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: 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.

I think "dialing in" is a modern/translated version of the English colloquialism "phoning it in", which means to make the motions of doing something, without putting in actual effort or really taking part or doing it right - maybe even only appearing to do it.

Fictional world-building has been around since Plato's Atlantis. For world-building in more modern times, Lovecraft and Howard have already been mentioned. E.R.Burroughs started even earlier, with his Barsoom setting (Under the Moons of Mars, 1912). In his quest to create a historicized mythology, Tolkien was, among other things, almost certainly influenced by the Old Testament.

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: NotFromAroundHere on Today at 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, 08:49:42 PM

Quote from: Fheredin on April 22, 2024, 04:27:28 PMDark Souls would need a custom system to do it justice because the "Hollowing as a metaphor for the player quitting the game" metaphor is unique to Dark Souls. I actually can't think of a good way to embed this into a TTRPG, which makes me think the definitive version of Dark Souls will forever remain the video game, even if someone does manage to make a TTRPG out of it. It is a work of art which uses the video game medium as a choice.

I've put a bit of thought into this, albeit without coming up with a satisfying solution. Because of the way Hollowing affects NPCs and the general themes of the game, I think you can fairly interpret it that Hollowing sets in when you lose your sense of purpose. The difficulty then becomes coming up with a "purpose" mechanic. Just spit-balling, but one way might be to require players to assign a grand goal to their character, and deduct Humanity points when they suffer a significant setback. That unfortunately smacks a bit too much of story game mechanics and DM fiat, though. You could also introduce some kind of "Hollowing Save", based on a willpower-like stat, which occurs whenever they die. That'd be more workable and fair, but loses a lot of the thematic purpose of hollowing.


So yeah, you're probably right. It's a mechanic which serves videogames much better than any other medium.

There's a difference between a storygame and an RPG set in a universe where literary tropes have actual power (see any of Sir Terry Pratchett's masterpieces).

In a story game the players would spend plot points to make various outcomes occur and perhaps justify what they want with a trope reference.

In Discworld, the party tries to do things like stand on one foot while shooting your bow with your offhand while counting up in prime numbers because they know, according to the laws of their universe, that "million-to-one shots always succeed" (but they have to be precisely a million-to-one or you're screwed).

A fantasy setting where one must have a purpose or suffer Hollowing and getting points of Hollowing that eat away at them when their purpose is thwarted isn't storygame, its the opposite... its converting a literary trope into an objective force in the setting, no different than having falling damage because of the objective force of gravity.

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

Quote from: Opaopajr on Today at 02:10:17 AMMakes 5 minute Short Resting with that and Second Wind a bit overwhelming for my tastes, but keeps Fighters a continuous serious long-term threat. I prefer RAW book 1 hour SR, and let players decide, which they rarely take advantage of short-resters serious throughput advantage by party splitting.)

I've found 20 minute short rests to be a reasonable compromise between the 4e short rest (5 min) and the 5e short rest (1 hour). It's long enough you can't just take it anywhere (even with active monsters looking for you, any reasonably sized dungeon will have some room or another you could hide in for 5 minutes without being found), but not so long that players feel like they're "missing out" by taking one.

Honestly, the biggest mistake with 5e was in tuning the short rest abilities around the idea you'd only take one every other encounter instead of either tuning it so the short rest classes would recharge their stuff for every encounter, or tuning their stuff around daily resources as well.

https://www.patreon.com/PatchwerkGames?utm_campaign=creatorshare_creator

To join: https://www.tinyurl.com/randomworlds-discord

Log to be posted at https://gmshoe.wordpress.com/