Quote from: estar;1127591A mace was effective again chainmail and other form of flexible armor. The damage is more about bruising the target up  and breaking bone. Things that chian doesn't protect against well. Hammers and Picks take the fighting style maces but makes it effective again plate armor by focusing the force of the blow on a narrow area to break through the armor.

AFAICT from Schola et al, maces remained in use during the plate armour era. They were less potentially effective than warhammers but did not need to worry about alignment.

Quote from: Omega;1127615If anything Shadivirsity is even more of an elitist ass. Skallgrim just seems to have hitched his ride to Shads little nasty bandwagon and I trust his stuff even less. I havent checked back in a while with Skallgrim. I'd like to think hes gotten off that elitist kick. Shadiversity I wont look at ever again. His stuffs worthless because he has to piss on everyone else to make his own fetish look big.

And this seems a recurring problem with the HEMA crew and even Metatron's gotten in on the act. A level of elitism I just do not like at all and drags down viable discussion and examples.

IDK, I'm gonna need specific examples at this point cuz now it sounds like you're getting pissy cuz you didn't like their tone one day and YouTubers saying stuff that inadvertently pisses someone (somewhere) off is a common occurrence. Hell, EVERYONE says stupid stuff from time to time, it's just that YouTubers record it in video form and upload it to the internet.

Quote from: S'mon;1127626AFAICT from Schola et al, maces remained in use during the plate armour era. They were less potentially effective than warhammers but did not need to worry about alignment.

I saw that video! Stat-wise, my own game gives maces an accuracy bonus and gives warhammers a damage bonus.

Quote from: Cave Bear;1127644I saw that video! Stat-wise, my own game gives maces an accuracy bonus and gives warhammers a damage bonus.

I like that thought, not least because I've got two different ways to handle accuracy bonuses:  Limited bonus from high stats and some skills easier to improve than others.  

It's not exact, but think of it this way by analogy in D&D terms:  Strength helps damage, Dex helps accuracy, but only up to a point set by the weapon.  A mace might be Str +2, Dex +2, meaning that you can get up to a +2 on damage from Str modifier of +2 or higher.  Similar thing for accuracy with Dex.  Whereas a battle axe might be Str +4, Dex +1.  A rapier might be Str +1, Dex +5.  (Note that +1 to +5 accuracy is not very much in this system, and modifiers only run from +0 to +7.  Skill is far more important.)  

Meanwhile, the mace skill is easy to learn, the axe skill is average difficulty to learn,  and rapier skill is hard to learn.  Makes little difference at the start, but rapidly does as skill improves.  

So using your thought, a mace gets a small bonus from stats, where hammers/picks get a larger bonus from stats.  But maces are easy to learn while hammers/picks are hard to learn.  Net effect is mace is a really good weapon for someone that doesn't plan to make weapons their main thing.  It's not a great choice for a particularly strong or dexterous character, though might be a good secondary weapon for penetrating heavy armor.  A dedicated warrior would prefer the warhammer even as a secondary and thus put in the work to improve the skill.  Which is one of the outcomes that I want.

I'm not really a fan of variable maximum bonuses because it adds to the complexity and book keeping by making me track extra details and undermines character abilities by capping out their usefulness. It also makes differences that should be intrinsic to the weapon apparent only by penalizing characters abilities--if they're already high enough to be penalized to begin with. Otherwise it's like those differences didn't exist.

It's less punitive and more straightforward to simply allow full ability bonuses and treat weapon accuracy as it's own positive or negative modifier, and higher damage potential as a damage bonus or intrinsically higher weapon damage.

Different costs for mastering weapons also add to bookkeeping and are a bit iffy, since some attractive weapons, like swords, are actually easier to handle and learn IRL than less glamorous or deadly weapons (against unarmored opponents at least), because they're well-balanced, with a center of gravity closer to your hands. So they're faster to use and more nimble than heavy headed weapons like axes or hammers.

Pole weapons (including staves, which traditionally are treated like disposable "everyone can use" weapons in RPGs) are a bit harder to master, since you need to learn to coordinate both hands to shift the weapon between hands and alternate strikes. But biomechanically poles have a lot of overlap with other melee weapons (especially two handed swords, axes, etc.) and they force you to correct certain moves since the longer pole gets in the way if you don't execute them correctly, while you might be able to get away with a sloppier strike with a single handed weapon. So poles can contribute a lot to general mastering of melee weapon techniques.

Greetings!

Quarterstaffs are simple weapons, though in the hands of someone that is highly trained, even a humble quarterstaff can be a very formidable weapon!

I remember watching a medieval fighting documentary, where this quarterstaff expert took on at first two other armed men, then three or four. The armed men all had I think daggers, clubs, and shortswords.

In moments, the other armed men were all rolling about on the floor, helpless and in agony. It certainly opened my eyes to the lethal potentials for a man using a quarterstaff!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1127654Greetings!

Quarterstaffs are simple weapons, though in the hands of someone that is highly trained, even a humble quarterstaff can be a very formidable weapon!

I remember watching a medieval fighting documentary, where this quarterstaff expert took on at first two other armed men, then three or four. The armed men all had I think daggers, clubs, and shortswords.

In moments, the other armed men were all rolling about on the floor, helpless and in agony. It certainly opened my eyes to the lethal potentials for a man using a quarterstaff!:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

The humble quarterstaff is a deceptively simple-looking but versatile weapon that can serve as an effective defense tool in a pinch. While not as lethal as a sword or as powerful as an axe its long shaft gives you the benefit of reach--which can be a deciding factor in an open quarters confrontation. A skilled fighter fighting in an open field could quickly bring the weapon to bear to keep multiple attackers at bay and frustrate their efforts.

Longer reach means that the weapon can consistently strike against an attacker using short weapons like knives before they can get close enough to nail you with a stab. And medium reach weapons don't fair much better against the longer pole. Giving the staff a decisive advantage as long as the fighter keeps their wits.

The moment they manage to push the pole firmly aside or get a firm grip on it it's over, though. Flanking is an issue as well. A pole weapon's main advantage is also their undoing since the pole can get in the way if you get flanked by multiple attackers, which can prevent you from getting a swing. At that point it's better to drop the shaft and draw out a small blade, since short weapons have the advantage in tight quarter confrontations.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1127652I'm not really a fan of variable maximum bonuses because it adds to the complexity and book keeping by making me track extra details and undermines character abilities by capping out their usefulness. It also makes differences that should be intrinsic to the weapon apparent only by penalizing characters abilities--if they're already high enough to be penalized to begin with. Otherwise it's like those differences didn't exist.

It's less punitive and more straightforward to simply allow full ability bonuses and treat weapon accuracy as it's own positive or negative modifier, and higher damage potential as a damage bonus or intrinsically higher weapon damage.

Different costs for mastering weapons also add to bookkeeping and are a bit iffy, since some attractive weapons, like swords, are actually easier to handle and learn IRL than less glamorous or deadly weapons (against unarmored opponents at least), because they're well-balanced, with a center of gravity closer to your hands. So they're faster to use and more nimble than heavy headed weapons like axes or hammers.

Pole weapons (including staves, which traditionally are treated like disposable "everyone can use" weapons in RPGs) are a bit harder to master, since you need to learn to coordinate both hands to shift the weapon between hands and alternate strikes. But biomechanically poles have a lot of overlap with other melee weapons (especially two handed swords, axes, etc.) and they force you to correct certain moves since the longer pole gets in the way if you don't execute them correctly, while you might be able to get away with a sloppier strike with a single handed weapon. So poles can contribute a lot to general mastering of melee weapon techniques.

I get what you are saying.  For most systems, I'd agree with you.  However, this system is a homage to Dragon Quest.  DQ is very complex--unnecessarily so, I'd say.  This game is preserving as much of the feel and choices of that game as possible while cutting out as much of the complexity as possible.  DQ is heavy towards tactical sim.  I'm trying to make the homage more palatable to casual players, because I want to actually play the thing.  It's a balancing act.

DQ very deliberately has weapons capping out differently. (It's part of their equivalent of niche protection, too, though that isn't all it is.)  From a game play and campaign perspective, I rather like it.  A character has to make a choice to invest resources in a weapon that is easy to progress, gives them some bang now, but may cap out lower than other weapons--or put in the hard work on a "better" weapon.  Plus, there's enough variety in the pros and cons of different weapon, and overlap in the skills and weapon choices, to avoid completely pigeon-holing the character.  That will also help with making swords or axes or whatever too attractive or not.    

As for the bookkeeping, because of the way bookkeeping has to work for the talents/skills versus equipment in play, this doesn't actually add much.  The character already needs to distinguish between their raw abilities (out of adventuring play, advancement, a couple of supplement character sheet pages) versus what they use in play (a single page "front" character sheet that has, among other things, the accuracy and damage of the weapons they have on their person right now).  That is, having eaten the complexity cost of the bookkeeping to keep some of that DQ flavor, I'm not out anything in most session play.

DQ polearms are killer weapons in the right hands, even the humble spear.  It's also one of the most ludicrously complex and unclear parts of DQ that I'm trying to clean up.

It's not as if all of this exists in a vacuum, either.  Magic, for example, is a serious investment, and no one becomes a stealth or perception monkey on a whim.

I say all of the above not to dismiss any feedback.  Any is appreciated, including criticisms.  However, just keep in mind that my design goals are somewhat odd, as maybe the above hints.  I'm going for a line where, say, the difference between a mace and a pick matters, but a casual players will mainly see it emerging in play.

Greetings!

Hmmm...I confess, I really enjoy nuanced details between the various weapons. At the same time, as a DM and having different players that are all one degree or another allergic to gobs of minutia-filled charts and bookkeeping--I can very much appreciate a simplified system that has easily-grasped distinctions and otherwise just says "fuck it" on pages of minutia.

The historian in me notes, however, that historically in the Middle Ages, medieval warriors--from close-formation Infantry, to mounted Cavalry warriors and Knights, were in fact often equipped with multiple weapons, often of very particular specializations. There are reasons why Infantry carried a spear, a sword, a dagger, and either a mace, battle-axe, flail, or morningstar. Mounted Warriors likewise besides having a sword, dagger, spear or lance, also carried a horseman's flail, horseman's mace, or a horseman's Pick. Obviously, various kingdoms and tribal groups embraced favoured cultural weapons, and furthermore, individual warriors, based on their own physical strength, abilities, and favoured fighting styles would then further select particular weapons. Axes, Maces, Picks, Flails, and Warhammers were used precisely because they offered different, but very real advantages to the fighting warrior. While swords were ubiquitous and always popular, these other weapons provided capabilities that swords were not always sufficient--or the best.

Figuring out the different mechanical properties, advantages and disadvantages are sometimes frustrating, and can get bogged down in needless complexity and embrace a sort of cascading dynamic of "diminishing returns." However, I am partial to striving to achieve that delicate balance, where some level of appropriate distinctions are made.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: S'mon;1127626AFAICT from Schola et al, maces remained in use during the plate armour era. They were less potentially effective than warhammers but did not need to worry about alignment.

And every D&D players knows that Alignment can be a problem.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1127652...they force you to correct certain moves since the longer pole gets in the way if you don't execute them correctly, while you might be able to get away with a sloppier strike with a single handed weapon. So poles can contribute a lot to general mastering of melee weapon techniques.

That's interesting.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1127671I get what you are saying.  For most systems, I'd agree with you.  However, this system is a homage to Dragon Quest.  DQ is very complex--unnecessarily so, I'd say.  This game is preserving as much of the feel and choices of that game as possible while cutting out as much of the complexity as possible.  DQ is heavy towards tactical sim.  I'm trying to make the homage more palatable to casual players, because I want to actually play the thing.  It's a balancing act.

DQ very deliberately has weapons capping out differently. (It's part of their equivalent of niche protection, too, though that isn't all it is.)  From a game play and campaign perspective, I rather like it.  A character has to make a choice to invest resources in a weapon that is easy to progress, gives them some bang now, but may cap out lower than other weapons--or put in the hard work on a "better" weapon.  Plus, there's enough variety in the pros and cons of different weapon, and overlap in the skills and weapon choices, to avoid completely pigeon-holing the character.  That will also help with making swords or axes or whatever too attractive or not.    

As for the bookkeeping, because of the way bookkeeping has to work for the talents/skills versus equipment in play, this doesn't actually add much.  The character already needs to distinguish between their raw abilities (out of adventuring play, advancement, a couple of supplement character sheet pages) versus what they use in play (a single page "front" character sheet that has, among other things, the accuracy and damage of the weapons they have on their person right now).  That is, having eaten the complexity cost of the bookkeeping to keep some of that DQ flavor, I'm not out anything in most session play.

DQ polearms are killer weapons in the right hands, even the humble spear.  It's also one of the most ludicrously complex and unclear parts of DQ that I'm trying to clean up.

It's not as if all of this exists in a vacuum, either.  Magic, for example, is a serious investment, and no one becomes a stealth or perception monkey on a whim.

I say all of the above not to dismiss any feedback.  Any is appreciated, including criticisms.  However, just keep in mind that my design goals are somewhat odd, as maybe the above hints.  I'm going for a line where, say, the difference between a mace and a pick matters, but a casual players will mainly see it emerging in play.

That actually clarifies quite a bit, and I can definitely understand using this approach if you want to emulate a specific game. In that case it makes more sense cuz you're looking for a specific feel that's evocative of a particular genre or style. So you'd have to give up a little simplicity to reach that goal. I just figured that you wanted simplicity in general since you mentioned in the OP that you were trying to keep it simple, with just enough tactical options for "good enough" simulation. But this might require a certain degree of complexity if you want to mimic the source material.

Quote from: SHARK;1127689Greetings!

Hmmm...I confess, I really enjoy nuanced details between the various weapons. At the same time, as a DM and having different players that are all one degree or another allergic to gobs of minutia-filled charts and bookkeeping--I can very much appreciate a simplified system that has easily-grasped distinctions and otherwise just says "fuck it" on pages of minutia.

The historian in me notes, however, that historically in the Middle Ages, medieval warriors--from close-formation Infantry, to mounted Cavalry warriors and Knights, were in fact often equipped with multiple weapons, often of very particular specializations. There are reasons why Infantry carried a spear, a sword, a dagger, and either a mace, battle-axe, flail, or morningstar. Mounted Warriors likewise besides having a sword, dagger, spear or lance, also carried a horseman's flail, horseman's mace, or a horseman's Pick. Obviously, various kingdoms and tribal groups embraced favoured cultural weapons, and furthermore, individual warriors, based on their own physical strength, abilities, and favoured fighting styles would then further select particular weapons. Axes, Maces, Picks, Flails, and Warhammers were used precisely because they offered different, but very real advantages to the fighting warrior. While swords were ubiquitous and always popular, these other weapons provided capabilities that swords were not always sufficient--or the best.

Figuring out the different mechanical properties, advantages and disadvantages are sometimes frustrating, and can get bogged down in needless complexity and embrace a sort of cascading dynamic of "diminishing returns." However, I am partial to striving to achieve that delicate balance, where some level of appropriate distinctions are made.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

It's always bugged me how different weapons in most RPGs tend to have few differences beyond just some weapons having higher damage (and therefore being objectively superior) than others. There's zero reason to have a wide variety of weapons if the only difference between weapon A and weapon B is that weapon A does more damage. Why doesn't everyone just use weapon A then? Why doesn't everyone just adapt whatever technology makes weapon A objectively better in order to be better equipped to confront enemies using weapon A?

But the reality is that a wide range of weapons exists in real life because weapons have more characteristics than just damage. They also have reach, accuracy, speed, special properties, etc. and most of these don't exist in most RPGs or aren't implemented in a way that properly simulate real life.

Weapon speed, for example, was added in AD&D 2e but it just improved your initiative, making characters fighting with knives and daggers more likely to act earlier in combat than characters wielding polearms--except that's not what would happen in real life. Longer reach weapons tend to have advantage over shorter ones, since you can reach your enemies before they get close enough to strike you. So dagger wielding combatant would probably not have "initiative" (which is a poor game convention anyway) over the guy with the polearm, unless they were in close quarters and the polearm guy was overwhelmed.

"Weapon speed" is a tricky thing to emulate in terms of the game rules, but it would probably give you something more along the lines of a better attack rate (maybe a lower penalty in systems that handle multiple attacks by imposing cumulative penalties) rather than helping you act "first" in combat.

Reach might be easier to emulate. To keep it simple I would break it down into Short, Medium and Long reach, and give them the following modifiers in D&D/d20 terms:

• Short: -2 to attack and -2 to AC vs melee attacks in open quarters; +2 to attack in close quarters; gain attack of opportunity against unwary, defenseless or flanked opponents in close quarters
  
• Medium: No bonuses or penalties.
  
• Long: +2 to attack and +2 to AC vs melee attacks in open quarters; gain attack of opportunity against melee opponents wielding short weapons while in open quarters; -2 to attack in close quarters
  

I would also consider giving weapons the following properties as appropriate:

• Crushing: Weapons effective against armor, including maces, hammers and picks (maybe axes too?). Crushing weapons use one lower die type than equivalent weapons without this property (1d10 reduced to 1d8, 1d8 to 1d6, etc.), but get a +2 bonus to attack against armored opponents.
  
• Lethal: Applicable to slashing, piercing (including picks) and energy weapons. On a critical hit opponent must succeed on a Con save vs DC 8 + Proficiency (if proficient on weapon) + Str (if melee or thrown weapon) or Dex (if ranged or finesse) or be dropped to 0 HP instantly.
  
• Concussive: Applies to blunt weapons or kinetic force attacks. On a critical hit opponent must succeed on a Con save vs DC 8 + Proficiency (if proficient on weapon) + Str (if melee or thrown weapon) or Dex (if ranged or finesse) or be dropped unconscious for 10 rounds. If successful, the opponent must additionally succeed on a Str save vs DC 8 + Proficiency (if proficient on weapon) + Str (if melee or thrown weapon) or Dex (if ranged or finesse) or be knocked prone from the force of the impact.
  

Quote from: VisionStorm;1127711It's always bugged me how different weapons in most RPGs tend to have few differences beyond just some weapons having higher damage (and therefore being objectively superior) than others. There's zero reason to have a wide variety of weapons if the only difference between weapon A and weapon B is that weapon A does more damage. Why doesn't everyone just use weapon A then? Why doesn't everyone just adapt whatever technology makes weapon A objectively better in order to be better equipped to confront enemies using weapon A?

Very much agree.  I just figured out a system to differentiate weapons that I like for the game I'm currently writing.  There's a list of (currently) 14 melee actions, including strike, furious attack, light attack, drive, stagger, etc, etc, and weapons have bonuses with particular actions.  Frex axes have +2 to strike, furious attack, drive, shatter, stagger, and knock down, and -1 to defense.  I haven't tested it enough to get a good evaluation yet, but I'm excited about the possibilities.

Other than that, I like systems with a simple weapons vs armor table, i.e. blunt, sharp, and piercing weapons vs flexible, rigid, and no armor.  I also like mods for weapon reach, but I've found that difficult to do well.

I dislike weapons speed systems that let a "fast" dagger attack before a "slower" long sword.  Maybe the weapon moves quicker, but the longsword will get first attack due to range unless the dagger manages to stay very close, which would seem rather difficult to do.

Quote from: Mishihari;1127726I dislike weapons speed systems that let a "fast" dagger attack before a "slower" long sword.  Maybe the weapon moves quicker, but the longsword will get first attack due to range unless the dagger manages to stay very close, which would seem rather difficult to do.

Schola pointed out that the tip of a long slashing weapon moves much faster than the tip of a stabbing weapon. A dagger is only fast in the sense of being able to deliver lots of repeated stabs vs same unarmoured target in close proximity.

Quote from: S'mon;1127731Schola pointed out that the tip of a long slashing weapon moves much faster than the tip of a stabbing weapon. A dagger is only fast in the sense of being able to deliver lots of repeated stabs vs same unarmoured target in close proximity.

Yes, daggers are the opposite of cumbersome. So it's close quarters and not having to deal with narrow spaces.  

Well, that and they are easier to haul around, relatively cheap and accessible compared to other metal weapons, and unlikely to cause as much trouble in some social situations.  But that's part of the problem in a game beyond all of those military and practical considerations Vision Storm listed:  It's difficult for a gaming system to make money matter enough for adventurers to stick with a cheaper weapon for that reason only.  The social aspect is at least as much the responsibility of the setting and the GM instead of the rules, and for most tables its very easy for any rules along those lines to break down in a hurry (that is, get in the way of the setting and make the GM deal with it). In reality, a lot of people used the weapons they did not because they were the best, but because the weapons were what they could get.  Which means to the degree that one does a simulation, some weapons very well could become more of interest to adventurers.

But of course, the system can't model all of the considerations discussed in this topic, without becoming bogged down.  For me, it's like panning for gold.  Any particular rule along those lines has to work (of course), model something useful to justify its complexity, give a flavor of some of the things that can't be modeled without being too jarringly abstract or even "off", and most important of all--be a higher priority than the other candidates, because only so much of that will fit.