Changes to Combat from my Experience

[Mageslayer]

Modified Combat Rules Based on Personal Experience





In D&D the only skills that can practicably be experienced in the real world are few and far between. One could admit criminal experience (or employment with Pop-A-Lock), and thereby expound on the troubles with the skillset afforded the thief, such as there are. One could be a forester and a tracker – or even special forces – and teach the game designers a thing or two about being a ranger. Well, I am not a burglar, nor am I anything approaching a SF soldier. I am, however, a martial artist, like many around the world, and possibly like some here. I’ve been studying an art that incorporates more than 40 different weapons for the past few years (Filipino Kali), and another that is primarily designed for street combat (Jeet Kune Do) since ’98. So, I feel qualified to speak to certain aspects of the Fighter class. Here are a few ideas. I think they are valid, whether they tend to unbalance the game or not, since balancing the game only requires adjustments in other areas, should those involved be so inclined. Having said that, I also think most of these aren’t terribly upsetting to the basic game play. In the interest of brevity, I shall only discus weapons (my specialty). If this generates interest, I’ll continue:





Weapons



Anyone wielding two weapons should acquire a bonus to AC (even if one might argue that the DEX bonus already incorporates this facet). Why? Quite simply because a secondary weapon, even in the hands of a less than expert warrior, affords a level of protection only surpassed by the shield. I suggest that anyone with a small weapon should gain a +2 to AC, and anyone with a medium secondary weapon should gain a +4 to AC. There are innumerable ways in which a second weapon can in fact be more desirable than shield anyway. I also believe many of the advantages disappear when you face another double weapon wielder, so this AC bonus is dynamic in my scheme: anyone faced with a secondary weapon smaller than theirs will gain an AC penalty equal to half their secondary weapon AC bonus. Facing a secondary weapon of equal size negates your secondary weapon AC bonus.



Any hooked or forwardly curved weapon (like a sickle, kopesh, or kukri) are incredibly effective at binding limbs and weapons for the split second needed to fend off an attack or deliver one. A small hooked weapon should give a +1 to AC or a +1 to attack (not both). The character must pick which bonus to apply at the beginning of each round. Weapons like swordbreakers would not acquire this bonus, unless the fighter is facing a blade-wielding enemy (although this bonus doesn’t apply against axes either).



Two-handed blades of any type (axe, sword, etc) would automatically acquire the “B” bludgeoning weapon type, in addition to any other types allowed. Against chain mail a great sword or two-handed axe is capable of shearing off a limb, but it is still effective against a plate-mailed foe, causing concussive blows and imparting massive contusions. A powerful enough swing is capable of breaking bones, especially in the forearms and ankles – favored targets in medieval combat. I do not believe a “grazing blow” with one of these weapons is very likely, and while I haven’t really thought a great deal about it, I’m leaning toward giving such weapons a +1 to damage across the board. However, it is just as justifiable to reduce the wielder’s AC by 1 when facing a smaller weapon. A fighter can do amazing things with a two-handed blade weapon, but they are slower than, say, a short sword (though much faster than many people might assume).



My two scents. Comments?

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I like your ideas for two weapon fighting, I'd probably reduce the AC bonus and not grant the AC bonus against ranged attacks. A sword I doubt would make it much more difficult to shoot you with a crossbow (unless I was right next to you).

I don't think you really need to increase the damage on two handed bladed weapons because generally the dice size of damage is 2 higher than their 1 handed counter parts, effectively averaging 2 more points of damage per hit (great axe 1d12, battle axe 1d8; longsword 1d8, great sword 2d6). And with such weapons you already also get 1.5*strength bonus.
While your justifications for applying the bludgeoning type are good, I wouldn't say they are valid because the weapons damage type isn't effected by armor. Now if you changed how armor interacted with weapons I think it might be warranted.

I think one thing that should be better incorperated into D&D, if you are trying to increase realism, is reach. A man wielding a longsword versus a man wielding a dagger should have more of an advantage than averaging 2 more points of damage per hit. Like wise in a tight area (such as 5ft wide corridor) a man with a dagger should have an advantage over a guy with a great sword.

 

[Mageslayer]

Thanks for your reply.

These are good points. I haven't been considering all these rules for very long, so it is good to hear what others think during the formulation process.

The reason I used a +2/+4 AC scheme on the double weapons is because of the -4 to hit penalty for double weapon fighting. I thought the bonuses and penalties could balance eachother out.

Also, you are perfectly on point about ranged weapons not being effected by the bonus. I hadn't considered ranged weapons yet. You are also right about the two-handed weapon damage, which I had considered even more briefly than the rest. However, I have to disagree about the bludgeoning, because it still comes into play with creatures like zombies and skeletons. The very aspect of a great sword that allows it to shear off a limb is the same aspect that allows it to crush a tibia into dust. You don't get that with a short sword, or even a long sword. There is a specific difference between hacking and slashing. You do not really "slash" with a great sword. It is really more like a very long axe blade.

 

[the Jester]

Well, the two-weapon fighting bonus you suggest makes shields less valuable in defense than a secondary weapon. I don't like that. The penalties you take for 2WF are balanced by the extra attacks you get- you're basically setting 2wf up to be better than weapon and shield. Also, you add a whole new layer of complexity to the game by saying that 'sometimes you get this bonus, and sometimes you don't.' It's often tough enough to calculate your final attack bonus and AC, especially in high-level play- I don't think the increase in complexity (though slight) pays for itself with increased realism.

In fact, I think you're trying to inject too much realism into the game. After all, we all know that a direct hit by greatsword is going to kill any normal man, or at least leave you incapacitated, but if you're a 3rd-level fighter in dnd it won't. Give up anything deeper than a blase facade of realism when you're playing dnd and you may find that you're happier with the way the game runs.

If you do elect to make changes like this to your game, I recommend that you very carefully look at balance issues- you're basically telling people not to bother with shields with your two-weapon change, for instance, and giving two-handed blades bludgeoning damage defeats one of the few weaknesses of the two-handed blades (DR x/bludgeoning).

Maybe you wouldn't be bothered by the changes to game balance caused by these changes, but I would. Third edition is very well-balanced, and improving some weapons throws that balance off. In your initial post you imply that rebalancing the game is easy; I would disagree, but YMMV.

 

[Bastoche]

If you want a more realistic system to relate to your martial arts experience, the best counsel I could give you is to hunt for another game. There are many out there that has a much more realistic system than D&D. This probably isn't what you want to hear though.

Take a look at the riddle of steel. Might be up your alley.

 

[Mageslayer]

Thanks for your replies, and bear with me...

While the changes I made are in line with my experiences, the purpose isn't exactly "realism" but a different level of customization. I simply wanted the customizations to make sense to me. I don't settle for stock very often, and my DMs are often flexible enough to cope with my predilictions.

These rules are designed to add differing layers of value and purpose to the character's weapon choices. I don't like that the difference between most weapon choices only amounts to the type and severity of damage. Weapons can be more than that, and in so doing add another dimension to the game. Also, I don't think the two weapons are always better than a shield, since the bonus isn't static. You don't get it in all situations, and it is in fact easy to lose the bonus in the context of this game. In any event, the bonuses are not set in stone. That's why I posted them.

I don't really see this as changing the game. The rules in any paper and pencil game are not really rules at all -- otherwise this whole section of the forum would be pointless to absurdity. They are informed guidelines arrived at through designer playtesting. That has always been the way in D&D. That's fine, but many of us don't mind the added complexity of custom rules (as is evidenced by some of the ideas on this board).

The only question is does it make the game more fun. For some the answer will be "yes," and obviously for some the answer is "no."

I don't really need another game, I just want to make the game I already love manifest of eternal variety. I haven't been let down yet.

 

[Bastoche]

Each game has a specific main goal to achieve (beside "fun" of course). D&D (3E at least) is aimed at balance and simplicity. So when one suggest a house rule for D&D that is minor enough to be relevant (IMO) is one that goes toward that goal. If the house rule makes the system either better balanced or simpler, you're in buisness.

So any house rule that suggest more realism is flawed if it makes the game less balanced or more complicated than what it was before. As long as all the players (including the DM) is fine with that rule, the opinions of fellow forumers are meaningless

I'm truly amazed at people who changes the armor class or hit point system. Or the system creation. More often than not it makes the system more complicated of more realistic. It's always a bad idea. It takes much less time to pickup a game that was play tested already and that is readily available. IMO at least.

If you think balance and simplicity is the most important part of the rules system of your RPG experience, house ruling D&D is fine. If what you want is realism, you're better off with another system.

I think that from my personnal experience, I agree with your suggestions from a realism perspective but I personnally think it makes the rule a bit more complicated.

As for the balance point of view, adding such abilities to two weapon fighting would warrant re integrating the ambidextery feat and it's requirement for 2wf just for ake of balancing the added powers. BTW, in the forgotten realms campaing setting, there's a feat called twin sword style that more or less duplicate your first suggestion so it's not that far out. however it applies to only one opponent as a dodge bonus.

Bottom line: to allow your custom rules I would require a feat for each to be effective. It the case of two handed weapons, make them exotic weapons.

 

[Mageslayer]

Both balance and simplicity are merely tools to achieve the purpose of any game: fun. There is no more point to any game, unless it is no longer just a game. If you mean to say it is something more than entertainment, or that the simplicity and balance aspect is part of your entertainment, then that is something else.

At any rate, I didn't intend to make the game more "realistic." My point was to add variety while remaining consistent with the general feel of the fighter class. The easiest way to do that is to think about how weapons are used, so I fell back on my experience.

The amount of complexity these rules add is miniscule. The player is responsible for his own calculations anyway, and these can be written down to fit various situations, like AC for touch attacks and being flatfooted. It usually amounts to simple addition and subtraction.

However, your suggestions about making these rules feats is a good one. It fits the general pattern of the fighter anyway, which is partly what I was going for. And I have to admit that feats weren't in my mind, since I still think with a 2E mindset at times. Making them feats also allows me to organize the rules more methodically, allowing for progression (as with Power Attack -- Great Cleave, etc.). That's good stuff, thanks.

 

[Inari]

As somewhat of a martial artist myself (more based on unarmed combat, admittingly), I feel two weapons don't always add to your 'defence.' If you intend to attack with both, you usually have to time yourself well. If you don't, your other sword will just be in the way and you won't get any good strikes in. But if you time yourself so, it's quite often hard to whip up either sword in your defence without disrupting your timing.

You can always anticipate having to use one as just a defensive tool, but that's no better off then a shield (IMO it's usually worse and tires you quicker).

My suggestion would be to grant an additional dodge bonus when you're defensive fighting or in full defense. +1 in defensive fighting, +2 when in full defense. It's the system's best way to represent defending yourself. Also, when using the dodge feat, you'd be getting a +2 bonus vs. one foe, or +1 vs. two foes (your choice) to factor in the extra blade (dodge donates an improved way to defend yourself, and as such one could time oneself better). All of these suggestions assume you have TWF and are proficient with the weapons.

Expanding upon these ideas as feats is of course a much easier path. I'd be surprised if it hasn't already been done.

 

[Bastoche]

Of all the 2WF historical fighting style that I know of, western or eastern, the second weapon is 90% of the time used as a substitute for a buckler. Always for defense. Once in a while you may get a chance to strike in for a kill, but first and foremost it is a defensive tool. I can think of rapier/dagger, longsword/dagger, katana/wakizashi at least.

Usually, in D&D, with TWF, you get an extra attack and with a feat you can get a +2 to AC. I feel it should be the other way around IMO.