Preface: I'm posting this now because of a particular game development snag, in that my system makes some non-standard distinctions on weapon skills in the interest of threading a thin line between simple rules, tactical options, and "good enough" simulation. It would also be helpful to make a distinction between things that are purely weapons versus "small arms" or "tools" that could serve as a weapon. However, for purposes of the question, feel free to treat it more broadly than that, as anything on the subject is of interest.
I'd like to know more about the similarities and differences of the family (or families) of weapons that primarily consist of swung weapons with a relatively short haft, and business ends that are more blunt, flanged, picks, or the like instead of blades (i.e.axes, sword, etc.) With flails, I think I have a fairly decent understanding, at least for fantasy gaming.
Is there really much difference between a hammer, mace, pick, and so forth for gaming purposes. I mean, they were all made to deal with heavy armor, right?
Is the old D&D-style "footman mace" and "horseman mace" useful, other than just as a flavorful designation of size? That is, is there an appreciable difference in how you would use one on foot? (I get that, like the sabre, the techniques from horseback will be different to keep from breaking your own wrist or leaving the weapon in the target.)
Is a morningstar nothing more than a heavier mace with a particular set of flanges on it, but being strong enough, you'd use it like a heavy mace?
How does all this fit in with clubs (but not more specific weapons such as a staff)? Is the club the "small arms" equivalent of some of these items?
Finally, just how hard is it to learn use such weapons well, compared to blades, axes, etc?
Scholgladiatoria on Youtube is a font of info. Basically mace & warhammer are similar anti armour basher/crushers. A pick is more specialised. A club is more an improvised weapon.
Quote from: S'mon;1127469Scholgladiatoria on Youtube is a font of info. Basically mace & warhammer are similar anti armour basher/crushers. A pick is more specialised. A club is more an improvised weapon.
Gotta second Scholgladiatoria as one of the best channels for information about historical weapons and fighting styles. Skallagrim is also a good channel with a more hands-on approach testing out and reviewing weapons. Shadiversity is also a good channel as well with a more geeky academic focus, sometimes discussing RPGs as well, and also general stuff about Medieval life, even castle construction and such. The Metatron is yet another channel along that vein that discusses weapons from a more martial arts PoV, including Japanese weapons and armor. If you wanna go down the rabbit hole those are probably the top four.
From a RPG PoV I'd probably give crushing weapons a lower baseline damage than blades, but some sort of benefit against armor--either armor penetration (for systems where armor gives DR) or an attack bonus against armored opponents (for D&D and systems that use AC). Some type of knockout or knock down mechanic might also work as well. The old Marvel Super Heroes RPG (FASERIP), for example, would give blunt weapons a chance to knock down or slam opponents on a "Red" (critical success) result, but also gave edged weapons a chance to insta-kill on the same result.
A pick would probably be a hybrid between these: lower baseline damage and bonus vs armor, but chance to insta-kill instead of knock on a critical success.
Skallagrim is an elitist ass and I went from enjoying his stuff to absolutely despising him. Considering the amount of stuff he gets wrong when being derogatory I have to look back at his other stuff and question it heavily.
Quote from: Omega;1127481Skallagrim is an elitist ass and I went from enjoying his stuff to absolutely despising him. Considering the amount of stuff he gets wrong when being derogatory I have to look back at his other stuff and question it heavily.
Yeah, I no longer follow Skallagrim, he is too much of an asshole. I'd recommend Scholagladiatoria, Metatron, Shadiversity and Lindybeige, with Scholagladiatoria the most authoritative for weapons. Metatron knows a ton about Roman stuff, Shad and Lindy are very much autodidacts - they may be less reliable but you can follow along with their learning process and I don't find them insufferable the way Skall can be.
Quote from: S'mon;1127469Basically mace & warhammer are similar anti armour basher/crushers. A pick is more specialised. A club is more an improvised weapon.
Intuitively that sounds about right, though the line between what is a club, a warclub, and a mace will get a bit blurry.
Quote from: Bren;1127545Intuitively that sounds about right, though the line between what is a club, a warclub, and a mace will get a bit blurry.
Blurry isn't a problem for me. Identifying the area of the blur is really the goal, because my system already has the solution for that in its goal of very targeted and limited complexity. So your statement is very helpful!
Best way I can explain is to show places where I'm reasonably happy with the lines I've drawn. Let's say that there are some skills: "axe, hatchet, dagger, blade". (You could easily make the argument that I should be calling "axe" "war axe" and "blade" "sword", but roll with it for example sake.) Then I might have part of a weapon list like this:
Hand axe - hatchet skill
Axe - hatchet skill, axe skill
Battle Axe - axe skill
Knife - dagger skill
Dagger - dagger skill, blade skill
Short sword - dagger skill, blade skill
Arming sword - blade skill
When I start trying to write the skills and weapons for hammers, maces, clubs, picks, etc., it gets a little cumbersome. I go back and forth, for example, on whether or not to leave "pick" skill out entirely and just roll it into "hammer"--not least because of the hammer/pick combo weapons. The fuzzy line on mace and war club tells me that I want something like this:
club - club skill
war club - club skill, mace skill
light mace - club skill, mace skill
mace - mace skill
morningstar - mace skill (hammer skill?)
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1127547Blurry isn't a problem for me. Identifying the area of the blur is really the goal, because my system already has the solution for that in its goal of very targeted and limited complexity. So your statement is very helpful!
Best way I can explain is to show places where I'm reasonably happy with the lines I've drawn. Let's say that there are some skills: "axe, hatchet, dagger, blade". (You could easily make the argument that I should be calling "axe" "war axe" and "blade" "sword", but roll with it for example sake.) Then I might have part of a weapon list like this:
Hand axe - hatchet skill
Axe - hatchet skill, axe skill
Battle Axe - axe skill
Knife - dagger skill
Dagger - dagger skill, blade skill
Short sword - dagger skill, blade skill
Arming sword - blade skill
When I start trying to write the skills and weapons for hammers, maces, clubs, picks, etc., it gets a little cumbersome. I go back and forth, for example, on whether or not to leave "pick" skill out entirely and just roll it into "hammer"--not least because of the hammer/pick combo weapons. The fuzzy line on mace and war club tells me that I want something like this:
club - club skill
war club - club skill, mace skill
light mace - club skill, mace skill
mace - mace skill
morningstar - mace skill (hammer skill?)
This is kind of a contentious subject since different people draw the line at different places when it comes to defining how specific skills should be. But my take is that all skills (in general, but specially weapon skills) should be general and specific functions treated as specialties that modify the base skill.
People can sometimes get nitpicky about subtle differences between weapons but the reality is that biomechanics can be very similar and it's pretty much impossible to train on one type of melee weapon without inadvertently becoming better than baseline at melee combat in general. Granted, you might be better with the specific weapon(s) you've trained with but you will also be better with other weapons than someone who's had zero training on any weapon because a lot of moves are practically the same regardless of weapon, with only minor adjustments to compensate for differences weight distribution or reach. The best, most effective and simple way to present this in terms of the game rules is to treat melee (or ranged) combat as a universal skill and specific weapons as specialties.
You might further break down specializations into weapon groups (swords, clubbing weapons, etc.) and specific types of weapons (katanas, rapiers, katars, etc.), perhaps turning them into multiple tiers (I use "Proficiencies" and "Masteries" in my system). Weapon groups I'm considering using include:
Melee Weapons- Short Blades (Knives)
- Long Blades (Swords)
- Clubbing Weapons (Clubs, Maces & Hammers)
- Picks & Axes
- Pole Weapons (Staves, Spears & Polearms)
- Shields (Buckler, Small, Medium, Tower)
- Whips & Chains
Ranged Weapons - Archery (Bows, Crossbows & Slings)
- Firearms (Handguns, Rifles, Shotguns, Heavy Weapons)
- Thrown Weapons (Throwing Knives, Spears, Javelins, Axes, etc.)
Quote from: S'mon;1127502Yeah, I no longer follow Skallagrim, he is too much of an asshole. I'd recommend Scholagladiatoria, Metatron, Shadiversity and Lindybeige, with Scholagladiatoria the most authoritative for weapons. Metatron knows a ton about Roman stuff, Shad and Lindy are very much autodidacts - they may be less reliable but you can follow along with their learning process and I don't find them insufferable the way Skall can be.
I've heard some criticism of Skallagrim before but haven't watched his content recently often enough to notice anything egregious. Guess he's put his foot in his mouth one too many times. I agree that Scholagladiatoria is the most authoritative, though, but some of the others can also offer valuable insight for purposes of coming up with game rules and stuff for the game.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1127553This is kind of a contentious subject since different people draw the line at different places when it comes to defining how specific skills should be. But my take is that all skills (in general, but specially weapon skills) should be general and specific functions treated as specialties that modify the base skill.
People can sometimes get nitpicky about subtle differences between weapons but the reality is that biomechanics can be very similar and it's pretty much impossible to train on one type of melee weapon without inadvertently becoming better than baseline at melee combat in general. Granted, you might be better with the specific weapon(s) you've trained with but you will also be better with other weapons than someone who's had zero training on any weapon because a lot of moves are practically the same regardless of weapon, with only minor adjustments to compensate for differences weight distribution or reach. The best, most effective and simple way to present this in terms of the game rules is to treat melee (or ranged) combat as a universal skill and specific weapons as specialties.
You might further break down specializations into weapon groups (swords, clubbing weapons, etc.) and specific types of weapons (katanas, rapiers, katars, etc.), perhaps turning them into multiple tiers (I use "Proficiencies" and "Masteries" in my system).
I'm doing something similar, with a "Talent" and "Skill" breakdown for your "Proficiencies" and "Masteries" except, I've got the need for two different items where you have Melee Weapons. Most of mechanics are embedded in the "Talent", with the "Skill" doing very little but topping off accuracy (admittedly, a very important part). Mainly, though, the "Talents" are not exactly typical RPG game items, and in this case are a bit more than weapon groups. (There's only 25 groups in the entire system. They are less than classes but more than skills.) In short, I had all the melee weapons under one Talent for some time, but play testing proved it was too broad for the system. Which leads me to the problem of distinguishing those blurry lines between weapons, so that I can, for example, put "clubs" as a skill in talent and "mace" as a skill in the other.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1127547Hand axe - hatchet skill
Axe - hatchet skill, axe skill
Battle Axe - axe skill
Knife - dagger skill
Dagger - dagger skill, blade skill
Short sword - dagger skill, blade skill
Arming sword - blade skill
Interesting...that gets around the extreme specificity for weapon skills that one sees in Runequest (at least in RQ2 and RQ3) without going all the way to 'it's all just the same melee skill.'
GURPS Martial Arts is also a comprehensive breakdown of various armed and unarmed fighting styles including mace, hammer, and pick.
A 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.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1127569I'm doing something similar, with a "Talent" and "Skill" breakdown for your "Proficiencies" and "Masteries" except, I've got the need for two different items where you have Melee Weapons. Most of mechanics are embedded in the "Talent", with the "Skill" doing very little but topping off accuracy (admittedly, a very important part). Mainly, though, the "Talents" are not exactly typical RPG game items, and in this case are a bit more than weapon groups. (There's only 25 groups in the entire system. They are less than classes but more than skills.) In short, I had all the melee weapons under one Talent for some time, but play testing proved it was too broad for the system. Which leads me to the problem of distinguishing those blurry lines between weapons, so that I can, for example, put "clubs" as a skill in talent and "mace" as a skill in the other.
That's along the lines of what I'm going for, only I'm calling them "Skills" instead of "Talents". I also considered calling them Talents as well, but thought against it cuz "Talents" is typically used in most games to mean "quirky benefits". I settled for Skills for now cuz it's more commonplace and works as a good placeholder I could change later (maybe to Disciplines, as I called them for a while), but they basically represent broad areas of activity rather than a specialized task (as skills do in most skill-based systems).
The idea came about while trying to extrapolate character classes into skills to create a class of general skills mechanically comparable to D&D's THAC0 or Combat Modifier, which I always considered to be the defining characteristic of warriors. I figured that if I distilled the core essence and functions of every class into something expressed in terms of task resolution I could create something comparable to a character class but with the flexibility of skills. I also originally considered using something like the old D&D weapon mastery rules (Basic, Skilled, Expert, Master, Grandmaster) but to cover specializations for all skill functions, so characters would have a baseline value based on a general skill (called Disciplines at one point) and a bonus based on their level of mastery of specific tasks. But I ultimately simplified it to Proficiency (+2 to broad specialty) and Mastery (extra +2 to narrow specialty).
The ability hierarchy is Attribute > Skill > Techniques & Powers, where techniques are further broken down into Knowledges (stuff that requires training), Proficiencies (broad specialties like swords), Masteries (narrow specialties like rapiers) and Special Techniques (quirky stuff like dual wielding).
Additionally, some skill functions that are considered "skills" in most other games are treated as Powers in my system, since "Powers" mechanically mean "anything that allows you to generate a game effect"--regardless of the power's origin or "Theme", which can be Trained, Innate, Gear or Paranormal. So the ability to craft an object such as a weapon or armor, for example, would be a Trained Power that allows you to generate the Create Object effect for the appropriate type of object. And the power's level is based on the related skill's level (Craft skill in this instance).
Innate and Paranormal powers are based on skills as well, so powers and skills are intrinsically tied. And while the "Skill" themselves are very general, more specific functions are still covered by Techniques and Powers, which provide a lot of additional options for customization.
Quote from: VisionStorm;1127555I've heard some criticism of Skallagrim before but haven't watched his content recently often enough to notice anything egregious. Guess he's put his foot in his mouth one too many times. I agree that Scholagladiatoria is the most authoritative, though, but some of the others can also offer valuable insight for purposes of coming up with game rules and stuff for the game.
If 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.
Quote from: Omega;1127615Shadiversity I wont look at ever again. His stuffs worthless because he has to piss on everyone else to make his own fetish look big.
Shad's fetish? Castles? DRAGONS?
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. :D
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. :D
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.
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.
Agree. Typical weapon speed options bug me so much that until recently I simply ignored it (or kicked the can down the road, knowing until I had other parts tested, it was somewhat academic). Reach has similar problems.
Right now, I'm playing around with a compromise that blends speed and reach from two factors into one number affecting initiative. But then I modify the initiative based on a handful of maneuvers and circumstances. One of those is that entering or leaving melee favors reach over speed. A guy with a spear charging a guy with a dagger is probably going first (and getting a bonus to hit and damage, too). But after the charge, we assume that the speed of the dagger and the reach of the spear roughly cancel each other. We can visualize it as the dagger guy getting initiative means he maneuvered in close versus the spear guy getting initiative means he kept the distance he'd prefer, but as far as the system is concerned, that's abstracted.
I know the abstraction has some holes, in that it is going to make daggers and rapiers still likely to have that unwarranted speed in some situations. I do have most blades moving faster in general, though, not just the small ones. I think I can live with it, because with the damage a spear can do on a charge, the dagger guys is going to want to avoid that situation if at all possible. Plus, daggers and swords are too iconic in a fantasy game to go too far in that sense. That is, I'll let the players have the fun of going with the stereotype of fast daggers, as long as they still fear the spear guy. We'll see how it works next play test.
With regards to one question from the OP, there's apparently a very big learning curve between different kinds of old weapons. One of the reasons a spear was a typical weapon for common soldiers is that it's not just effective but very basic to learn. Likewise, one of the advantages of the crossbow is that any idiot could use it, whereas bows were more difficult.