it is much easier to hit a guy in plate than it is to hit a guy wearing no armour. You just do no damage most of the time. However if you hit a guy in plate with a mattock or a maul they will still feel the impact and may well be knocked off their feet even if no penetration occurs. D&D doesn't cope with any of that.
Having said that the fact that a warhammer is a better weapon against a plate armoured opponent than a scimitar is true and should be reflected in the rules.
I still don't like the variable armour absorbtion rule. I would prefer a simple damage protection for amour then called shots to target 'chinks', some weapon based effects (like a pick reduces amour absorbtion by 2 points) and then some sort of way with dealing with heavy blows that don't penetrate (strength checks for example). This should mean there is enough variability in tactics by the detail is contained within each wepon and clearly written on the charcter sheet, which shoudl mean that in actual combat resolution is very fast.
On the rapier argument I suspect a skilled fencer could easily defeat a fully plate armoured combatant in a 1:1 situation. The field of view available to a guy in a full helm is so restricted and despite armoured knight actually being pretty mobile and not lumbering beamoths the armour does restrict. A good fencer can target an area the size of a button and I suspect that they could slide a blade past armour quite easily. The weakness of course is that they can easily loose or break their wepon as a result. The stength of knights was always in massed ranks and then the guy next to you can thwak the dex faggot on the head with a mace whilst he is trying to stick a rapier through the opening in your visor.
Something I've dabbled in is giving a strike bonus to guys in plate. In my own game system, letting yourself be hit grants a large bonus to strike so long as you can reasonably be expected to carry through with your action, despite the damage. Anyone with the super power of invulnerability really likes this option.
I think it would be the same for plate. The ability to ignore the huge number of glancing shots would increase your ability to attack. I think a guy in plate with a long sword up against lightly armed and armored infantry should gain strike bonuses and additional attacks.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;370587Well, the point I think is that if you're fighting someone or something with articulated or overlapping plates of armor, then most swordstrikes are all-or-nothing. Personally I'd be surprised if even a greatsword/zweihander/hand-and-a-half-sword could penetrate a plate when swung. (There would be some bruising and the possibility of knocking the other person down.)
I've been curious about how bad the bruising is. The ringing in your hands must be tremendous when you clash steel against steel. My friends in the SCA have some bullshit armor that they made to use against wooden weapons. It doesn't even seem to protect them against being punched or kicked is someone was halfway serious.
Quote from: Cranewings;371963Something I've dabbled in is giving a strike bonus to guys in plate. In my own game system, letting yourself be hit grants a large bonus to strike so long as you can reasonably be expected to carry through with your action, despite the damage. Anyone with the super power of invulnerability really likes this option.
I think it would be the same for plate. The ability to ignore the huge number of glancing shots would increase your ability to attack. I think a guy in plate with a long sword up against lightly armed and armored infantry should gain strike bonuses and additional attacks.
I can't see how wearing plate shoudl give you additional attacks or a strike bonus.
First of all full plate on foot is pretty much of a non starter cos although you are far more mobiel than people give credit for gettign up once you have been knocked over is a bit of a shit and a guy ont eh floor in a melee is dead end of.
Second the lack of vision is something hugely overlooked and it makes a vast difference.
Lastly however mobile that armour maybe you will not be as fast as a guy who isn't wearing armour.
I have been watching some of the Deadliest Warrior tv shows. Really quite bad and cheesier than a 4 cheese pizza with cheese on the side but there is a degree of science (certainly more than from Internet forum anecdotes). They do tests of weapons versus armour etc of various historical types. They basically do stuff like shoot breasplates with arrows, smack crash test dummies with morning stars etc from what I have seen on that a pick can puncture a hole in a plate helmet (the thickest part of the armour) fairly easily and Gygax was right a halberd really can destroy just about anything :)
Check out he Wiki entry and decide if it has any useful information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadliest_Warrior
Quote from: jibbajibba;371980I can't see how wearing plate shoudl give you additional attacks or a strike bonus.
I think it's reasonable, but the effect is hard to pin down, so I wouldn't personally want to worry about it.
Still, take a look at this guy (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=160842#160842). Granted, I'm completely untrained, but if I were facing an unarmored person and two of us had similar weapons, I think we'd be spending a fair amount of time jockeying for position and feinting. (If you've ever seen the movie
Yojimbo, it has a very plausible portrayal of what real people with a sense of self-preservation are likely to do when they come within striking distance of each other.) A man in armor would have the confidence to approach and intimidate his opponent, keeping him off-balance.
In game terms it might be more desirable to use a "stance" or "positioning" option where someone could choose to fight aggressively giving a bonus to attack and a penalty to defense, or conservatively having the opposite effect. Especially if combined with a system that uses "armor absorbs" (RQ or GURPS), a heavily-armored attacker could opt to use armor for an offensive advantage this way. In Harnmaster you get exactly this if the armored character uses Counterstrike as their defensive option.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;371993I think it's reasonable, but the effect is hard to pin down, so I wouldn't personally want to worry about it.
Still, take a look at this guy (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/download.php?id=23745). Granted, I'm completely untrained, but if I were facing an unarmored person and two of us had similar weapons, I think we'd be spending a fair amount of time jockeying for position and feinting. (If you've ever seen the movie Yojimbo, it has a very plausible portrayal of what real people with a sense of self-preservation are likely to do when they come within striking distance of each other.) A man in armor would have the confidence to approach and intimidate his opponent, keeping him off-balance.
In game terms it might be more desirable to use a "stance" or "positioning" option where someone could choose to fight aggressively giving a bonus to attack and a penalty to defense, or conservatively having the opposite effect. Especially if combined with a system that uses "armor absorbs" (RQ or GURPS), a heavily-armored attacker could opt to use armor for an offensive advantage this way. In Harnmaster you get exactly this if the armored character uses Counterstrike as their defensive option.
The whole positioning to attack thing is about training I think. Give me a sword and I woudl be shit shared about getting killed but give it to someone who's trained and they will just get on in there and kill the other guy while he hesitates. I mean iajitsu is an entire discipline about how to draw your blade and kill your opponent in one move.
The stance option is the obvious way to go with the armour advantage being passive rather than active (ie it doesn't give you more options but in preventing you from dying it makes some of the options you already had a lot more attractive).
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;371993I think it's reasonable, but the effect is hard to pin down, so I wouldn't personally want to worry about it.
Still, take a look at this guy (http://www.myarmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?p=160842#160842). Granted, I'm completely untrained, but if I were facing an unarmored person and two of us had similar weapons, I think we'd be spending a fair amount of time jockeying for position and feinting. (If you've ever seen the movie Yojimbo, it has a very plausible portrayal of what real people with a sense of self-preservation are likely to do when they come within striking distance of each other.) A man in armor would have the confidence to approach and intimidate his opponent, keeping him off-balance.
In game terms it might be more desirable to use a "stance" or "positioning" option where someone could choose to fight aggressively giving a bonus to attack and a penalty to defense, or conservatively having the opposite effect. Especially if combined with a system that uses "armor absorbs" (RQ or GURPS), a heavily-armored attacker could opt to use armor for an offensive advantage this way. In Harnmaster you get exactly this if the armored character uses Counterstrike as their defensive option.
we have part of this with the parry skill option, protective armor and high damage weapsn, but a characer can go defensive, at least, and add some off their chance to hit into protection.