Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 7003098" data-attributes="member: 20564">Drawing on my limited about of time as a stickjock (sword &amp; board) in the SCA, I see a couple of things which could be modeled mechanically.&nbsp; Not sure if 5e is the right vehicle for it though.In one-on-one fights, weapon length was a big deal.&nbsp; If you could keep your opponent at your weapon ideal length and not theirs it was a big advantage.&nbsp; Note that this includes being inside someone's reach.&nbsp; The few times I tried a two handed sword I ended up backing up (well, in a circling back) furiously as the more skilled opponent would get inside my reach where I couldn't throw a good blow but they could.Part of that that defies D&amp;D is the 0' / 5' with nothing between it of a grid.&nbsp; We'd have to add additional granularity to both weapon lengths and movement.&nbsp; With Theater of the Mind it might be more reasonable to have a &quot;give ground&quot; or &quot;push in&quot; that grant modifiers based on relative weapon lengths and current distance.Or you could go the other way - make the grid larger, and play with reach so that some weapons you needed to be in the opponent's square, some you could attack there but with a penalty but were really best if adjacent, and then the few actual reach weapons like pikes which would attack adjacent or one square away, but not in your own square.&nbsp; And, of course, open up moving into your opponent's square.On the other hand, line fighting with comrades in a war was a whole different thing.&nbsp; You're not only defending yourself, but also those on your side.&nbsp; Much as the famous Roman phalanxs would take advantage of a shield wall with quick, darting weapons to go between and longer polearms to reach from the back row, this was a type of combat that relied on your fellow man and gave them advantages as well.Perhaps the difference could be summed up in stances.&nbsp; (I'd love to use the phrase fighting styles, but that's already a game term.)&nbsp; So you could assume a protective stance that would help adjacent allies if you have a shield, and hopefully they would be doing the same.&nbsp; A high stance that leaves you open but lets you can ignore half cover (as granted by creatures between you like your allies) with reach weapons.&nbsp; A few different stances for one-on-one, possibly with weapon requirements.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue, post: 7003098, member: 20564"] Drawing on my limited about of time as a stickjock (sword & board) in the SCA, I see a couple of things which could be modeled mechanically. Not sure if 5e is the right vehicle for it though. In one-on-one fights, weapon length was a big deal. If you could keep your opponent at your weapon ideal length and not theirs it was a big advantage. Note that this includes being inside someone's reach. The few times I tried a two handed sword I ended up backing up (well, in a circling back) furiously as the more skilled opponent would get inside my reach where I couldn't throw a good blow but they could. Part of that that defies D&D is the 0' / 5' with nothing between it of a grid. We'd have to add additional granularity to both weapon lengths and movement. With Theater of the Mind it might be more reasonable to have a "give ground" or "push in" that grant modifiers based on relative weapon lengths and current distance. Or you could go the other way - make the grid larger, and play with reach so that some weapons you needed to be in the opponent's square, some you could attack there but with a penalty but were really best if adjacent, and then the few actual reach weapons like pikes which would attack adjacent or one square away, but not in your own square. And, of course, open up moving into your opponent's square. On the other hand, line fighting with comrades in a war was a whole different thing. You're not only defending yourself, but also those on your side. Much as the famous Roman phalanxs would take advantage of a shield wall with quick, darting weapons to go between and longer polearms to reach from the back row, this was a type of combat that relied on your fellow man and gave them advantages as well. Perhaps the difference could be summed up in stances. (I'd love to use the phrase fighting styles, but that's already a game term.) So you could assume a protective stance that would help adjacent allies if you have a shield, and hopefully they would be doing the same. A high stance that leaves you open but lets you can ignore half cover (as granted by creatures between you like your allies) with reach weapons. A few different stances for one-on-one, possibly with weapon requirements. [/QUOTE]

Verification