Do you want your melee weapons to have more sophisticate differences between each of them? Or are you fine with a short sword, spear, mace, hammer and handaxe all doing 1d6 and being basically interchangeable?
For D&D I'm fine with them being interchangeable.
For a more simulationist game like Runequest I'd like them to have distinct notable characteristics (eg maces crush armour, swords are best vs unarmoured), but I generally finding simulationism gets in the way of the point of D&D.
If more mechanically diverse weapons means a more diverse armor system, count me in.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1058998Do you want your melee weapons to have more sophisticate differences between each of them? Or are you fine with a short sword, spear, mace, hammer and handaxe all doing 1d6 and being basically interchangeable?
I like them as-is but think typed damage should be used more often. There are a disappointingly tiny number of monsters in the 5e monster manual that have resistances or vulnerabilities to only one kind of damage. I think probably about 1 in every 5 monsters should have either resistance or vulnerability to one type of physical damage, both magical and nonmagical.
I playtested something to make individual weapon types more distinctive based on their historical usage.
MW Equipment (https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0Bx9oLF40m-b8UHJhZERnSjdHV0k)
Some examples
Axe, battle 50d/ea. 8.0/lbs.
Damage: 1-Hand, 1d8
This is a single head axe between 24 to 36 inches long. Like the throwing axe, the head is shaped longer from the blade to the butt of the axe. At the attacker's option you can use this to pin an opponent's weapon or shield. After making a successful to hit roll, the opponent needs to make a saving or the weapon or shield is pinned. The attacker can't use the axe to attack while using it to pin.
Mace 13d/ea. 5.0/lbs.
Damage: 1d6
This weapon is between 24 to 36 inches long and has a ball of metal affixed to one end. It gets +1 to hit versus opponents wearing chainmail or gelatinous creatures like ochre jellies or black puddings.
Pike 30d/ea. 10.0/lbs.
Damage: 1d10, Reach: 10 ft.
This is a 12 inch spike affixed to a 9 to 10 foot long pole. The wielder of a pike can attack a target up to 10 feet away. When a target comes within 10 feet of the wielder for the first time during a combat encounter. The wielder gets a free attack. The wielder only gets one free attack in a round. The pike cannot be used if the target is within 5 feet. In this case the pike can be used as a quarter staff doing 1d6 damage.
Crossbow, Knight Killer 46d/ea. 6.0/lbs.
Damage: 5d4 (Bolts), Accuracy: +4, Reload Actions: 10. Range: 100 ft/yds.
This is the largest crossbow capable be carried on a regular basis by fighters. It uses either a windlass or a cranequin to cock the weapon for use. This takes a considerable amount of time, 36 seconds or 6 combat rounds. The result is a weapon capable taking out a heavily armored opponent in a single shot.
There's already more to these weapons than their damage die. Some of these weapons are cheaper to make than others and, thus, cost less to purchase but are easier to break. Then, there's typed damage, as fearsomepirate points out. Also, some of these weapons have secondary qualities (or ought to have some), such as being light (easier to dual-wield), versatile (dealing more damage when two-handed), throwable, etc. There's also their non-combat utility, like hammers smashing things and axes chopping things. Last but not least, the very physical properties of these weapons make them vary in bulkiness.
If anything, I think D&D needs more sophisticated mechanics to better bring out the differences between these weapons. Same goes for what happens in-game: if it's just fight, fight, fight, and everything else is glossed over, yeah, they'll be samey. If I wanted more sophistication, though, I'd rather play another game, like GURPS, Burning Wheel, or even Savage Worlds.
I like about a 2nd ed level of differention (surprise, surprise) Different amounts of damage and weapon speed for initiative.
Quote from: Warboss Squee;1059002If more mechanically diverse weapons means a more diverse armor system, count me in.
I like the idea of diverse armor, but in D&D, it's the rule we usually skip as too fiddly.
So what version of D&D? With Greyhawk, D&D weapons have quite a few distinctions.
I think 1e/2e supported more granularity.
I think 5e doesn't but could.
The issue is not the weapon-differntiation. It's the core-mechanics you intend those weapon-subsystems to interact with that matters. So it depends on if you want your D&D to have more options. My general view of 5e fans is they don't.
Depends on how much it slows shit down, which mostly ties into how well the DM knows the system and how well the players know their own abilities without having to stop and look it up.
Boiled right down to it, though, I think "they're all just hand weapons, so they do the same damage" is kind of boring in an RPG, so I'm right about where Ratman_tf is. Damage differentiation and maybe speed factors and I'm good. I'm not averse to adding more, again it depends on how much it slows down combat.
For D&D, keeping things simple in the core game always made sense to me. I think I've just come to expect, and rather enjoy, supplements being the place where things get more elaborate. It allows the GM to bring that stuff in to a campaign where it feels right, but not have every campaign fret over minor distinctions between weapons.
For 5e my groups have been using the weapon "maneuvers" in the Midgard Heroes Handbook from Kobold Press.
Doesn't change the damage but offers a couple of options as long as you are proficient with the weapon.
Examples
Longsword can use reaction to parry one attack
Some thrown weapons can 'pin' someone to a wall, table or the like
Some of the bludgeoning weapons can mess with someone in heavy armors
etc.
I really like them because they give options other than just hitting the enemy.
So far nothing seems overpowered/game-breaking but we have only been using them for a month or so.
My old group liked the way the 2e rules were set up.
We also enjoyed the BECMI weapon mastery, but we all agreed the DM needed to keep a bit of a leash on it.
I'll admit I did really enjoy becmi's weapon mastery when it came out. Other than that I'm pretty fine with the few times bludgeon/slash/pierce became relevant. This is fundamentally an abstraction game with characters built of phlebotinum, not Fractures and Fatalities (TM). For folks that like granularity like that, Riddle of Steel is the way to go. Bludgeoning damage level 5 to zone 10... Death by snu snu.
A quick and dirty conversion would be that on a critical hit, you roll an exploding d6 and the number of 6's that show up determine the riddle of steel damage level. Somebody crits, rolls yahtzee... Colorful description of why you don't get an open casket.
Personally, given the D&D system, I think weapons should be a little more basic. Especially, I dislike the impression from the weapons table that there is some sort of factory standard for each weapon type (i.e. maces are 4 pounds, and morningstars are also 4 pounds but do greater damage, while war picks are just 2 pounds doing the same damage). It's not a big deal, but if I would probably have weapons just divided into small/medium/big, plus traits like reach and finesse and possibly quality.
It depends a lot on the game I'm playing. In most OSR type games I'm fine with the broad categories as in L&D tiny 1d4, small 1d6, medium 1d8 etc, but it is nice if axe, sword, mace doesn't just equal 1d8 damage. I do like to see things like estar posted to differentiate the different classes of weapon types.
Axes being more useful for chopping trees, breaking down doors etc, weighted weapons (maces) being more effective on tough or well armored foes, swords being a little faster and clubs being the default the others diverge from is enough detail for me, I don't need extensive lists of weapons at the scale of combat in most OSR games.
I do like when games include options for weapon quality, whether that is a small bonus (penalty) to hit or damage, and / or resistance to (or increased chance of) damage on a fumble etc. It is nice to have a reason to pay more for a weapon made by a master, and a reason to replace that cheap or badly worn weapon beyond it just looks nicer.
In more complex / finer detail games like GURPS or HERO I do enjoy more detailed breakdowns. In Fantasy HERO I took advantage of the rules to re-build the different weapons so that axes, maces, clubs, swords and picks of similar size do a similar amount of damage but work in different ways. None are "better" than the rest as a general weapon, but each is superior within its niche.
Quote from: estar;1059015I playtested something to make individual weapon types more distinctive based on their historical usage.
MW Equipment (https://drive.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0Bx9oLF40m-b8UHJhZERnSjdHV0k)
Some examples
Axe, battle 50d/ea. 8.0/lbs.
Damage: 1-Hand, 1d8
This is a single head axe between 24 to 36 inches long. Like the throwing axe, the head is shaped longer from the blade to the butt of the axe. At the attacker's option you can use this to pin an opponent's weapon or shield. After making a successful to hit roll, the opponent needs to make a saving or the weapon or shield is pinned. The attacker can't use the axe to attack while using it to pin.
Mace 13d/ea. 5.0/lbs.
Damage: 1d6
This weapon is between 24 to 36 inches long and has a ball of metal affixed to one end. It gets +1 to hit versus opponents wearing chainmail or gelatinous creatures like ochre jellies or black puddings.
Pike 30d/ea. 10.0/lbs.
Damage: 1d10, Reach: 10 ft.
This is a 12 inch spike affixed to a 9 to 10 foot long pole. The wielder of a pike can attack a target up to 10 feet away. When a target comes within 10 feet of the wielder for the first time during a combat encounter. The wielder gets a free attack. The wielder only gets one free attack in a round. The pike cannot be used if the target is within 5 feet. In this case the pike can be used as a quarter staff doing 1d6 damage.
Crossbow, Knight Killer 46d/ea. 6.0/lbs.
Damage: 5d4 (Bolts), Accuracy: +4, Reload Actions: 10. Range: 100 ft/yds.
This is the largest crossbow capable be carried on a regular basis by fighters. It uses either a windlass or a cranequin to cock the weapon for use. This takes a considerable amount of time, 36 seconds or 6 combat rounds. The result is a weapon capable taking out a heavily armored opponent in a single shot.
I like this, thanks for including the link to the complete list.
Mostly in the fact that there is a lack of need for diversity. If the DMs I've played with bothered with weapon damage (so you don't have a knucklehead breaking down a door with their longsword) or if the monsters had more need for different damage types (B/P/S) then I'd say there's more need. I always pack one of each on every character I play but often the daggers and hand axes are there as tools not weapons.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1058998Do you want your melee weapons to have more sophisticate differences between each of them? Or are you fine with a short sword, spear, mace, hammer and handaxe all doing 1d6 and being basically interchangeable?
I wouldn't want all melee weapons to deal 1d6 damage. For my game I'm mostly fine with varying the dice between d4 (daggers, clubs) up to 2d6 (longswords, and two-handed axes and hammers). For two-handed spears and polearms, we do 1d10 but let them make a single free attack against someone trying to run up and stab you in melee. So, some variation but not a whole lot. Been considering adding a bit more, maybe about as complex as what estar linked but I'm curious what the typical D&D player would like to see.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1058998Do you want your melee weapons to have more sophisticate differences between each of them? Or are you fine with a short sword, spear, mace, hammer and handaxe all doing 1d6 and being basically interchangeable?
Quote from: tenbones;1059033I think 1e/2e supported more granularity.
I think 5e doesn't but could.
5e
does support differences among the listed weapons:
- short sword and spear do piercing damage; mace and hammer do bludgeoning; handaxe is slashing.
- short sword is finesse, so you can use DEX instead of STR with it (and it's a rogue weapon, but also martial and not simple).
- spear, handaxe and light hammer can be thrown.
- spear is versatile (use two hands to get d8 damage instead).
- short sword, handaxe and light hammer are light weapons (better for two weapon fighting).
- light hammer does only d4; there's a war hammer that is martial, does d8, and is versatile (d10 if used two handed).
I'm OK with a fairly simple categorization of weapons; but OD&D with d6 for everything was too simple, and the only advantage of being able to use a sword was that there were more and better magical swords than other kinds of weapon. I don't need the huge number of polearms, but if you add them in then the holy water sprinkler should do extra damage against undead.
I find the 5e list too bloated.
For Example: Why is a spear and trident two different things, when they have the same states. Except for weight and cost? You could combine a lot of them into one category, like Long Swords, Battle Axe, Warhammer, the only difference is that the Hammer is a Bludgeoning weapon.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1059089I find the 5e list too bloated.
For Example: Why is a spear and trident two different things, when they have the same states. Except for weight and cost? You could combine a lot of them into one category, like Long Swords, Battle Axe, Warhammer, the only difference is that the Hammer is a Bludgeoning weapon.
I agree that it is bloated. I think they're just trying to keep some of the detail and style of the AD&D rules. For comparison, in AD&D1, here were the spear and trident stats:
Spear: weight 40 - 60gp, damage 1-6 vs S/M, damage 1-8 vs L, with note: This weapon also does twice the damage indicated to any opponent when the weapon is set to receive their charge.
length 5-13 feet, space required 1 foot, speed factor 6-8, AC adjustments -2/-1/-1/-1/0/0/0/0/0
Trident: weight 50gp, damage 2-7 vs S/M, damage 3-12 vs L, with no note
length 4-8 feet, space required 1 foot, speed factor 6-8, AC adjustments -3/-2/-1/-1/0/0/+1/0/+1
I find it strange that tridents can't be set against charge, but for some reason do massively more damage against large creatures. These are mechanically differentiated, but it doesn't make any sense to me. I can't follow the logic of how one assigns these stats.
I've used this system for many years:
D2: very small weapons
D4: small weapons
D6: medium weapons
D8: large one-handed weapons
D10: large two-handed weapons
It has more variety than "D6 For All" but doesn't get into the hair-splitting of the more detailed charts. A large one-handed sword does D8 damage, whether someone calls it a broadsword, arming sword, falchion, spatha, katana, sabre, scimitar, tulwar or whatever.
Quote from: Elfdart;1059092I've used this system for many years:
D2: very small weapons
D4: small weapons
D6: medium weapons
D8: large one-handed weapons
D10: large two-handed weapons
It has more variety than "D6 For All" but doesn't get into the hair-splitting of the more detailed charts. A large one-handed sword does D8 damage, whether someone calls it a broadsword, arming sword, falchion, spatha, katana, sabre, scimitar, tulwar or whatever.
Perfect.
Quote from: jhkim;1059091I find it strange that tridents can't be set against charge, but for some reason do massively more damage against large creatures. These are mechanically differentiated, but it doesn't make any sense to me. I can't follow the logic of how one assigns these stats.
Shorter Length and a narrower blade (thus weaker) blade, and because there were three blade was clumsy to wield. In short while it was kinda of used like a spear it was worse to use than a spear.
The reason the trident was developed in the first place was as a fishing tool. To compensate for the refraction of light through water when spear fishing. The only time it was used in battle was in Roman Gladiatorial combat where it was combined with a nets for a specific style of combat.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1058998Do you want your melee weapons to have more sophisticate differences between each of them? Or are you fine with a short sword, spear, mace, hammer and handaxe all doing 1d6 and being basically interchangeable?
A great deal depends on what the rest of the system is like. I use varied weapon damage but I think reach is
much more important than damage. That is why knives of various types are problematic, not because they do less damage. But the guy with the sword or club can keep you from ever reaching her by injuring or killing you before you can get there. That is also why the spear usually beats the sword because you pretty much never get there if you have the sword and are not at some other advantage. the advantage of the sword is that you can wear it and the spear must be carried.
Suspension of disbelief trumps simplicity in my mind. And finding ways to
overcome a reach disadvantage or to keep your reach advantage makes combat more interesting.
Quote from: estar;1059104The reason the trident was developed in the first place was as a fishing tool. To compensate for the refraction of light through water when spear fishing.
Giving the trident +1 to hit versus displacer beasts, for anyone who must have a mechanical differentiation in 5e. :D
I'm on board with a shorter list of weapons, while allowing players to describe the same weapon as something exotic. (Like under the Monk description.) Small, medium and large are a little too short a list, though.
Quote from: rawma;1059172Giving the trident +1 to hit versus displacer beasts, for anyone who must have a mechanical differentiation in 5e. :D
I'm on board with a shorter list of weapons, while allowing players to describe the same weapon as something exotic. (Like under the Monk description.) Small, medium and large are a little too short a list, though.
To clarify my earlier preference for small/medium/large, there could be other specifiers on it. I picture more something like:
Trident (large piercing reach set quality) - this is a large iron 8-foot trident that can be set against charge
Hunting spear (large piercing reach set) - this is a 6-foot spear with a crossbar for boar-hunting
Iklwa (medium piercing) - this is a 4-foot broad-bladed spear used for close combat
There can be flavoring to different types of spears, but the damage and stats are standardized.
I prefer a short list (around a dozen) of differentiated weapons, but something bland like "all weapons do 1d6" is better than a more detailed list that gets the details wrong. It's too distracting to have obsolete and incorrect weapon details based on Victorian misunderstandings (one-handed swords weighed 8+ pounds and were hardly sharp) or propaganda (longbows could shoot through a tank covered in katanas).
Always had a thing for mancatchers... Its like a bear trap. On a stick.
Quote from: Elfdart;1059092I've used this system for many years:
D2: very small weapons
D4: small weapons
D6: medium weapons
D8: large one-handed weapons
D10: large two-handed weapons
It has more variety than "D6 For All" but doesn't get into the hair-splitting of the more detailed charts. A large one-handed sword does D8 damage, whether someone calls it a broadsword, arming sword, falchion, spatha, katana, sabre, scimitar, tulwar or whatever.
Quote from: jhkim;1059175To clarify my earlier preference for small/medium/large, there could be other specifiers on it. I picture more something like:
Trident (large piercing reach set quality) - this is a large iron 8-foot trident that can be set against charge
Hunting spear (large piercing reach set) - this is a 6-foot spear with a crossbar for boar-hunting
Iklwa (medium piercing) - this is a 4-foot broad-bladed spear used for close combat
There can be flavoring to different types of spears, but the damage and stats are standardized.
I would have preferred this for D&D weapons in general. A chart for damage, another for tags, and then you can describe it as you like, and price it as needed. Like these two suggestions.
I prefer a smaller list of weapons with some significant differences. I don't see the need for so many different swords, for example. I don't have a "normal" sword, short sword, two-handed sword, and dagger. I usually just have daggers and swords. I like Gygax, but I don't share the polearm fetish he had. Just spears and poleaxes are enough for me.
For mechanical differences I like there to be interesting variation. Swords in my games are usually pretty expensive and not something common folk carry around, so, I'm willing to give them even a +1 to hit bonus along with their d6 damage. Axes I give a higher base damage to, but no accuracy bonus.
I find that if you keep magic items much rarer than the D&D norm, you can give weapons some significant differentiation without any significant balance issues. Also, I keep money significantly more scarce and high quality weapons (even non-magical ones) a lot more expensive. A sword might do 1d6 damage, +1 to hit, and deals max damage when hitting on a 19-20, but it will cost 100 or more silver coins (my game's basic currency). A simple ax may only cost 10 silver coins, but it might just deal 1d8 damage with no other special properties.
Quote from: S'mon;1059000For D&D I'm fine with them being interchangeable.
For a more simulationist game like Runequest I'd like them to have distinct notable characteristics (eg maces crush armour, swords are best vs unarmoured), but I generally finding simulationism gets in the way of the point of D&D.
Absolutely. The D&D game deals heavily in abstraction but many people try to ignore these realities when discussing weapons and damage. Getting all simulationist with weaponry then plugging that into an abstract system with classes, levels, and large piles of hit points is very much like trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. There is nothing wrong with a simulationist fantasy game but the entire system needs to be designed for it. D&D and similar systems need to remain abstract in order to function properly.
Did anyone actually use those "weapon vs. armor types" (or whatever they were specifically called) tables from AD&D? I remember looking them over and we all just took a pass on them (just like the unarmed attack rules from that edition's DMG). I think that was an example of too much weapon detail.
The other horror story with weapon stats comes from Exalted (yeah, yeah...). You had Accuracy, Damage, Defense, Speed, Rate (later addition, IIRC), Range (when applicable), and sometimes special modifiers. It was a clunky as hell, but that's also because the system was clunky as hell. D&D 5e doesn't give any equivalents to Accuracy (no weapon that I know of has inherent bonuses to hit) or Speed (no inherent initiative boosts) or Rate (attacks are governed by class abilities and maybe some abilities allow bonus action uses of certain weapons, but I don't recall any offhand). Defense in D&D might be there if a weapon gives a +1 AC, but that's usually Feat territory.
Quote from: Elfdart;1059092I've used this system for many years:
D2: very small weapons
D4: small weapons
D6: medium weapons
D8: large one-handed weapons
D10: large two-handed weapons
It has more variety than "D6 For All" but doesn't get into the hair-splitting of the more detailed charts. A large one-handed sword does D8 damage, whether someone calls it a broadsword, arming sword, falchion, spatha, katana, sabre, scimitar, tulwar or whatever.
Ditto here -- I don't use "very small weapons" (fists do 1 Damage), and I call the largest category "Extra-large". Otherwise, my system is identical.
Not only does the specific type of "large sword" not matter to me, I also allow most weapons to come in any size, and I allow all Small Weapons to be hurled effectively.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1059265Did anyone actually use those "weapon vs. armor types" (or whatever they were specifically called) tables from AD&D? I remember looking them over and we all just took a pass on them (just like the unarmed attack rules from that edition's DMG). I think that was an example of too much weapon detail.
The table from Greyhawk was
misused in a campaign I played in, which had combat charts by weapon; one result was that javelins were terrible weapons, because the chart in the book seemed to reflect that they were specifically bad against shields, so they ended up being bad against every armor class better than AC9.
QuoteD&D 5e doesn't give any equivalents to Accuracy (no weapon that I know of has inherent bonuses to hit) or Speed (no inherent initiative boosts) or Rate (attacks are governed by class abilities and maybe some abilities allow bonus action uses of certain weapons, but I don't recall any offhand). Defense in D&D might be there if a weapon gives a +1 AC, but that's usually Feat territory.
Accuracy and Speed don't really arise in 5e, except perhaps that archers can get +2 to hit with one of the fighting styles, and there is the Weapon of Warning (magic item giving advantage on initiative :D). Most of the bonuses given are to damage, by design for 5e.
Rate is mostly tied to Extra Attack which is a class ability, but there are rules that give Bonus Action attacks for specific weapons: I don't have the PHB at hand, but I think there's a crossbow feat that allows Extra Attack to apply where reloading would otherwise prevent it, and a polearm feat that allows a bonus attack with certain weapons. A second weapon attack is a bonus action that requires a weapon in the off hand with certain limitations (light, by default, I think), with a feat to remove some of the two weapon restrictions.
For Defense, I would say that the only weapon choice affecting AC is whether your weapon is two handed or not; in the latter case, if you are proficient with shields, you can add to AC by using a shield. (And the shield master feat allowed you to attack with the shield.) Otherwise I can't think of a weapon specific bonus to AC. I can't think of anything that improve AC based on using a specific weapon otherwise.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1058998Do you want your melee weapons to have more sophisticate differences between each of them? Or are you fine with a short sword, spear, mace, hammer and handaxe all doing 1d6 and being basically interchangeable?
I want differences, because I want a tactical game (however no edition of D&D does what I want to provide a tactical game approaching even TFT, so it's really a matter of just not my game style).
But it seems particularly unsatisfying to have all weapons do the same damage. It makes me wonder, what's the point of even saying what your weapon is? Why spend money on a weapon when a stick or rock (or just, the cheapest weapon on the table) would perform identically? Having them be identical seems to me to erase almost all pretense that the game really includes various types of weapon at all.
Quote from: WillInNewHaven;1059108A great deal depends on what the rest of the system is like. I use varied weapon damage but I think reach is much more important than damage. That is why knives of various types are problematic, not because they do less damage. But the guy with the sword or club can keep you from ever reaching her by injuring or killing you before you can get there. That is also why the spear usually beats the sword because you pretty much never get there if you have the sword and are not at some other advantage. the advantage of the sword is that you can wear it and the spear must be carried.
Suspension of disbelief trumps simplicity in my mind. And finding ways to overcome a reach disadvantage or to keep your reach advantage makes combat more interesting.
The lack of a weapon space in many games irritates me. There are times where a short stabby weapon (dagger, short sword) makes sense, but short of the occasional special rule included on the spot (mentioned in a module for a specific situation like following giant rats down a sewer tunnel), are rarely included even in games that are otherwise fairly detailed.
I know of a few games that give an advantage to long weapons (spears) at their proper range and to shorter weapons if they can get inside of that range, but even that seem to be kind of unusual. It rarely seems to go beyond that. Considering the amount of time spent underground, you would expect more emphasis on weapon size.
AD&D had the right idea with weapon vs armor tables, but they were far too wargamey for most, anyway I don't know anybody that actually used them. A simple advantage or limitation against broad armor types would have been more desirable than tables detailing the effect against each specific armor type. The S and L damage ratings never made a lot of sense to me either (S/M 1d8 / L 1d12 for Longsword for example). I never understood the need, and it seemed fairly random as to which weapons performed better against large creatures.
Quote from: Skarg;1059278But it seems particularly unsatisfying to have all weapons do the same damage. It makes me wonder, what's the point of even saying what your weapon is? Why spend money on a weapon when a stick or rock (or just, the cheapest weapon on the table) would perform identically? Having them be identical seems to me to erase almost all pretense that the game really includes various types of weapon at all.
I don't think anyone here has suggested that all weapons do the same damage - rather reducing the differentiation to eliminate differences between, for example, a morningstar and war pick or spear vs trident. I gave some specific examples earlier.
Quote from: jhkim;1059292I don't think anyone here has suggested that all weapons do the same damage - rather reducing the differentiation to eliminate differences between, for example, a morningstar and war pick or spear vs trident. I gave some specific examples earlier.
In my game, weapon damage is static for each weapon (for example, regardless of who wields it, all spears do +5 damage, all battleaxes do +4 damage, all short swords do +3 damage, etc.). Total damage dealt on a hit will vary, however, by character (some classes have a higher potential for damage), weapon damage type (slashing, piercing, etc.), and whether or not the attack hit an area protected by armor or not. Weapons are inanimate objects. Their effectiveness and potential should be based far more on the skill/training of the wielder than the weapon itself.
Quote from: Graewulf;1059301In my game, weapon damage is static for each weapon (for example, regardless of who wields it, all spears do +5 damage, all battleaxes do +4 damage, all short swords do +3 damage, etc.). Total damage dealt on a hit will vary, however, by character (some classes have a higher potential for damage), weapon damage type (slashing, piercing, etc.), and whether or not the attack hit an area protected by armor or not. Weapons are inanimate objects. Their effectiveness and potential should be based far more on the skill/training of the wielder than the weapon itself.
Which is completely wrong. A dagger in a thief's hand will do the same amount of damage as in a fighter. Because the length thickness of the metal is the same. It's why it takes multiple hits to kill a human being with a knife typically. Bleeding out is how a knife kills.
No, it breaks the suspension of disbelief. Yes, I know Sneak Attack and Strength/Dex bonus change that, but it's still to show TRAINING. A dagger will always to the same amount of damage, it's how it's used that changes it.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1059353Which is completely wrong. A dagger in a thief's hand will do the same amount of damage as in a fighter. Because the length thickness of the metal is the same. It's why it takes multiple hits to kill a human being with a knife typically. Bleeding out is how a knife kills.
No, it breaks the suspension of disbelief. Yes, I know Sneak Attack and Strength/Dex bonus change that, but it's still to show TRAINING. A dagger will always to the same amount of damage, it's how it's used that changes it.
I think you're misusing "damage" here. A dagger doesn't deal damage at all. It is an inert object and the size and sharpness of its blade are meaningless without some outside force acting upon it. What matters is the relative mass behind the dagger and the velocity its blade can reach by the user's movement.
Frankly, if you wanted to be realistic, the base "damage" for a weapon should be a multiplier of your Strength (Mass) multiplied by your Dexterity (Velocity) in terms of how efficiently it uses those in comparison to, say, a punch.
Also, "damage" is not some static thing that can be measured anyway. The human body is not a ballistics gel dummy; it is composed of materials of varying density and hardness with areas of greater or lesser importance in terms of its ability to survive. To wit; a dagger puncturing a target's shoulder is not the same as one that punctures the intestines and a dagger that glances off the ribs is not the same as one that slides between the ribs and hits a lung. The hole might be the same size (though not in the case of it glancing off the bone), but the amount of "damage" done to the target in terms of their ability to survive (and how quickly they bleed out) is much much different.
Even an inch can be critical. The only reason I still have both feet is because a particular injury that put a golfball sized hole in my leg when out on a trail in Montana missed the artery by half an inch and so I didn't need a tourniquet during the one hour ride to the hospital, just some pressure and elevation to minimize the bleeding. If it had hit the artery I would have likely lost the foot due to the tourniquet and long trip the closest hospital or even bled out if one hadn't been applied. Same "damage", but half an inch mattered between me just having a scar that aches a bit when the weather changes and having to wear a prosthetic foot or even being in a grave by my church.
So to get the actual damage with any degree of accuracy you'd need a hit location table that provides an additional multiplier to the dagger's base damage (again, a multiplier of the user's mass and velocity upon it).
And this is before you take into account armor. A good thin dagger might slip easily through chain (to a degree, the amount of force needing to break a riveted ring is not trivial so a tight mesh with good riveting might keep all but the flimsiest of blades from being able to get very deep and there's a gambeson backing that up to keep it from reaching anything vital too), but be utterly useless against a steel plate unless you can maneuver it through a gap in the plates. Meanwhile a bludgeon of sufficient force might shake up the person inside the plate without having to entirely penetrate it (while one of insufficient force won't penetrate at all and is too broad to try and bypass the plates for a vulnerable point).
Quote from: Chris24601;1059360So to get the actual damage with any degree of accuracy you'd need a hit location table that provides an additional multiplier to the dagger's base damage (again, a multiplier of the user's mass and velocity upon it).
Harnmaster and GURPS are the only two RPGs that I played and refereed that modeled injury accurately and still remain playable. Of the two Harnmaster is the more accurate and playable.
GURPS handles damage by accounting for mass and strength (weapon modifies damage dice based on strength). The type of weapons. Armor subtract from damage. The type of damage (blunt, impaling, or cutting) causes watch remains to get multiplied by a factor (blunt - 1, cutting - 1.5, impaling - 2). Some armor or more or less effective against certain types of damage. Some types of damage are modified by the hit location for example a thrust to the vitals (heart region) impaling get 3x damage, while any shot to the skull gets multiplied by 4 after armor and the skull natural armor is substracted.
In Harnmaster one's skill determines how much damage is dealt. There is a impact modifier for weapons which have different aspects (point, edge, blunt), and the weapon skills are influenced by strength and dexterity in different ways. Some weapons skills are more strength based like two handed sword, some are more dexterity based like dagger.
However most of your potential damage stems on how well you do against your opponent's defense. Success levels are critical success, success, failure, and critical failure. Cross index the result on a chart and roll the amount of dice (if successfully hit) and add in the impact of the weapon. Then you roll for hit location and subtract the armor rating from the impact.
The remaining impact is cross indexed on the injury chart and will produce two things. A injury die roll and a saving throw. The saving throw modified by current injury level is where the bad stuff happens. You can get shock, stumble, fumble, amputated, or killed by failing the save.
Injury modifies the above saves and degrades your physical skills. Despite making all the save enough injury will make cause character to be unable to make any type of physical skill roll.
It may sound complicated but it all reduced a nicely designed one page set of charts. http://www.columbiagames.com/resources/4001/harnmaster-combattables.pdf
It sits between OD&D and GURP/D&D 4e in terms of how long combat takes to resolves during a session. Compared to Runequest.
As for D&D, it combat is an abstraction born of a mass melee wargame where one -hit equal one kill. This was boring and quickly evolved into 1 hit = 1d6 damage and 1 kill = 1d6 hit points. The odds of killing an opponent was based on cross-indexing the the weapon used versus the armor of the target. Roll that number on 2d6 and the opponent was dead. Unless the opponent was a Hero in which case it took 4 hits to kill (with the wrinkle it had to be a single round). A super hero took 8 hits to kill.
For everything else you cross index the character type/monster type versus the target. Any type of weapon would do. Roll that number on a 2d6 and the target died.
OD&D had the option of using this and provided the stats to make it work. It offered an alternative system that everybody associates with D&D of looking up one's level and class versus the target's AC. Roll that number on a d20 and the target gets hit for 1d6 damage, irregardless of the weapon used.
It was in the Greyhawk supplement that varying damage dice was introduced, and Chainmail's weapon versus AC chart was modified to work with the d20 roll high alternative system. Instead of a fixed number, the result was a modifier to the d20 to hit roll.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2959[/ATTACH]
Going outside of D&D, I find the Silhouette Engine (at least as it appeared in Jovian Chronicles) to be a pretty good abstraction. Weapon damage was a multiplier applied to the attacker's margin of success of an attack check vs. defense check (the system used 'best multiple d6s' with extra 6's being worth +1 so the margins were reasonably constrained) and then compared to a set of thresholds (based on armor and body mass) for light injury/serious injury/instant death.
Injuries reduced your skill performance (including your defense check) and thus made your attacker's margin of success grow higher (eventually reaching the point where getting the "you're dead" threshold becomes a certainty). A really good attack (multiple 6's so a 7-8+modifiers) when the defender rolls crap (1-2+modifiers) acould often hit the "you're dead" threshold as well so every round of combat was a risk.
It's not a system I'd recommend if you're looking for Big Damned Heroes style play, but for reasonably simple, but fairly realistic, combat it was pretty solid.
Mekton also did a pretty decent job via its static damage vs. hit locations (with levels that ranged from injured to severed/mangled beyond hope of recovery) and armor as stopping power that degraded with each hit also provided fairly realistic results.
Neither would translate well to the level of abstraction you typically see in D&D though, nor to the flat distribution of a single d20 check.
Quote from: Graewulf;1059301In my game, weapon damage is static for each weapon (for example, regardless of who wields it, all spears do +5 damage, all battleaxes do +4 damage, all short swords do +3 damage, etc.). Total damage dealt on a hit will vary, however, by character (some classes have a higher potential for damage), weapon damage type (slashing, piercing, etc.), and whether or not the attack hit an area protected by armor or not. Weapons are inanimate objects. Their effectiveness and potential should be based far more on the skill/training of the wielder than the weapon itself.
That is kind of how GURPS does things. While I understand the concept of just adding a bonus to damage, and even agree to a point, I just don't personally care for that method.
If you think about it though, most games give to hit and / or damage bonuses based on strength and dexterity / agility, so is there really that much difference between 1d4 for a dagger and 1d8 for a battle axe and bonuses to hit and damage for high STR / Dex and damage based on the wielder (lets say 1d4 to 1d8 for the normal human stat range) and +0 for a dagger / +4 for a battle axe?
Quote from: jhkim;1059292I don't think anyone here has suggested that all weapons do the same damage - rather reducing the differentiation to eliminate differences between, for example, a morningstar and war pick or spear vs trident. I gave some specific examples earlier.
Doesn't the very first post in this thread ask exactly that? i.e.:
Quote from: RPGPundit;1058998Do you want your melee weapons to have more sophisticate differences between each of them? Or are you fine with a short sword, spear, mace, hammer and handaxe all doing 1d6 and being basically interchangeable?
(my bold)
Or did I over-apply that, and RPGPundit meant not like White Box 0D&D (where really almost every weapon does 1d6), but merely games where certain weapons are interchangeable, but several are not?
Quote from: HappyDaze;1059265Did anyone actually use those "weapon vs. armor types" (or whatever they were specifically called) tables from AD&D? I remember looking them over and we all just took a pass on them (just like the unarmed attack rules from that edition's DMG). I think that was an example of too much weapon detail.
IMO, the logical conclusion of those tables is
Arms Law. This is not necessarily a
bad thing.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1058998Do you want your melee weapons to have more sophisticate differences between each of them? Or are you fine with a short sword, spear, mace, hammer and handaxe all doing 1d6 and being basically interchangeable?
I wrote an article for Knockspell about this years ago.
I use 1D6 base for weapons in OD&D. I say base because weapons have characteristics, such as a mace and sword might do 1D6 HP damage each, the mace is good for breaking down doors and smashing chests and the sword is not. However, the sword is a stabbing weapon, thus better in tight quarters combat. Sword is good at poking stuff too.
Also, in OD&D, a +1 or -1 modifier is meaningful because HD is D6 as well. So 1D6 sword vs. a 2HD monster means the monster usually has 7 HP. So if you have a +1 STR mod, you can outright kill that monster 15% of the time.
As for gameplay, I have been exclusively using D6 base for weapons for 10 years in my OD&D to great result. The players LOVE not worrying about sub-optimal choices and instead choosing a weapon just because it's cool for their character to use. It's really made spears popular at my games. Oddly, pick axes too.
Quote from: Aglondir;1059094Perfect.
I do something similar with armor types.
Quote from: Chris24601;1059360I think you're misusing "damage" here.
No I'm not. This is a Mass + Velocity = Damage formula. And Mass is the weapon in question. The extra damage caused by either critical hits or special powers is to simulate the knowledge of a more lethal location or a lucky strike. There's a reason swords and axes and maces are of differing lengths and weights, because the weapon's MASS means something. A man using dagger doesn't do that much physical damage, no matter how strong they are, because the velocity a strong man can generate isn't as different as a weaker man. It doesn't do that much hydro-static shock either, unlike a bullet (which is what really kills a human being when it comes to ballistics.) So weapon sizes and the strength require to use them do matter, more than y'all want to speculate.
Another factor not taken into account is leverage as well. The more/faster you can more the pointy end into the enemy with the least amount of force required is also part of Mass and Velocity.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1058998Do you want your melee weapons to have more sophisticate differences between each of them?
Or are you fine with a short sword, spear, mace, hammer and handaxe all doing 1d6 and being basically interchangeable?
1: No. Its just senseless overcomplication usually.
2: Yes. As long as its within reason.
O, B, and BX D&D used too basic a system. all reapons did 1d6. BX mixed it up a little so there was some differentiation.
AD&D in a way went too far in the other direction depending on point of view. There is alot of interchanability in the basic stats. But there was too much differentiation with the vs AC aspect.
Same with armour. Or guns. etc.
Quote from: jhkimI don't think anyone here has suggested that all weapons do the same damage - rather reducing the differentiation to eliminate differences between, for example, a morningstar and war pick or spear vs trident. I gave some specific examples earlier.
Quote from: Skarg;1059387Doesn't the very first post in this thread ask exactly that? i.e.: (my bold)
Quote from: RPGPunditDo you want your melee weapons to have more sophisticate differences between each of them? Or are you fine with a short sword, spear, mace, hammer and handaxe all doing 1d6 and being basically interchangeable?
Or did I over-apply that, and RPGPundit meant not like White Box 0D&D (where really almost every weapon does 1d6), but merely games where certain weapons are interchangeable, but several are not?
You extended Pundit's quote to suggest that even a stick or a rock would do the same damage as a sword, whereas I interpreted it more narrowly that one-handed military weapons would all do the same damage. The one oddball in Pundit's list is spear - which is often seen as a large two-handed weapon, but there are short one-handed spears like the iklwa.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1059353Which is completely wrong. A dagger in a thief's hand will do the same amount of damage as in a fighter. Because the length thickness of the metal is the same. It's why it takes multiple hits to kill a human being with a knife typically. Bleeding out is how a knife kills.
No, it breaks the suspension of disbelief. Yes, I know Sneak Attack and Strength/Dex bonus change that, but it's still to show TRAINING. A dagger will always to the same amount of damage, it's how it's used that changes it.
Which is what I said...
If the dagger adds +2 to any wielder's damage, the dagger is doing the same damage (+2). The difference is in the wielder's skill/training. The warrior or rogue will do more damage with that dagger because they know how
and where to strike to do more damage better than the wizard, but the dagger itself is still only doing +2 damage.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1059416It doesn't do that much hydro-static shock either, unlike a bullet (which is what really kills a human being when it comes to ballistics.)
Not really (except sort-of for supersonic shots to the head, which can cause the skull to basically explode). From my reading (not having been shot personally) normally it's not the hydrostatic shock that makes bullets much deadlier than knife or arrow wounds, even though those weapons make bigger holes. A bullet even when subsonic is going fast enough that it tears flesh apart as it tumbles through, whereas an arrow or knife is going slow enough that the flesh slides around the blade. The result is that a small bullet does more and worse damage than a big arrow, but it's still due to direct impact not a shock wave.
This also means the torn flesh from a bullet wound has a much harder time knitting back together than the typical much cleaner incision from a knife. Pre-antibiotics that means people are much likelier to die of torso bullet wounds where a knife wound that misses major organs might be survivable.
For me, the answer is no. If anything, I prefer more generic damage by broad-class of weapon. That's what I did in Lion & Dragon. It frees up players to choose the weapon for aesthetic/roleplaying reasons, rather than mechanical reasons.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1059866For me, the answer is no. If anything, I prefer more generic damage by broad-class of weapon. That's what I did in Lion & Dragon. It frees up players to choose the weapon for aesthetic/roleplaying reasons, rather than mechanical reasons.
A lot of games do it this way. I don't think it's realistic historically, but it makes sense for gaming purposes to keep things tidy.
I think there is a sweet-spot, but most games tend to go a little strongly in one direction or another for my tastes.
Quote from: tenbones;1059892A lot of games do it this way. I don't think it's realistic historically, but it makes sense for gaming purposes to keep things tidy.
I think there is a sweet-spot, but most games tend to go a little strongly in one direction or another for my tastes.
The issue is that weapons vary from setting to setting but for the most part it's visual not mechanical. In D&D for example, a Katana could easily be represented as a Long Sword or Bastard Sword depending on the edition. There's nothing really different in the base system.
in palladiums dead reign, curved blades dont get stuck in the zombies where a straight edge does. So that's fun.
One difference that I've started enforcing that makes a huge amount of difference is how much elbow room different weapons need to swing.
For example with spears you can pack in three guys in a map square since they don't need much elbow room, a sword or mace can fit two guys in a square and something like a two-handed sword needs a whole map square to himself to swing his sword about without penalty.
Made my players start favoring spears even with lower damage due to reach and being able to pack them in densely. Having a bunch of back rank henchmen with spears made a huge difference when facing down gnolls with two-handed swords.
Overall I wouldn't mind something like this for weapon specific advantages:
-Spears etc.: can pack people into tighter formations which is great in a dungeon.
-Swords: +1 AC due to swords being good at parrying.
-Bludgeoning: tiny bit of damage if you miss due to armor.
-Axes etc: slightly more damage.
Gives some good trade-offs without complicating things too much. Calculating whether you missed due to just missing the dude or due to his armor is easy to calculate if you use a White Hack-style d20 mechanic (basically in White Hack you have to roll under a target number based on your skill but if something is really difficult then the lower numbers also become failures, so if my attack skill is 15 I have to roll a 15 or less to hit the dude but if he has chain mail then 1-5 become misses due to his armor while 6-15 are still hits).
Quote from: tenbones;1059892A lot of games do it this way. I don't think it's realistic historically, but it makes sense for gaming purposes to keep things tidy.
I think there is a sweet-spot, but most games tend to go a little strongly in one direction or another for my tastes.
Greetings!
Hey Tenbones! CHOMP!!! CHOMP!!! lol. I agree with you. I think there is a definitely *elusive* sweetspot somewhere between elegant simplicity and overloaded technical detail. As an Historian, damn, what can I say? Historical nuances and performances of weaponry *matters*. There are reasons why group A decided to stop using this kind of sword, and instead embraced this kind over here. I imagine "gamists" or whatever they are called like to assume a sword is just a fucking sword, move on. lol. But there's a huge difference between any number of swords, their inherent strengths and weaknesses, and how they actually perform in combat. I must say, however, that while there is an inherent baseline to how a weapon performs, a good deal of its raw combat effectiveness is also closely tied to the training of the warrior using it.
For example; take the Gallic Longsword. Historians have noted--even primary historians from the day, as well!--how the Gallic Longsword, a fine weapon of three or four feet in length, was a slashing weapon, and well-suited to the wild, fierce fighting styles of the Celtic warriors. Many of the Celtic warriors were typically quite tall, physical beasts, with long arms and long reaches. So, the Gallic Longsword, also known to be of heavier and thick crafting, was a strong, powerful weapon, and suited to the Celtic warriors quite well.
The Roman Gladius--the Romans used the Gladius, a two-foot long shortsword, modified and improved from an old Spanish design from centuries before. Many Historians have said that the Roman Gladius was the most murderously effective weapon of the ancient world. The Roman Gladius was a thrusting weapon, designed to be thrust up into an enemy. The Romans, typically of average height, though strong, were well-suited to the Gladius. The Roman Legions trained the legionnaires over and over and over to use the Gladius in swift, stabbing motions, aimed at plunging the blade up into an enemy where the armor was thin or weaker. The Gladius blade itself was thick, broad, and when plunged up into an enemy, essentially disembowled them, and was immediately lethal. Furthermore, the Legions were trained to attack with their Gladius swords in unison, over and over again, creating a machine-like effect. With the ranks of the legions being constantly rotated every 10 to 15 minutes, each consecutive rank was fresh for the fight, after resting in behind ranks for periods of 45 minutes. This created a constant death machine, never tiring, always advancing and relentless.
The Gallic Longsword didn't save the Celts. They were consistently annihilated en masse by the Romans, even when the Gauls outnumbered the Romans greatly, at odds of 2, 3, 5 or more to 1. At the end of the day, Ceasar could seemingly take on any number of Gauls, and emerge victorious. The famous Greeks, using a different kind of sword, as well as their 18 foot long pikes--while fierce and brave--they too fell to the Gladius armed Roman Legionnaires. Clearly, whatever the technical merits of dozens of styles of swords and other melee weapons, the Roman Gladius remained as perhaps the most brutally effective weapon for hand to hand combat designed by man in 2,000 years. It's mass simplicity, ruggedness, and capacity for mass slaughter wasn't probably equalled until the mass deployment of hand-cannon in the 16th or 17th centuries.
But, as much as I favour nuances and special detail in a variety of weapons, as you mentioned, there is a serious "gamist" appeal--one of simplicity and ease of use. Embracing superior detail of individual weapons typically brings with it loads of extra details, extra sub-systems, and when combined, you've then embraced something which adds considerable time, attention, and record-keeping to the game. That has it's own trainload of headaches.:) I like the special details--but like others from a more gamist approach--I don't like the extra trainload of headaches. Finding that sweetspot seems to be elusive indeed!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Daztur;1059957One difference that I've started enforcing that makes a huge amount of difference is how much elbow room different weapons need to swing.
I have enforced this for years and had players rage at it. Usually rules-laywer types.
But it makes sense to me that you can't easily tunnel fight with a great axe and that a fighter whirling a two-handed sword around cannot do so with his allies stood around him.
The players who know me better always take a dagger as a back-up weapon that can be used in confined spaces, easily concealed, drawn quickly in most circumstances, coup de grace, thrown accurately, etc.
An axe seems like a weapon that really does need a lot of space. A greatsword can be used as a stabbing polearm, and even half-sworded, so ought to be useable in fairly confined spaces I'd think. If you can use a spear you can probably use a greatsword.
Quote from: S'mon;1060021An axe seems like a weapon that really does need a lot of space. A greatsword can be used as a stabbing polearm, and even half-sworded, so ought to be useable in fairly confined spaces I'd think. If you can use a spear you can probably use a greatsword.
If you can use an ax with one hand, then you don't need a lot of space. You're right about the great sword though.
I have no problem with GMs saying "You can't swing a two-handed sword in a big arc with your allies standing next to you". The problem is when they say "two-handed swords can only be used by swinging them in a big arc."
Games usually underestimate the versatility of weapons. For example, "A knife is for slashing. A quarterstaff is for bludgeoning. A spear is for piercing." But a spear is a knife on the end of a quarterstaff. You can slash with the tip of a spear or swing the blunt end or strike with the shaft. Unless a knife is extremely curved, you can still stab with it. You can thrust with a quarterstaff just like a spear (it probably won't poke a hole in the target, but it will still hurt and at a greater range than swinging the end like).
I'd like to see something like "spear, 1d6, +1 to hit when piercing" instead of "spear, 1d6 piercing damage". It can do slashing or bludgeoning too, but piercing is what it's good at. Some swords are better at slashing and others are better at piercing, but they can do both (except for some hyperspecialized blades like machetes and fencing foils) and pommel strikes are a thing.
A long sword is best at slicing, but it can do thrusting and bashing. Medieval fighting manuals describe how to hold a sword by the blade and bash with the pommel and quillons. They called it the "murder stroke", not the "last ditch, half-assed attempt to do minimal damage by improvising". It wasn't optimized for that like a mace, but it was still effective.
Quote from: Xuc Xac;1060041If you can use an ax with one hand, then you don't need a lot of space. You're right about the great sword though.
I have no problem with GMs saying "You can't swing a two-handed sword in a big arc with your allies standing next to you". The problem is when they say "two-handed swords can only be used by swinging them in a big arc."
Games usually underestimate the versatility of weapons. For example, "A knife is for slashing. A quarterstaff is for bludgeoning. A spear is for piercing." But a spear is a knife on the end of a quarterstaff. You can slash with the tip of a spear or swing the blunt end or strike with the shaft. Unless a knife is extremely curved, you can still stab with it. You can thrust with a quarterstaff just like a spear (it probably won't poke a hole in the target, but it will still hurt and at a greater range than swinging the end like).
I'd like to see something like "spear, 1d6, +1 to hit when piercing" instead of "spear, 1d6 piercing damage". It can do slashing or bludgeoning too, but piercing is what it's good at. Some swords are better at slashing and others are better at piercing, but they can do both (except for some hyperspecialized blades like machetes and fencing foils) and pommel strikes are a thing.
A long sword is best at slicing, but it can do thrusting and bashing. Medieval fighting manuals describe how to hold a sword by the blade and bash with the pommel and quillons. They called it the "murder stroke", not the "last ditch, half-assed attempt to do minimal damage by improvising". It wasn't optimized for that like a mace, but it was still effective.
Greetings!
Excellent observations, Xuc Xac!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Xuc Xac;1060041If you can use an ax with one hand, then you don't need a lot of space.
For 1 handed axe I guess about the same as a mace or warhammer - enough to get some strength behind the swing. More than for a stabby weapon; also more than for a draw-cut sword stroke I'd think. Maybe Rob or another re-enactor or HEMA dude can confirm from actual use.
Looking at Matt Easton/Scholagladiatoria videos, his two handed dane axe seemed to need a lot of space to wield effectively, though of course even in confined space it's still a stick with a lump of sharp metal on the end and better than nothing.
Conversely, the greatsword is a very versatile weapon - those big two handed swings seem to have been one of the rarer uses, except in treatises where German bodyguards use zweihanders to deter packs of roaming unarmoured bandits. I get the impression that on the 16th century battlefield it was probably most commonly used in an overhead thrust, much like a short pike.
Quote from: SHARK;1059967I imagine "gamists" or whatever they are called like to assume a sword is just a fucking sword, move on. lol. But there's a huge difference between any number of swords, their inherent strengths and weaknesses, and how they actually perform in combat.
Thats sort of the opposite of what gamist means. Gamists dont want simplicity, they want mechanical complexity that produces results that are mechanical first, and narrative second... Narrativists want colorful fluff but mechanical simplicity. Gamists want each different thing to have its own unique mechanics that relate to each other in a constant neverending peacemeal oneupmanship of each other in some form of tactical technical mechanical exchange. Gamists prefer complicated mechanical systems because finding mechanics to exploit to their advantage is the bulk of the fun they derive from the game. Simply rolling an extra d20 for advantage is far too simplistic for the gamist. They want specific mechanical effects to produce satisfying specific mechanical results. Tactical wargaming is gamist... With an emphasis on tactical. The more gears (mechanical rules) in the machine they can turn the better. They are also the ones who most ardently speak of 'game balance'. Every choice they make must produce its own specific discrete mechanical benefit.
A simulationist (interested in versimilitude) would suggest that a trident does 3 times as much damage as a spear because it stabs you in 3 different places, and if its got barbed tines, it should do double damage because it rips at its victim just as badly when you pull it back out as it did going in in the first place. A gamist would
choose that weapon over any weapon that didnt somehow produce even more damage whether it fit his characters narrative or not. They'd build characters so that picking the trident made thematic sense so nobody would question their character build narratively... A narrativist is the one who says eh. pierce, bludgeon, slash... Who cares. You took a wound. We can talk colorfully about what that wound is like and thats what differentiates it from other wounds, but mechanically the wounds all produce mechanically a unified unit of 'wounding'. Better that I take bludgeoning damage than slashing because if I get slashed maybe I'm then bleeding on the floor. Bleeding internally is bad, but having to fight while slippin around on blood would be worse! If a gamist found out that slashing weapons provided a bonus to making their opponent slip and fall in their own blood, the gamist would then choose slashing weapons for said mechanical advantage.
For simulationists the mechanics shape the rules, for gamists the rules shape the choices, and for narrativists the narrative shapes the results of the choice.
Quote from: VincentTakeda;1060106Thats sort of the opposite of what gamist means. Gamists dont want simplicity, they want mechanical complexity that produces results that are mechanical first, and narrative second... Narrativists want colorful fluff but mechanical simplicity. Gamists want each different thing to have its own unique mechanics that relate to each other in a constant neverending peacemeal oneupmanship of each other in some form of tactical technical mechanical exchange. Gamists prefer complicated mechanical systems because finding mechanics to exploit to their advantage is the bulk of the fun they derive from the game. Simply rolling an extra d20 for advantage is far too simplistic for the gamist. They want specific mechanical effects to produce satisfying specific mechanical results. Tactical wargaming is gamist... With an emphasis on tactical. The more gears (mechanical rules) in the machine they can turn the better. They are also the ones who most ardently speak of 'game balance'. Every choice they make must produce its own specific discrete mechanical benefit.
A simulationist (interested in versimilitude) would suggest that a trident does 3 times as much damage as a spear because it stabs you in 3 different places, and if its got barbed tines, it should do double damage because it rips at its victim just as badly when you pull it back out as it did going in in the first place. A gamist would choose that weapon over any weapon that didnt somehow produce even more damage whether it fit his characters narrative or not. They'd build characters so that picking the trident made thematic sense so nobody would question their character build narratively... A narrativist is the one who says eh. pierce, bludgeon, slash... Who cares. You took a wound. We can talk colorfully about what that wound is like and thats what differentiates it from other wounds, but mechanically the wounds all produce mechanically a unified unit of 'wounding'. Better that I take bludgeoning damage than slashing because if I get slashed maybe I'm then bleeding on the floor. Bleeding internally is bad, but having to fight while slippin around on blood would be worse! If a gamist found out that slashing weapons provided a bonus to making their opponent slip and fall in their own blood, the gamist would then choose slashing weapons for said mechanical advantage.
For simulationists the mechanics shape the rules, for gamists the rules shape the choices, and for narrativists the narrative shapes the results of the choice.
Greetings!
Thank you, VincentTakeda, for correcting my application of those gaming terms. I'm glad that you still understood what I was getting at, though.:) It's interesting reading about the strange philosophical details of the different terms though. I admit, my knowledge of them has only ever been rough, because I tended to *tune them out* over the years. (Going way back to the days of "The Forge", "The Swine" and all of the pages and pages and pages of endlessly debating "GMS Theory"--it kind of made my eyes glaze over in boredom.)
Again, though, I truly appreciate your concise and understandable explanation concerning such terms. From your explanation, I suppose I tend to favour the simplicity of the Narrativist, but have strong leanings also towards Simulationism. I like the game flow of playing, seeing the world and stories unfold in a fast, efficient and fun manner--but the Historian in me gets bothered by historical details being too casually ignored or mangled! :)
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
No trouble at all. For me its always been easist to remember as gamists are interested in the mechanics, and the more mechanics the better. If a story happens so be it, but mechanics and the pitting of the mechanics against the challenges are the most important part. 'The Game' above all else. The players participate in the game by manipulation of the mechanics.
Narrativists on the opposite end want the mechanics to get out of the way so I can take you on a journey! Here's the plan. Join the plan! Mechanics only to the point that they dont slow us down or get in the way... Dont let too many messy mechanics derail the train. We've got to get to point b by any means necessary. Modules and adventure paths are like this. Anybody can ride the train but the train is bound for point b. You can hop off the train for a while but getting to point b is what the game is all about. "The narrative" above all. The players participate in the game by contributing to the narrative, and frequently do so 'narratively'. (narrativism is unique in that it often allows the players to control things in the world other than their own characters). Its also the easiest to run because everyone playing has already bought the ticket. Everyone agrees that the plan is to get to point b. A unified table runs with speed and efficiency. Much like the marines.
The baliwick of the simulationist is the sandbox... I don't want the mechanics or the narrative to stomp on the freedom of choice. While Gamists plan to bash mechanic against mechanic for its own sake, and narrativists want to tell a tale and bring the characters along for the ride, the simulationist wants the focus to be on the characters themselves... I don't want the story to drag me along kicking and screaming if I choose not to go there... My choices are what matters the most and the more distinct choices I have the better. Mechanics AND story are secondary to player agency... I make my OWN plan. I'll know where I'm going as I go... Let me choose to what destination i'm going, which problems I'm interested in solving, and if a deeper meaning happens to grow from that, so be it.. Exploitation of mechanics or the creation of colorful narrative is secondary... "Character agency" above all. The players participate in the game by exploring and wandering and finding inspiration and direction and meaning as they go. Often the toughest game to run. Hard on the players because they have to create their own inspiration and not having a gravitational point b to head towards can sometimes result in herding cats. Hard on the gm because the gm is called upon to react improvisationally to these cats and the much more frequent surprise direction or lack thereof. Tougher to plan for. This style of planning is often called schroedingers choice or xanatos speed chess.
If I were to plot the systems graphically I'd say simulationists start with a point called 'my character' and blossom out in any direction the characters choose, narrativism is like a black hole that ends with a point called 'the storys satisfying conclusion' and all roads are pulled in towards that point, and gamism just runs around and vibrates in little tight circles, getting slightly bigger and faster as time goes on.
Simulationism a garden sprinkler where the water starts at a point and sprays everywhere, narrativism a sink where its all flowing down a single drain, and gamism a snowglobe. Nothins going anywhere but its fun to shake it up.
Granted thats not a 100% accurate interpretation of GNS theory, but
- The guy who wrote gns theory was a huge part of the burgioning narrativist/storyteller movement,
- was an ardent fan of narrativism,
- ended up scrapping the whole gns theory in the end anyway.
So now its all just grognard shop talk. Still super useful for making sure you find the right kinda tables who share your particular gaming goals. Ideally all games would have all three. Meaty intricate but speedy mechanics, a cool storyline, and plenty of player agency, but failing that... Gotta choose whats most important to you personally and its good to have a clear picture what that is. 'Know thyself'.
Quote from: Malleustein;1060020I have enforced this for years and had players rage at it. Usually rules-laywer types.
But it makes sense to me that you can't easily tunnel fight with a great axe and that a fighter whirling a two-handed sword around cannot do so with his allies stood around him.
The players who know me better always take a dagger as a back-up weapon that can be used in confined spaces, easily concealed, drawn quickly in most circumstances, coup de grace, thrown accurately, etc.
Mine loved it after they started getting five attacks in close tunnel fighting for every one attack the gnolls were getting off. Made henchmen with cheap spears valuable since you could pack them so tight.
Quote from: SHARK;1060111Greetings!
Thank you, VincentTakeda, for correcting my application of those gaming terms.
Well, his definition of the terms wasn't actually any more accurate than yours. :p
I've seen Gamist to mean 'Gamey' the way you were using it. Normally Gamist is used* to mean someone who priorities use of player skill and challenge to the player (not to the character), which is orthogonal to how crunchy a rules system is.
*As in the GDS and GNS models of player agendas.
Quote from: Daztur;1060115Mine loved it after they started getting five attacks in close tunnel fighting for every one attack the gnolls were getting off. Made henchmen with cheap spears valuable since you could pack them so tight.
My players are happy overall with the rulings for room to swing and stab, making frequent using spears or halberds.
My weapon damage rules are very simple, so they have little issue dropping larger blades for daggers. Indeed, it promoted boldness in our magic-users, who will happily step in to shiv some goblins alongside the fighting-men.
Quote from: VincentTakeda;1059954in palladiums dead reign, curved blades dont get stuck in the zombies where a straight edge does. So that's fun.
I had no idea about that. It's surprising to see a specific weapon rule like that in one of Palladium's games.