Quote from: Eric Diaz on Today at 09:10:50 AMQuote from: NotFromAroundHere on Today at 01:11:09 AMQuote 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: 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.
Quote from: SHARK on April 22, 2024, 03:29:35 PMQuote from: DocJones on April 22, 2024, 02:06:14 PMQuote from: SHARK on April 22, 2024, 08:58:54 AMVietnam is a member of SEATO...Huh? SEATO was dissolved in 1977.
Greetings!
Ahh, right right. Well, my mistake. I meant to say that Vietnam has in recent times been included in several diplomatic and military alignments with the United States, and other nations of Asia and the Pacific. I was surprised when I read about such, though apparently, it is a very real thing. US forces have coordinated with Vietnam, as well as the Philippines and India, for example. Vietnam, despite having considerable economic exchange with China, has also made it very clear that they are eager to participate in numerous defense relationships primarily aimed at containing and deterring Chinese expansion.
I think I also saw some news videos by the Times of India and Hindustan Times discussing military arrangements between India and other Pacific nations, such as Taiwan, Japan, Vietnam, and of course, the United States. Economically, and diplomatically, Vietnam also seems to be very much involved with India, Japan, and the Philippines, which I found to be interesting.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Eric Diaz on Today at 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 Today at 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.
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.
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.