TheRPGSite

I am somewhat obsessed with medieval weapons and I have written extensively about them, trying to make sense of physics, history and, well, AD&D.

Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find or create a system that satisfies my needs (I want: simple, sensible, and detailed). Here is my latest attempt:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-new-terminology-for-d-weapons-and.html

AD&D measures weapons in several ways I find interesting:

- Price, weight, and cost, as most RPGs do.
- Speed.
- Length.
- Effectiveness against armor.
- Effectiveness against large creatures.

3e also measures frequency and power of critical hits.

My main problem is that most systems feel inaccurate and too fiddly for me.

In AD&D, for example, a two-handed sword is heavier than the longest polearms and heaviest axes and maces, IIRC. And the weapon versus armor table is confusing and too extensive.

In 3e, all swords have good "crit ranges", making them good against plate armor - especially heavy and curved swords!

Now, my question is: does anyone else care about this stuff or is it just me? Do you want weapons to have any detail beside 1d8 damage? Do you know any systems that deal with this is a detailed, sensible and simple manner?

EDIT: I'm also considering writing a 20-40 pages PDF on these issues, maybe with optional rules for OSR games, but I don't know if anyone else is as interested in medieval weapons.

With weapons you can have simple or you can have detailed: not both.
For example, an european longsword and a katana (or better, a tachi) of the same period (let's say middle 15th century) are functionally identical against unarmored opponets.... but the materials they're made of are different enough that the defensive techniques for them are wildly different.
How do you track that (important) difference in game while staying "simple", especially in a D&D like framework ?

Well, there's always GURPS and Rolemaster.

GURPS Low-Tech is probably the best I've said for dealing with different weapons vs. armor types. Fantasy Hero offers a fair amount of customization without quite that level of detail.

The longsword/katana distinction might be more detail than I want... but maybe longsword is slightly better against armor (or parrying), and katana does slightly more damage to large creatures or unarmored foes.

GURPS was good at this, but too complex to the point of becoming unrealistic: a 10-second fight between two people has 20 or more sword blows, most being parried.

You needed additional optional rules ("lulls", not sure which product) to make it more realistic.

The 1-second rounds also ruined axes and maces IIRC, because they attacked once in every two rounds (not sure about that).

Rolemaster was pretty fun, but relied too much on tables.

The thing I'm looking for is similar to AD&D, but a bit simpler. For example, reducing AC bonus to a single number:

(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEg8MS-KU8UPOyTGwBz4Kc6r6WGE78mv8camOvYur1B6Ma-oa-RMvUg2ZotYeLbsGtG1NQRxDXKKuM90sjXx_mZ7Z-LGP6fTwTzQb5U3PzbFJwAgf_v3p4LpRXF5dGFkc3Dea959Y2skSOnUkwukDnyxdfbRRcZXCpRiHruTmImmpbKhuu138H383ojuBNdx)

You shouldn't be using categories and then collapsing them into real names.  A long sword is a real thing, it shouldn't be derived from your categories.  You should have a category that describes a long sword and then apply it to that.  In your system, for instance, you would have the idea of a large bladed slashing weapon, and that's the rules that your system would use for a katana or a longsword or a khanda or anything that works that way.

It's unusual to see the classification "great" (which is used in some real world names) over "large", but that's ok.  Did you require two hands on that classification somewhere?

Anyway, you can't serve two masters here.
You can go for realism, which is a great goal, and you'll definitely end up with your system favoring some weapons over others.
You can go for game balance with realism fulfilled as much as possible, which will give you a huge table like in multiple AD&D books.  That's fine too, and you can do the game balance better than those tables had too.  Note that in certain systems, weapon length is really important, and in others, it is not. Similar for speed factor.  So if you have either or both of those, make sure it's clear what you are balancing it for.
Finally, you can go for simplicity.  This gives you the game balance mostly for free, and your table is small, and weapons fit into your categories easily enough.

But you CAN NOT do simplicity and realism.  This is because the real world weapons are not simple in their differences. You'll have to file off enough details to consider reasonably different weapons as the same in your system, or you'll have to proliferate stuff.  The idea that "curved weapons crit more" and "pointy weapons crit harder" isn't really realistic, for instance, even though the idea is simple.

I don't want to choke on weapon details but something I've been homebrewing for years is a damage plus effect type of thing.  Here's a sample:

A spear can keep an enemy at bay for a turn if the attacker gets 2 or more above the target.
An ax will reduce the armor of a target by -1 if the attacker gets 2 or more above the target and -2 on a crit.
A mace will concuss a target with a crit.

Quote from: Venka on April 22, 2024, 12:02:37 PMIt's unusual to see the classification "great" (which is used in some real world names) over "large", but that's ok.  Did you require two hands on that classification somewhere?

I used "great" over large because greatsword, greataxe, great mace, and greatclub are all easy to understand. Yes, these would require 2H.

Quote from: Venka on April 22, 2024, 12:08:43 PMBut you CAN NOT do simplicity and realism.

I see what you're saying, but there are shades of gray. B/X is too simplist for me, AD&D too complicated. There must be a middle ground somewhere (Hyperborea, which I haven't finished reading, seems to aim at that).

I struggle with this too and the pinnacle of realism AFIAC is a matrix of weapon vs armor with each cell describing initiative, to-hit, and damage. AC, weapon speed, etc are just abstractions that simplify the matrix at the cost of realism. But even that matrix does not account for the defensive capabilities of weapons. So then we need a matrix of kit vs kit. 

I've created small matrices like this but then I flip the other way and think it should all just be role played with ad hoc bonuses or penalties. Such is life. I'm defintely interested to see what you come up with.

You could look at pendragon, weapons there do differing effects by type such as damaging shields or armor or tripping or what have you.

There are compromises between detail and realism.  As an example, for me the D&D weapon vs armor table was too much.  But for my previous project I decided to go with a 3x3 matrix, with slicing, piecing, and blunt weapons on one side, and no armor, flexible armor, and stiff armor on the other side.  It works alright if you're willing to take them time.  In my current project, I went another way entirely.  There are about 30 combat maneuvers, and each weapon is better or worse at a few of them.  So axe gets a plus on furious attack and a minus on defense and so on.

I'm also interested in this kind of thing.  I don't think it is quite so stark as what Venka expressed--though what he said is still mostly on target.

I would say instead that you can get some mix of realism/simplicity/other if you limit yourself to "good enough".  Or in the case or realism, you instead think of it as "nods to realism".  That is, a game is a model, which is already not entirely accurate even if you toss out all concerns for simplicity, ease of play, game options, etc. 

For "nods to realism" to be of any consequence, they must be reflected in the model.  It can't be entirely shallow, either.  For example, from a realistic modeling stand point, just looking at medieval melee weapons, you'd like to distinguish cut, slash, bludgeon, pierce, and then also some of the combination effects (say, bludgeon/cut from an axe).  However, if your system has no reasonable mechanic to model the different effects of cut versus slash, then the distinction is useless.  If you roll everything up into a damage against hit points, then even the slash/bludgeon/pierce may be overkill.

That's where the "nod" comes in--when you have a mechanic like occasional damage reduction against certain types of damage, so that slash/bludgeon/pierce matters a little.  It's only a nod, because it doesn't get to modelling any types of attacks or specific armor piece but it does give a reason in game tenuously related to reality why someone would use a different weapon.

So my answer is that first you determine what mechanics your system is wiling to support that will meet your simplicity goals.  Only after that is done can you then decide what nods to realism will work. 

That's also why this kind of thing never really works well when reverse-engineered on top of D&D while trying to be backwards compatible.  The D&D mechanics don't work that way.  If you change them so that they do work that way, you are moving away from compatibility.  The hoops that one jumps through trying to retain that compatibility and simplicity while tacking on the realism have an even worse complicating effect than Venka outlined, compared to building a system from the ground up.

Eric,

i like where you're headed, and it somewhat echoes a project I'm working on. But I ditch realism:

1. Four weapon categories: d4, d6, d8, d10
2. Five weapon types: axes, blades, clubs, flails, polearms
3. Imagine a matrix (cat x type) but not all of the cells are filled.
4. Two handed = d10 weapons and polearms

Example:

Blades
d4: Dagger
d6: Short sword
d8: Broadsword
d10: Great sword

Clubs
d4: Sap
d6: Club
d8: Mace
d10: Great club

Some design principles:

1. Rules light
2. Playability > realism
3. No historical accuracy
4. A sword is a sword. "Broadsword" covers a saber, katana, scimitar, tulwar, falchion, etc.
5. Each type has a feature (polearms can keep enemies at reach, etc.)

I throw a lot of complexity out the window, both from AD&D (weapon speed, weapon length, weapons vs. armor, etc.) and 3.5 (simple vs. martial, double weapons, weapon sizes, etc.)

The D&D combat system was designed to be simple and abstract. Tacking detail on it generally leads to unsatisfactory results. The basic D&D combat chassis of rolling to hit, and rolling simple damage vs a pile of mounting hit points starts to have issues the more you try to jazz it up.

I have my own issues with it, the primary one being variable weapon damage. It is a system that creates winner and loser weapons simple due to the assigned damages. My current project that I am working on for a planned OSE campaign is removing all weapon damage completely and starting over. All of these medieval weapons are very deadly and can inflict brutal wounds. You will almost never see a classic D&D hoplite fighter using spear & shield when using var weapon damage because choosing a d6 over a d8 weapon is sub-optimal. I am moving away from specific damage from particular weapons. I have all weapons classed as small, medium, large, and great. The actual damage inflicted depends on the expertise of the wielder. Martial classes have the best damage, semi-martial classes have medium damage, and non-martial classes have the lowest damage.

I am also doing away with multiple attack rolls. Instead, base weapon damages go up with level gain. The more martially focused the class, the quicker weapon damage rises. I am also giving martial and semi-martial classes a base AC boost with armor adding on to that. Still tweaking the numbers on the scaling damage amounts but they are significant. A barely trained militiaman might only do 1d3 damage fighting with a dagger but a grizzled 7th level fighter will be doing 1d10 with that same dagger.

Oooh... We're touching on a subject which is near and dear to my heart.

For my money, if you want a fairly realistic approach to the way ancient/medieval/early modern weapons and armor interact, the optimum way is to address three factors for weapons:

--Ability to circumvent armor: i.e., the ability to strike at gaps or weak points in armor.
--Concussive force: i.e., blunt force trauma,
--Penetrative capability: slashing and piercing.

The ability to circumvent armor by striking at weak points is critical, because it is the entire purpose of many weapons, such as the rondel dagger and most types of late medieval sword. Some historians assert that it is also the purpose of massed bow fire. As far as concussion and penetration goes, the balancing there is fairly obvious: A piercing sword like a rapier has good penetration, but almost no concussion, a cutting sword a bit more concussion and less penetration, an axe a fairly even mix of the two, and a mace pure concussion.

Armor would then optimally reflect the same three factors, with a rating for thoroughness of coverage, and concussion and penetration resistance stats. Mail for example, would have good penetration resistance, but minimal concussion resistance. Textile armor would have little of either, but perhaps better against concussion than penetration, and renaissance style full plate good levels for all.

This is the only system I can think of which represents the choices of weapon vs. armor as they were in history. E.g., if you expect opponents to be in head-to-toe mail, as you might if you were fighting 12th or 13th century knights, you really want a lance (which should have an extremely high penetration rate when couched from horseback) mace or hammer, but if those aren't an option, a battleaxe is a good second choice, which is exactly the trend in battlefield weapons during that time.

The additional wrinkle you could add in is a bonus to combat checks (attack if you're using D&D rules, but optimally both attack and defense), to represent the combination of reach and wieldiness. That further ups the realism of the decision making, since while an axe might be a more damaging weapon, a sword is much more nimble.

The point of doing all this for a game IMO, is to give your players a more interesting choice to make when choosing their loadout, and to allow you as DM to mix up the dynamic by changing the weapons and armor in play. Being forced by social circumstance to carry "civilian" weapons such as swords and knives makes much more difference when a sword and an axe no longer have the exact same utility.

Admittedly, the level of complexity this requires is possibly too much to be practical. I haven't tried to implement it in my own games, but where I can, I do aim for half-measures that move towards the same effect.

I think the weapon differences can be fun, but difficult. I always like 3e's method of varying weapons by giving them different abilities. So, for example, the ability to wield a longsword with one or two hands, and the difference is either being able to use your off hand or getting a damage bonus. The only downside is that it might favor some weapons. Then again, there's a reason some weapons were so common in real life. A spear is easy to use, can set against cavalry, and you can support over the guy in front of you.

Another example is the billhook: you can poke, slash, and chop. It can be used to support allies, and you can use it to drag cavalrymen off their mounts. I think having abilities tied into the weapon for this make them unique, but then again it makes stuff like a shortsword look meek in comparison. At the end of the day though if players flock around a handful of weapons it makes it easier to stock magic weapons you know they'll use.

Bonuses vs. specific armors is really cool but really unwieldy. It makes sense that a mace gets +2 vs Plate, but a sword has -2. However, it really can slow down combat. I liked AD&D 1e's approach where weapons get a bonus/penalty vs. a specific AC, but that loses out on some of the realism since a high DEX thief with leather can have a 3. Why would a mace get a bonus against that? Either way, I think it's neat but I will say I think you either gotta go whole hog with realism, or nothing at all.

Either way, if I found a Billhook +1, I'd be a happy Fighter.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 22, 2024, 12:02:01 PMGURPS was good at this, but too complex to the point of becoming unrealistic: a 10-second fight between two people has 20 or more sword blows, most being parried.

There's nothing unrealistic in this, ten seconds are an eternity in a close combat fight. Same goes for the parries, the absolute majority of fighting styles emphasize defense for a reason; what's totally unrealistic, instead, is being hit (good hit, not a glancing blow) more than once or twice by a sword and not dying.

[sorry, posted twice. is there a way to erase a post?]

Quote from: NotFromAroundHere on April 23, 2024, 01:11:09 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 22, 2024, 12:02:01 PMGURPS was good at this, but too complex to the point of becoming unrealistic: a 10-second fight between two people has 20 or more sword blows, most being parried.

There's nothing unrealistic in this, ten seconds are an eternity in a close combat fight. Same goes for the parries, the absolute majority of fighting styles emphasize defense for a reason; what's totally unrealistic, instead, is being hit (good hit, not a glancing blow) more than once or twice by a sword and not dying.

I disagree.

No 10-second fight has 20 blows. Maybe you can find a 10-second period in a 5-minute fight with such a frantic pace, or a fight that ended in 10 seconds with a single punch, but I never seem such a frantic pace of attacking in fencing, UFC, larping, or medieval fighting simulations. If you have, send me the YouTube link

10-second combats only make sense if weapons are present and armor absent, but then they'll probably be finished before 20 blows.

Other than that, a duel (not to mention a skirmish) of say, people in swords and armor, will definitely last more than 10-seconds - in fact one might take a few seconds just to find an opening before approaching.

Same for people with no weapons and no armor. - even boxing matches do not have two punches per second, and punching is faster than swinging an axe!

GURPS kinda recognized this by publishing the "lull" supplement I mentioned but unfortunately can't find.

Without armor, I agree that taking a couple of sword blows would lead to death.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 22, 2024, 08:37:17 PMOooh... We're touching on a subject which is near and dear to my heart.

For my money, if you want a fairly realistic approach to the way ancient/medieval/early modern weapons and armor interact, the optimum way is to address three factors for weapons:

--Ability to circumvent armor: i.e., the ability to strike at gaps or weak points in armor.
--Concussive force: i.e., blunt force trauma,
--Penetrative capability: slashing and piercing.

The ability to circumvent armor by striking at weak points is critical, because it is the entire purpose of many weapons, such as the rondel dagger and most types of late medieval sword. Some historians assert that it is also the purpose of massed bow fire. As far as concussion and penetration goes, the balancing there is fairly obvious: A piercing sword like a rapier has good penetration, but almost no concussion, a cutting sword a bit more concussion and less penetration, an axe a fairly even mix of the two, and a mace pure concussion.

Armor would then optimally reflect the same three factors, with a rating for thoroughness of coverage, and concussion and penetration resistance stats. Mail for example, would have good penetration resistance, but minimal concussion resistance. Textile armor would have little of either, but perhaps better against concussion than penetration, and renaissance style full plate good levels for all.

This is the only system I can think of which represents the choices of weapon vs. armor as they were in history. E.g., if you expect opponents to be in head-to-toe mail, as you might if you were fighting 12th or 13th century knights, you really want a lance (which should have an extremely high penetration rate when couched from horseback) mace or hammer, but if those aren't an option, a battleaxe is a good second choice, which is exactly the trend in battlefield weapons during that time.

The additional wrinkle you could add in is a bonus to combat checks (attack if you're using D&D rules, but optimally both attack and defense), to represent the combination of reach and wieldiness. That further ups the realism of the decision making, since while an axe might be a more damaging weapon, a sword is much more nimble.

The point of doing all this for a game IMO, is to give your players a more interesting choice to make when choosing their loadout, and to allow you as DM to mix up the dynamic by changing the weapons and armor in play. Being forced by social circumstance to carry "civilian" weapons such as swords and knives makes much more difference when a sword and an axe no longer have the exact same utility.

Admittedly, the level of complexity this requires is possibly too much to be practical. I haven't tried to implement it in my own games, but where I can, I do aim for half-measures that move towards the same effect.

This is useful, thanks. Maybe the problem is that I'm putting maces and rondel dagger in the same "defeat armor" category, but they defeat armor for different reasons...

Another thing I don't even want to consider is swords that cut AND thrust - or worse, swords techniques such as half-swording.

Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on April 22, 2024, 09:25:38 PMBonuses vs. specific armors is really cool but really unwieldy. It makes sense that a mace gets +2 vs Plate, but a sword has -2. However, it really can slow down combat. I liked AD&D 1e's approach where weapons get a bonus/penalty vs. a specific AC, but that loses out on some of the realism since a high DEX thief with leather can have a 3. Why would a mace get a bonus against that? Either way, I think it's neat but I will say I think you either gotta go whole hog with realism, or nothing at all.

IIRC the DMG explains this: "AC 2" really means "plate", so a thief in leather and very high dex uses a different column.

...which adds to the confusion, of course, since "AC 5" has 3 or more different meanings.

Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on April 22, 2024, 09:25:38 PMI think the weapon differences can be fun, but difficult. I always like 3e's method of varying weapons by giving them different abilities. So, for example, the ability to wield a longsword with one or two hands, and the difference is either being able to use your off hand or getting a damage bonus. The only downside is that it might favor some weapons. Then again, there's a reason some weapons were so common in real life. A spear is easy to use, can set against cavalry, and you can support over the guy in front of you.

Another example is the billhook: you can poke, slash, and chop. It can be used to support allies, and you can use it to drag cavalrymen off their mounts. I think having abilities tied into the weapon for this make them unique, but then again it makes stuff like a shortsword look meek in comparison. At the end of the day though if players flock around a handful of weapons it makes it easier to stock magic weapons you know they'll use.

Bonuses vs. specific armors is really cool but really unwieldy. It makes sense that a mace gets +2 vs Plate, but a sword has -2. However, it really can slow down combat. I liked AD&D 1e's approach where weapons get a bonus/penalty vs. a specific AC, but that loses out on some of the realism since a high DEX thief with leather can have a 3. Why would a mace get a bonus against that? Either way, I think it's neat but I will say I think you either gotta go whole hog with realism, or nothing at all.

Either way, if I found a Billhook +1, I'd be a happy Fighter.

The AD&D weapon vs armor table is meant to represent base AC by armor type. Dexterity & magic bonuses are not considered for this. The thief wearing leather armor and an 18 DEX has an AC of 4 but for purposes of weapon vs armor uses AC 8.  Not that the system as a whole is worth bothering with IMHO, but that is how it works in theory.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 23, 2024, 09:54:06 AMIIRC the DMG explains this: "AC 2" really means "plate", so a thief in leather and very high dex uses a different column.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on April 23, 2024, 09:56:34 AMThe AD&D weapon vs armor table is meant to represent base AC by armor type. Dexterity & magic bonuses are not considered for this. The thief wearing leather armor and an 18 DEX has an AC of 4 but for purposes of weapon vs armor uses AC 8.  Not that the system as a whole is worth bothering with IMHO, but that is how it works in theory.

Ahhh okay! That actually makes a lot more sense now! I gotta do some reading later, I haven't really been using that rule. It was the same in 2nd edition: a neat idea, but I always glossed over it.

Quote from: rytrasmi on April 22, 2024, 01:18:09 PMI struggle with this too and the pinnacle of realism AFIAC is a matrix of weapon vs armor with each cell describing initiative, to-hit, and damage. AC, weapon speed, etc are just abstractions that simplify the matrix at the cost of realism. But even that matrix does not account for the defensive capabilities of weapons. So then we need a matrix of kit vs kit. 

This essentially gets you Rolemaster. Each weapon type versus a family of armor. Against an unarmored foe, longswords do slashing criticals; against metal armor, the lesser criticals alternate with crushing criticals. Rolemaster usually simplifies defense to some extent, but various editions have some shield rules tucked in here and there that add a little more rhythm.

AD&D "speed factor," incidentally, doesn't make sense. It says a dagger is faster than a two-handed sword. That's... not true. Setting aside that you have to account for reach first (which AD&D acknowledges, but doesn't give you guidance on), two-handed weapons are generally faster. A two-handed sword attack is fast. What a dagger is fast at is close in work, but you have to get close in, first.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 23, 2024, 09:10:50 AM

Quote from: NotFromAroundHere on April 23, 2024, 01:11:09 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 22, 2024, 12:02:01 PMGURPS was good at this, but too complex to the point of becoming unrealistic: a 10-second fight between two people has 20 or more sword blows, most being parried.

There's nothing unrealistic in this, ten seconds are an eternity in a close combat fight. Same goes for the parries, the absolute majority of fighting styles emphasize defense for a reason; what's totally unrealistic, instead, is being hit (good hit, not a glancing blow) more than once or twice by a sword and not dying.

I disagree.

No 10-second fight has 20 blows. Maybe you can find a 10-second period in a 5-minute fight with such a frantic pace, or a fight that ended in 10 seconds with a single punch, but I never seem such a frantic pace of attacking in fencing, UFC, larping, or medieval fighting simulations. If you have, send me the YouTube link

10-second combats only make sense if weapons are present and armor absent, but then they'll probably be finished before 20 blows.

Other than that, a duel (not to mention a skirmish) of say, people in swords and armor, will definitely last more than 10-seconds - in fact one might take a few seconds just to find an opening before approaching.

Same for people with no weapons and no armor. - even boxing matches do not have two punches per second, and punching is faster than swinging an axe!

GURPS kinda recognized this by publishing the "lull" supplement I mentioned but unfortunately can't find.

Without armor, I agree that taking a couple of sword blows would lead to death.

  This assumption means both parties choose to attack every turn.  Evaluate, all out defense, stepping back to disengage, etc make that stretch out quite a bit IME. Deceptive attacks and feints also cut down greatly on the number of attacks parried.   You can see lots of fights that during a flurry of activity it will approach what you describe, but they are rare as most parties involved in that frenetic pace lack the defense to avoid real damage or the durability to absorb it solely for the sake of throwing a shot. 
 
   I do wish GURPS used a 5 second round/turn as it would make a good deal more sense overall with regard to melee (the 1 second turns make a lot more sense with regard to gunfights) but using the things I mentioned also tends to slow the pace down a good deal and allows characters with a skill disadvantage to take measures to not get overwhelmed.

Quote from: NotFromAroundHere on April 22, 2024, 10:38:47 AMWith weapons you can have simple or you can have detailed: not both.
For example, an european longsword and a katana (or better, a tachi) of the same period (let's say middle 15th century) are functionally identical against unarmored opponets.... but the materials they're made of are different enough that the defensive techniques for them are wildly different.
How do you track that (important) difference in game while staying "simple", especially in a D&D like framework ?

LOL. And then you read Allan William's The Sword and the Crucible: A History of the Metallurgy of European Swords up to the 16th Century and his The Knight and the Blast Furnace: A History of the Metallurgy of Armour in the Middle Ages & the Early Modern Period, and realize that who made the armor or sword, where, and when, even in the same town and time period can drastically change individual characteristics.

I'm reading them for fun and out of interest. I may steal some of the relationships between manufacturers for a setting (either RPG or novel), since some of them are pretty interesting.

Quote from: pawsplay on April 23, 2024, 10:40:02 AMAD&D "speed factor," incidentally, doesn't make sense. It says a dagger is faster than a two-handed sword. That's... not true. Setting aside that you have to account for reach first (which AD&D acknowledges, but doesn't give you guidance on), two-handed weapons are generally faster. A two-handed sword attack is fast. What a dagger is fast at is close in work, but you have to get close in, first.

AD&D reach is really only used in charging situations, otherwise it isn't much of a factor. Speed factors are rather funny because they completely ignore strength considerations. GURPS does that fairly well. A reach weapon, such as a long spear or polearm loses a lot of effectiveness when not used in formation. Against a single weapon of that type, a swordsman can deflect and slip past, and unless the reach weapon user can retreat quickly, that swordsman will be inside the weapon's effectiveness forcing the pole weapon wielder to drop it and draw a shorter weapon.

Remember that in AD&D a combat round is not measuring a single strike attack. A round represents 'numerous attacks which are unsuccessful, feints, maneuvering, and so forth' (DMG p.61). Speed factor has therefore to be seen in the context of what a combat round is in AD&D. It is also necessary to understand that weapon speed only comes into affect if there is a tied initiative - if a fighter with a two handed sword wins initiative against a thief with a dagger, the fighter gets to hit the thief first regardless of weapon speed. It is only when the initiative is tied that the dagger wielding thief goes first due to weapon speed (and, in fact, gains two 'to hit' rolls), to simulate that that the thief has closed in and is temporarily passed the danger space of the sword.

As to reach - Gygax makes the ambiguous comment about a pikeman vs a person with a faster weapon - 'an opponent surviving the first attack from the bearer of a pike will likely be able to strike several times' (DMG p.66). He does not spell it out, but that comment gives rise to the not uncommon house rule that a weapon with a longer reach gives an automatic initiative win in the first attack. 

Whether any of it makes sense is another matter - According to Luke Gygax, Gary never played weapon speed in his game and we know he also never played the weapon v armor tables and later regretted allowing them being added to Eldritch Wizardry/1e. In addition, RPGers like to pick and choose their 'real life' examples to justify what they like - for example, knight duel HEMA guys like Dequitem on YouTube seem to bear out the AD&D one minute rounds - watching those videos a 'damage' strike seems to occur at +/- 45s - 1 minute in. On the other hand I have been in fencing bouts where what would be a fatal strike is scored within a few seconds.

Quote from: pawsplay on April 23, 2024, 10:40:02 AMAD&D "speed factor," incidentally, doesn't make sense. It says a dagger is faster than a two-handed sword. That's... not true. Setting aside that you have to account for reach first (which AD&D acknowledges, but doesn't give you guidance on), two-handed weapons are generally faster. A two-handed sword attack is fast. What a dagger is fast at is close in work, but you have to get close in, first.

Ehhh... I mean, it does make sense in AD&D 1e.  In that case, there are rules about when the two hander strikes first, and when the dagger strikes first, and when the dagger strikes multiple times.  These rules are weird and confusing, but assuredly all of your concerns there were given consideration in AD&D 1e. 

In 2e, your complaint is totally vaild.  In that game, the main use of slower weapons is against large beasts and monsters, who have bad initiative modifiers and who take extra damage from the bigger weapons.  AD&D 2e has large weapons as unrealistically terrible in man on man combat.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 23, 2024, 09:10:50 AMNo 10-second fight has 20 blows. Maybe you can find a 10-second period in a 5-minute fight with such a frantic pace, or a fight that ended in 10 seconds with a single punch, but I never seem such a frantic pace of attacking in fencing, UFC, larping, or medieval fighting simulations. If you have, send me the YouTube link

10-second combats only make sense if weapons are present and armor absent, but then they'll probably be finished before 20 blows.

Other than that, a duel (not to mention a skirmish) of say, people in swords and armor, will definitely last more than 10-seconds - in fact one might take a few seconds just to find an opening before approaching.

Same for people with no weapons and no armor. - even boxing matches do not have two punches per second, and punching is faster than swinging an axe!

GURPS kinda recognized this by publishing the "lull" supplement I mentioned but unfortunately can't find.

Without armor, I agree that taking a couple of sword blows would lead to death.

You do occasionally see that kind of volume in MMA, though it is quite rare. And I agree with you that it isn't really relevant as a comparison to historical melee combat. Punches can be chained more quickly than effective sword strokes, but more importantly, one generally does not "stand and bang" when edged weapons are in play.

I could see a situation where it would occur: Say two heavily armored knights, that particularly hate each other, meet on a late medieval battlefield. Both are armed with poleaxes, and because of the surrounding mass of friendly and hostile infantry, they don't want to risk closing to grapple. In that circumstance, they might decide to just see who's tougher and has better armor, but no one would go to battle expecting to stand still and duke it out with their opponent.

Ironically, the way D&D combat plays out, it gives the impression that "stand and bang" is exactly what you do. Thinking about it, D&D combat would replicate a boxing match much better than it does a sword-fight.

EDIT: I reread your comment and saw that you mentioned bursts of high activity in the context of longer fights, which is of course what's being shown above. I'd argue though that the slower feeling-out process you get in professional fighting is a product of the round structure. When the same fighters decide to throw down outside of the ring (as they occasionally do), they usually go right at each other at full blast from the get-go.

EDIT EDIT: Actually the first flurry shown in that video (in the Sanchez vs. Guida fight) starts in the first 5 seconds of the first round, so it happens there, too.

GURPS melee combat is usually fairly realistic once you get into the scrum. What it doesn't have is, outside the combat itself, if you are tracking time, the minute or two people might use to size each other up first. Apart from two skilled fighters, who know each other, occasionally getting into a parry fest, realistic battles tend to go pretty quick. The other realism aspect it doesn't fully address is that it doesn't really touch on how hot and fatigued you can get in one or two minutes of heavy combat. GURPS kind of softballs this by only addressing fatigue after the battle, and only based on encumbrance, and only assessing penalties for pretty severe fatigue depletion.

Quote from: Exploderwizard on April 23, 2024, 12:30:40 PMAD&D reach is really only used in charging situations, otherwise it isn't much of a factor. Speed factors are rather funny because they completely ignore strength considerations. GURPS does that fairly well. A reach weapon, such as a long spear or polearm loses a lot of effectiveness when not used in formation. Against a single weapon of that type, a swordsman can deflect and slip past, and unless the reach weapon user can retreat quickly, that swordsman will be inside the weapon's effectiveness forcing the pole weapon wielder to drop it and draw a shorter weapon.

Yeah, the effectiveness of a spearwall and how a ling of points can keep the enemy away. I can't remember if it's the case in AD&D, but I know in 3e there were rules for polearms where if the enemy was adjacent, the weapon can't be used since it's too long. Like you said, once you're past the point of the polearm, the weapon is useless. Kinda makes me laugh whenever you see guards in medieval fantasy armed with spears where there are only one or two other guards to support them.

Another rule with polearms, especially spears, that I cant remember where it comes from is they attack first. I know in 3e with 10ft reach, you'd get to "attack first" against a closing enemy as you got an attack of opportunity. But I could've sworn it was in 2e that long polearms get an attack against closing enemies as well, but I might be confusing D&D with Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on April 23, 2024, 10:02:49 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on April 23, 2024, 12:30:40 PMAD&D reach is really only used in charging situations, otherwise it isn't much of a factor. Speed factors are rather funny because they completely ignore strength considerations. GURPS does that fairly well. A reach weapon, such as a long spear or polearm loses a lot of effectiveness when not used in formation. Against a single weapon of that type, a swordsman can deflect and slip past, and unless the reach weapon user can retreat quickly, that swordsman will be inside the weapon's effectiveness forcing the pole weapon wielder to drop it and draw a shorter weapon.

Yeah, the effectiveness of a spearwall and how a ling of points can keep the enemy away. I can't remember if it's the case in AD&D, but I know in 3e there were rules for polearms where if the enemy was adjacent, the weapon can't be used since it's too long. Like you said, once you're past the point of the polearm, the weapon is useless. Kinda makes me laugh whenever you see guards in medieval fantasy armed with spears where there are only one or two other guards to support them.

Historically, guards were frequently equipped with halberds, bills and partisans (and sometimes very long two-handed swords). I think people underestimate just how difficult it is to get inside the reach of a polearm, especially one with cutting potential. The big advantage of a long weapon in single combat is its ability to change line of attack quickly. A smaller movement of the hands produces a larger movement at the tip of the weapon, so when your swordsman charges, he runs a serious risk of the billman taking a step back and cutting at his legs before his shorter weapon gets into reach. When used in both hands, a shorter polearm can also be choked up on to fight at what is basically sword-distance, and a big heavy weapon like a halberd is not going to be easy to effectively control with a sword blade. Sure, a pike is next to useless without a formation to back it up, but even a short spear (of the 7 to 8 foot length which is typical of one-handed spears across history) is surprisingly nimble in single combat.

Here's an interesting video. Unfortunately it's edited quite choppy, but starting at around 1:50, there's a show of what some close combat partisan techniques might have looked like.


Long cutting weapons (particularly swords it seems) were also popular with bodyguards and other people who might expect to face multiple opponents. By just sweeping a large volume of space with a big intimidating weapon, you can hold several attackers at bay for a while, even if you're unlikely to actually kill any of them. There's an (admittedly not great) attempt to demonstrate that here:


EDIT: You also have to remember that guards are not necessarily gearing up for life or death single combat. A polearm could easily be a very useful tool for crowd control. When performing more "law enforcement" type activities like breaking up fights or making arrests, they'd probably expect to outnumber their opposition and for the felons to be more likely to surrender or run away rather than stand and fight. Real people are a lot less likely to fight the local authorities to the death over a minor infraction than RPG players are. Plus, if you want to put someone down without killing them, a spear haft is going to do the job better than a sword. 

Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on April 23, 2024, 10:02:49 PMLike you said, once you're past the point of the polearm, the weapon is useless. Kinda makes me laugh whenever you see guards in medieval fantasy armed with spears where there are only one or two other guards to support them.

That's not true. First of all, it's still six pounds of solid oak, or as it's sometimes known, heavier than a quarterstaff. Second, you can usually choke up on the grip, depending on the type of weapon, and use it as an axe or spear. Third, many of them were constructed with a butt spike. So if you get inside their reach, they might still stab your foot, or your abdomen. Polearms are so versatile that smaller versions were often used as dueling weapons, or carried by knights or man-at-arms. Very long ones were used in formation, but palace guards aren't going to carry a ten foot long partisan.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 23, 2024, 09:10:50 AMGURPS kinda recognized this by publishing the "lull" supplement I mentioned but unfortunately can't find.

Eric,

IIRC, it's in 3E Compendium 2. Sold it years ago. I don't think that rule made it into 4E.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 23, 2024, 11:36:13 PMEDIT: You also have to remember that guards are not necessarily gearing up for life or death single combat. A polearm could easily be a very useful tool for crowd control. When performing more "law enforcement" type activities like breaking up fights or making arrests, they'd probably expect to outnumber their opposition and for the felons to be more likely to surrender or run away rather than stand and fight. Real people are a lot less likely to fight the local authorities to the death over a minor infraction than RPG players are. Plus, if you want to put someone down without killing them, a spear haft is going to do the job better than a sword. 

Plus, frequently a guard's job is not to prevent a concerted attack.  It's to intimidate people who have no intention of attacking but might be causing other trouble, stop an attack by untrained people who have underestimated what that polearm can do, or delay an attack by more serious opposition until help can arrive.  Reach is helpful in all three of those cases. 

In game terms, this is another example of what I said earlier.  Does your game have mechanics or encourage situations where any of those things matter?  How frequently?  If not, then such weapons are less useful.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 23, 2024, 09:14:17 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 22, 2024, 08:37:17 PMOooh... We're touching on a subject which is near and dear to my heart.

For my money, if you want a fairly realistic approach to the way ancient/medieval/early modern weapons and armor interact, the optimum way is to address three factors for weapons:
.....

Admittedly, the level of complexity this requires is possibly too much to be practical. I haven't tried to implement it in my own games, but where I can, I do aim for half-measures that move towards the same effect.

This is useful, thanks. Maybe the problem is that I'm putting maces and rondel dagger in the same "defeat armor" category, but they defeat armor for different reasons...

Another thing I don't even want to consider is swords that cut AND thrust - or worse, swords techniques such as half-swording.

Yeah, the variations quickly get so complicated that you can see why D&D chose to just collapse it into AC and say if you beat their AC you must have wounded them somehow.

I'd even be uncomfortable putting a mace in a general "defeats armor" category. From what I've read on the matter, one-handed maces are actually close to useless against late-period full plate harness. You can bash your target around and maybe stun or tire them, but you're unlikely to kill or even seriously wound the target.

Oddly, I think the cut-and-thrust sword is something you don't really need to go out of your way to represent in a "weapon vs. armor" system. Generally (though not universally), there's a give-and-take in cutting and thrusting effectiveness in sword design, so a better cutter is often a worse thruster and vice versa. It think that means you can keep the penetration scores relatively similar for both. A dedicated thrusting sword will probably always be better at bypassing armor, but on the flip-side, a cutting or cut-and-thrust sword is generally easier to use and better for parrying, so it should have a better "wieldiness" score.

Half-swording gets you into the world of grappling, and that's another huge problem here. You can't really replicate the purpose of a lot of late-medieval weapons like longswords, rondels and poleaxes without a grappling system. If you're not prepared to implement a full set of grappling rules, I think you can get away with presuming the grappling capability into the attack and armor bypass rolls, and handling it through DM narration, but it's not a great solution.

The 2d20 system has an interesting, though poorly implemented, mechanic: If you can "break the opponent's guard", you invert the reach differential, so a dagger suddenly has a "reach" advantage over a spear. There's problems with how it works in the system, but on paper it's not a bad way of representing the utility of certain weapons in extremely close fighting.

Personally, I find that I have to improvise grappling rules for all of my games, just to keep the combat plausible. Grappling is a significant part of every medieval or renaissance fighting system we have evidence for, and it's not hard to see why. Not only is it practically the only way to bypass full armor, but whenever you have two people going at each other with high adrenaline and malice aforethought, there's a very good chance of them getting tangled up and having to wrestle it out.

I think there's two reasons RPGs don't much engage with grappling. The first and most obvious reason is that it's such a pain in the balls to write rules for. The second, though, is that a lot of gamers (and by extension designers) think of RPG combat in battlefield terms. I.e., they're thinking of ranks and formations, and the combat dynamics those produce. Realistically, people fighting in a shield wall or a pike block probably almost never got into grapples with their opposition. The more combatants are involved in a fight, the more you want to stay in ranks and not get tied up with a single opponent. Problem is that RPG combats are rarely at the kind of scale where close-order infantry formations would be relevant. They're much more analogous to a skirmish between light troops or even just a street brawl, and that produces a very different dynamic.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 24, 2024, 08:14:25 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 23, 2024, 11:36:13 PMEDIT: You also have to remember that guards are not necessarily gearing up for life or death single combat. A polearm could easily be a very useful tool for crowd control. When performing more "law enforcement" type activities like breaking up fights or making arrests, they'd probably expect to outnumber their opposition and for the felons to be more likely to surrender or run away rather than stand and fight. Real people are a lot less likely to fight the local authorities to the death over a minor infraction than RPG players are. Plus, if you want to put someone down without killing them, a spear haft is going to do the job better than a sword. 

Plus, frequently a guard's job is not to prevent a concerted attack.  It's to intimidate people who have no intention of attacking but might be causing other trouble, stop an attack by untrained people who have underestimated what that polearm can do, or delay an attack by more serious opposition until help can arrive.  Reach is helpful in all three of those cases.

In game terms, this is another example of what I said earlier.  Does your game have mechanics or encourage situations where any of those things matter?  How frequently?  If not, then such weapons are less useful.

And that right there is the crux of the issue. To my mind, the holy grail of good RPG design is to have it that a player can make decisions entirely based on understanding the game world and in-game situation, without even needing to understand the rules, and the rules will bear out the effectiveness of that decision as it would be in the fiction. The point of all of this weapon and armor realism is not simulation for it's own sake, but to produce the same incentives in equipment and combat choices as would exist if the game world was real.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 23, 2024, 11:36:13 PMHistorically, guards were frequently equipped with halberds, bills and partisans (and sometimes very long two-handed swords). I think people underestimate just how difficult it is to get inside the reach of a polearm, especially one with cutting potential. The big advantage of a long weapon in single combat is its ability to change line of attack quickly. A smaller movement of the hands produces a larger movement at the tip of the weapon, so when your swordsman charges, he runs a serious risk of the billman taking a step back and cutting at his legs before his shorter weapon gets into reach. When used in both hands, a shorter polearm can also be choked up on to fight at what is basically sword-distance, and a big heavy weapon like a halberd is not going to be easy to effectively control with a sword blade. Sure, a pike is next to useless without a formation to back it up, but even a short spear (of the 7 to 8 foot length which is typical of one-handed spears across history) is surprisingly nimble in single combat.

EDIT: You also have to remember that guards are not necessarily gearing up for life or death single combat. A polearm could easily be a very useful tool for crowd control. When performing more "law enforcement" type activities like breaking up fights or making arrests, they'd probably expect to outnumber their opposition and for the felons to be more likely to surrender or run away rather than stand and fight. Real people are a lot less likely to fight the local authorities to the death over a minor infraction than RPG players are. Plus, if you want to put someone down without killing them, a spear haft is going to do the job better than a sword. 

Thanks for the videos! I'll check those out. Like you and pawsplay said about choking up, I never knew that was something they did. I always just assumed it would make the weapon too unwieldy to use. I know the Swiss used halberds in loose formations to deal with incoming cavalry by breaking into small groups to hack at horse's legs and pull off the rider, which sometimes meant utilizing the haft.

As for the guards, I just figured stuff like clubs and blunt objects, but using a spear for crowd control makes sense when you put it like that. I learn something new everyday.

Quote from: oggsmash on April 23, 2024, 10:57:27 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 23, 2024, 09:10:50 AM

Quote from: NotFromAroundHere on April 23, 2024, 01:11:09 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 22, 2024, 12:02:01 PMGURPS was good at this, but too complex to the point of becoming unrealistic: a 10-second fight between two people has 20 or more sword blows, most being parried.

There's nothing unrealistic in this, ten seconds are an eternity in a close combat fight. Same goes for the parries, the absolute majority of fighting styles emphasize defense for a reason; what's totally unrealistic, instead, is being hit (good hit, not a glancing blow) more than once or twice by a sword and not dying.

I disagree.

No 10-second fight has 20 blows. Maybe you can find a 10-second period in a 5-minute fight with such a frantic pace, or a fight that ended in 10 seconds with a single punch, but I never seem such a frantic pace of attacking in fencing, UFC, larping, or medieval fighting simulations. If you have, send me the YouTube link

10-second combats only make sense if weapons are present and armor absent, but then they'll probably be finished before 20 blows.

Other than that, a duel (not to mention a skirmish) of say, people in swords and armor, will definitely last more than 10-seconds - in fact one might take a few seconds just to find an opening before approaching.

Same for people with no weapons and no armor. - even boxing matches do not have two punches per second, and punching is faster than swinging an axe!

GURPS kinda recognized this by publishing the "lull" supplement I mentioned but unfortunately can't find.

Without armor, I agree that taking a couple of sword blows would lead to death.

  This assumption means both parties choose to attack every turn.  Evaluate, all out defense, stepping back to disengage, etc make that stretch out quite a bit IME. Deceptive attacks and feints also cut down greatly on the number of attacks parried.   You can see lots of fights that during a flurry of activity it will approach what you describe, but they are rare as most parties involved in that frenetic pace lack the defense to avoid real damage or the durability to absorb it solely for the sake of throwing a shot. 
 
   I do wish GURPS used a 5 second round/turn as it would make a good deal more sense overall with regard to melee (the 1 second turns make a lot more sense with regard to gunfights) but using the things I mentioned also tends to slow the pace down a good deal and allows characters with a skill disadvantage to take measures to not get overwhelmed.

Yeah, good point, if you use all the maneuvers it could make sense (and definitely makes sense for gunfights), especially with 5-second turns.

Quote from: Aglondir on April 24, 2024, 12:38:31 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 23, 2024, 09:10:50 AMGURPS kinda recognized this by publishing the "lull" supplement I mentioned but unfortunately can't find.

Eric,

IIRC, it's in 3E Compendium 2. Sold it years ago. I don't think that rule made it into 4E.

Thanks!

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 24, 2024, 08:43:48 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 23, 2024, 09:14:17 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 22, 2024, 08:37:17 PMOooh... We're touching on a subject which is near and dear to my heart.

For my money, if you want a fairly realistic approach to the way ancient/medieval/early modern weapons and armor interact, the optimum way is to address three factors for weapons:
.....

Admittedly, the level of complexity this requires is possibly too much to be practical. I haven't tried to implement it in my own games, but where I can, I do aim for half-measures that move towards the same effect.

This is useful, thanks. Maybe the problem is that I'm putting maces and rondel dagger in the same "defeat armor" category, but they defeat armor for different reasons...

Another thing I don't even want to consider is swords that cut AND thrust - or worse, swords techniques such as half-swording.

Yeah, the variations quickly get so complicated that you can see why D&D chose to just collapse it into AC and say if you beat their AC you must have wounded them somehow.

I'd even be uncomfortable putting a mace in a general "defeats armor" category. From what I've read on the matter, one-handed maces are actually close to useless against late-period full plate harness. You can bash your target around and maybe stun or tire them, but you're unlikely to kill or even seriously wound the target.

Oddly, I think the cut-and-thrust sword is something you don't really need to go out of your way to represent in a "weapon vs. armor" system. Generally (though not universally), there's a give-and-take in cutting and thrusting effectiveness in sword design, so a better cutter is often a worse thruster and vice versa. It think that means you can keep the penetration scores relatively similar for both. A dedicated thrusting sword will probably always be better at bypassing armor, but on the flip-side, a cutting or cut-and-thrust sword is generally easier to use and better for parrying, so it should have a better "wieldiness" score.

Half-swording gets you into the world of grappling, and that's another huge problem here. You can't really replicate the purpose of a lot of late-medieval weapons like longswords, rondels and poleaxes without a grappling system. If you're not prepared to implement a full set of grappling rules, I think you can get away with presuming the grappling capability into the attack and armor bypass rolls, and handling it through DM narration, but it's not a great solution.

The 2d20 system has an interesting, though poorly implemented, mechanic: If you can "break the opponent's guard", you invert the reach differential, so a dagger suddenly has a "reach" advantage over a spear. There's problems with how it works in the system, but on paper it's not a bad way of representing the utility of certain weapons in extremely close fighting.

Personally, I find that I have to improvise grappling rules for all of my games, just to keep the combat plausible. Grappling is a significant part of every medieval or renaissance fighting system we have evidence for, and it's not hard to see why. Not only is it practically the only way to bypass full armor, but whenever you have two people going at each other with high adrenaline and malice aforethought, there's a very good chance of them getting tangled up and having to wrestle it out.

I think there's two reasons RPGs don't much engage with grappling. The first and most obvious reason is that it's such a pain in the balls to write rules for. The second, though, is that a lot of gamers (and by extension designers) think of RPG combat in battlefield terms. I.e., they're thinking of ranks and formations, and the combat dynamics those produce. Realistically, people fighting in a shield wall or a pike block probably almost never got into grapples with their opposition. The more combatants are involved in a fight, the more you want to stay in ranks and not get tied up with a single opponent. Problem is that RPG combats are rarely at the kind of scale where close-order infantry formations would be relevant. They're much more analogous to a skirmish between light troops or even just a street brawl, and that produces a very different dynamic.

Grappling is another difficult issue indeed, and AD&D's version is very fiddly. I read "Dungeon Grappling" a while ago, found it a worthy replacement.

I wrote my own minimalist version of grappling, which is basically 1d20+AB versus 10+HD to make the enemy disarmed, prone, or to push, etc. I prefer a more abstract take here too.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 24, 2024, 09:03:17 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 24, 2024, 08:14:25 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 23, 2024, 11:36:13 PMEDIT: You also have to remember that guards are not necessarily gearing up for life or death single combat. A polearm could easily be a very useful tool for crowd control. When performing more "law enforcement" type activities like breaking up fights or making arrests, they'd probably expect to outnumber their opposition and for the felons to be more likely to surrender or run away rather than stand and fight. Real people are a lot less likely to fight the local authorities to the death over a minor infraction than RPG players are. Plus, if you want to put someone down without killing them, a spear haft is going to do the job better than a sword. 

Plus, frequently a guard's job is not to prevent a concerted attack.  It's to intimidate people who have no intention of attacking but might be causing other trouble, stop an attack by untrained people who have underestimated what that polearm can do, or delay an attack by more serious opposition until help can arrive.  Reach is helpful in all three of those cases.

In game terms, this is another example of what I said earlier.  Does your game have mechanics or encourage situations where any of those things matter?  How frequently?  If not, then such weapons are less useful.

And that right there is the crux of the issue. To my mind, the holy grail of good RPG design is to have it that a player can make decisions entirely based on understanding the game world and in-game situation, without even needing to understand the rules, and the rules will bear out the effectiveness of that decision as it would be in the fiction. The point of all of this weapon and armor realism is not simulation for it's own sake, but to produce the same incentives in equipment and combat choices as would exist if the game world was real.

Agreed... that would be ideal.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 24, 2024, 08:20:38 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 24, 2024, 09:03:17 AM... To my mind, the holy grail of good RPG design is to have it that a player can make decisions entirely based on understanding the game world and in-game situation, without even needing to understand the rules, and the rules will bear out the effectiveness of that decision as it would be in the fiction. The point of all of this weapon and armor realism is not simulation for it's own sake, but to produce the same incentives in equipment and combat choices as would exist if the game world was real.

Agreed... that would be ideal.

OK, if we accept that as the ideal for a moment, let me ask you both a question.  Would you settle for rules/mechanics that caused the players to emulate the weapon and armor realism, but without really understanding how this pertains to simulating the fiction? That is, what if players end up choosing weapons and armor that would make sense due to real-world concerns, but not necessarily for those reasons?

Yep, I'm taking that thought a little sideways, because I think the ideal is unobtainable, and then the question becomes what becomes an acceptable, pragmatic result short of it.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 24, 2024, 09:47:06 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 24, 2024, 08:20:38 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 24, 2024, 09:03:17 AM... To my mind, the holy grail of good RPG design is to have it that a player can make decisions entirely based on understanding the game world and in-game situation, without even needing to understand the rules, and the rules will bear out the effectiveness of that decision as it would be in the fiction. The point of all of this weapon and armor realism is not simulation for it's own sake, but to produce the same incentives in equipment and combat choices as would exist if the game world was real.

Agreed... that would be ideal.

OK, if we accept that as the ideal for a moment, let me ask you both a question.  Would you settle for rules/mechanics that caused the players to emulate the weapon and armor realism, but without really understanding how this pertains to simulating the fiction? That is, what if players end up choosing weapons and armor that would make sense due to real-world concerns, but not necessarily for those reasons?

Yep, I'm taking that thought a little sideways, because I think the ideal is unobtainable, and then the question becomes what becomes an acceptable, pragmatic result short of it.

Not sure I understand the question, but I'll try to give my 2c... I think that it would be good if weapons were more "realistic", with or without players understanding WHY a pick is good against plate.

I think there are two aspects to consider.

First the "realism" thing. I want the game to function similarly (not identically) to the real world. I've learned a lot from RPGs - not only vocabulary, but until a game last month I had no idea if a bonfire was hot enough to melt gold (it is).

Second, I think this is FUN. Describing a weapon piercing armor or bashing someone's head even under a helmet makes the game more action-packed. I wouldn't be as excited to calculate precisely how many calories a person needs, or the chances of mild ear disease as suggested in AD&D.

So, in the end, I like attempting realism when it can potentially increase the fun, but that is very subjective, of course.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 25, 2024, 12:53:00 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 24, 2024, 09:47:06 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 24, 2024, 08:20:38 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 24, 2024, 09:03:17 AM... To my mind, the holy grail of good RPG design is to have it that a player can make decisions entirely based on understanding the game world and in-game situation, without even needing to understand the rules, and the rules will bear out the effectiveness of that decision as it would be in the fiction. The point of all of this weapon and armor realism is not simulation for it's own sake, but to produce the same incentives in equipment and combat choices as would exist if the game world was real.

Agreed... that would be ideal.

OK, if we accept that as the ideal for a moment, let me ask you both a question.  Would you settle for rules/mechanics that caused the players to emulate the weapon and armor realism, but without really understanding how this pertains to simulating the fiction? That is, what if players end up choosing weapons and armor that would make sense due to real-world concerns, but not necessarily for those reasons?

Yep, I'm taking that thought a little sideways, because I think the ideal is unobtainable, and then the question becomes what becomes an acceptable, pragmatic result short of it.

Not sure I understand the question, but I'll try to give my 2c... I think that it would be good if weapons were more "realistic", with or without players understanding WHY a pick is good against plate.

I think there are two aspects to consider.

First the "realism" thing. I want the game to function similarly (not identically) to the real world. I've learned a lot from RPGs - not only vocabulary, but until a game last month I had no idea if a bonfire was hot enough to melt gold (it is).

Second, I think this is FUN. Describing a weapon piercing armor or bashing someone's head even under a helmet makes the game more action-packed. I wouldn't be as excited to calculate precisely how many calories a person needs, or the chances of mild ear disease as suggested in AD&D.

So, in the end, I like attempting realism when it can potentially increase the fun, but that is very subjective, of course.

To use the pick example, what if a player often did use a pick when fighting someone wearing plate, but it wasn't because of a specific mechanic/rule that a pick was more likely to bypass armor? 

I know that is very loose, subjective, and theoretical, but I'm trying not to prejudice answers with particular implementations.  Another way to say it is, suppose that roughly half the players in the group have some understanding of why a pick could be a good choice when used against plate.  The other half don't.  However, because of other factors (cost of weapons, social status, setting local laws, trade-offs 1-handed/2-handed, weapon encumbrance, etc.), some of these other players could end up happily using a pick.

It's hard to imagine that working with a single weapon versus a single kind of armor, pick versus plate.  However, my contention is that if you are willing to accept some edge cases, you can get a bias towards using the simulated thing even without direct mechanics to support it in each case.   

Quote from: 1stLevelWizard on April 24, 2024, 12:58:12 PMThanks for the videos! I'll check those out. Like you and pawsplay said about choking up, I never knew that was something they did. I always just assumed it would make the weapon too unwieldy to use. I know the Swiss used halberds in loose formations to deal with incoming cavalry by breaking into small groups to hack at horse's legs and pull off the rider, which sometimes meant utilizing the haft.

As for the guards, I just figured stuff like clubs and blunt objects, but using a spear for crowd control makes sense when you put it like that. I learn something new everyday.

No Worries! I've spent an unhealth amount of time and thought on this stuff, so I'm always happy to export some of the otherwise useless data in my brain to others.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 24, 2024, 09:47:06 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on April 24, 2024, 08:20:38 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 24, 2024, 09:03:17 AM... To my mind, the holy grail of good RPG design is to have it that a player can make decisions entirely based on understanding the game world and in-game situation, without even needing to understand the rules, and the rules will bear out the effectiveness of that decision as it would be in the fiction. The point of all of this weapon and armor realism is not simulation for it's own sake, but to produce the same incentives in equipment and combat choices as would exist if the game world was real.

Agreed... that would be ideal.

OK, if we accept that as the ideal for a moment, let me ask you both a question.  Would you settle for rules/mechanics that caused the players to emulate the weapon and armor realism, but without really understanding how this pertains to simulating the fiction? That is, what if players end up choosing weapons and armor that would make sense due to real-world concerns, but not necessarily for those reasons?

Yep, I'm taking that thought a little sideways, because I think the ideal is unobtainable, and then the question becomes what becomes an acceptable, pragmatic result short of it.

Absolutely that is the next best thing.

It's a bit difficult to come up with an example, because often the easiest way to incentivize realistic behavior is to simulate realistic outcomes, but I'll try:

Because I'm weirdly obsessed with early modern settings for roleplaying, one of my biggest bugbears is when RPG rules make bows much more useful than black-powder weapons. This is largely because the way RPG health systems work, single shot effectiveness is secondary to rate of fire. You could try to redress that by cranking the damage for firearms, but you often have to make it 4 or 5 times the damage of a bow for it to average out, and that makes problems of its own. You don't want to make guns a superweapon either, and a gun being the only weapon which can kill in a single hit doesn't make sense. A sword or an arrow can absolutely kill someone just as dead as a bullet can. I prefer the Helvecza approach of giving guns exploding dice, so they won't reliably out-damage a bow over time, but they have that chance of doing catastrophic damage on a single shot. I will also generally give firearms a slightly more lenient reload time than is strictly realistic, to compensate for rate of fire being overstated in its importance.

Many of the reasons why the gun overtook the bow in Europe (such as the morale effect of volley fire and the fact that bullet wounds are more likely to disable than arrow wounds) are less relevant to an adventurer than they are on the battlefield, or are expressly not replicated in D&D rules. You could try and patch them in, but messing with the morale rules or adding in a trauma system is probably more hassle than it's worth. WFRP 4th edition gives black powder weapons a mechanic where being shot at by one forces what is essentially an instant morale check, which if you fail, you must flee until you make the saving throw. That strikes me as overkill, but WFRP is trying to portray a world where guns are much rarer than they should be given the time period implied.

So instead, maybe you think about how adventurers would be likely to use guns. Adventurers are not line infantry. They engage at extremely close range in small-unit actions, often from ambush or in sudden assaults. Effectively, they're raiders. To be fair, people like that did tend to retain the use of more archaic weapons like bows and lances well after guns had started dominating the battlefield. But how did that kind of combatant used firearms historically?

One example would be hussars or other light cavalry, but PCs rarely engage in cavalry raids, so maybe that's not a useful analogy. I think a better study would be pirates and other naval boarding parties. We know in that situation, a volley of gunfire, often from pistols, carbines or blunderbusses, might be used as a precursor to closing to melee. Scottish rebels in the 17th and 18th Centuries did the same thing with the so-called "Highland Charge". That seems like a very plausible way that you'd employ firearms in the close confines of a dungeon. Ok, so write rules to encourage it. Big damage might be a way, but you could also do something like giving firearms a "shoot from the hip" option, or an improved ability to shoot on the move. In reality, a volley of gunfire before charging softens up the enemy formation by damaging morale and killing or maiming participants, but most RPGs don't have morale damage, and killing in a single shot is rare. So instead, maybe you can replicate that "softening up" on a single target by giving the gunshot some kind of stun effect that makes the enemy vulnerable to a follow up charge.

In general, morale is a factor which is hugely important in real-world fighting, but poorly represented in RPGs. Probably morale checks should be triggered more easily than they traditionally are, and should be something that players are in some way subject to as well. That gets tough, though, because morale checks by NPCs could be too easily exploitable, and infinite PC morale is one of those unspoken "hero's edges" that are presumed in a lot of D&D encounter design.