Poll: Historical Kit & realistic rules

[Drifter Bob]

If i play in this style, I use Harnmaster, TROS or Runequest. But neither D&D or TDE.

Well, now is your chance! (What is TDE?)

Yes as long as you don`t fall in the EMA Hype, especially the Samurai and KAtana Hype.

Well, personally think the European Longsword is superior to the katana in many respects, but I try not to let my personal prejudice cloud my technical analysis. For more details on this subject, check out the EN thread about "Samurai vs Knight" based on John Clements article of the same name. You can also see some of my commentary on the subject on the ARMA website.

Ewart R Oakeshott was years before your five years.
Had it meaning, that you don`t mention the I.33 and Silver?

Mr Oakeshott was doing excellent, revolutionary work back into the 60's, in the accurate classification of swords, something he was doing up until his recent death. He was not teaching WMA or historical fencing, as far as I know, although he advocated it and his efforts definately led in that direction.

Many people aren't aware that until the second half of this century, basically nobody had any real idea how to classify medieval swords, or even apparently such basic details as how much they really weighed...

We do use the Oakeshott typology for many European swords, as well as Peterson's typology for viking swords. It's too bad so many other weapons haven't been anylized as systematically...

I.33, for those who might be curious, is the oldest fencing manual known, dating back to the 13th century, and one of the few dealing with shields (bucklers in this case). It is written by anonymous monks. As far as I know, there hasn't been an English tranlsation at least until quite recently, like last year? I haven't had a chance to study this manual, though I have seen the images from it which are available on the ARMA site. Their sword and buckler techniques are very unusual! I don't think anyone has worked them out yet fully, though I know of some people who are trying.

I see no way you can realistically Balance a normal arming sword and a poleaxe,

An arming sword with a large shield can face a pole-axe or any other pole arm easily. I've done it myself many times sparring....

or balnce Chain against maximilian Full Plate.

A full kit of Maximumilian gothic plate is clearly superior armor than mail, but it's also a hell of a lot more expensive and difficult to acquire! In this case the balancing factor would be cost.

Not to start with Katanas against warswords and Japanese Armour against Milanes Plate.

Katanas have some advantages over warswords, and some disadvantages, though as I said I personally prefer the European weapons. The Katana is more specialized, but very effective even if it's not the super weapon some pepole make it out to be. Japanese Armor can mean a lot of different things, but per above, I would guess that it is cheaper to make in most cases.


But balance can come in other areas. Poor peasants from Bohemia and Switzerland routinely defeated knights wearing the finest Italian and German armor, by using inspired tactics and what amounted to cleverly modified farm tools...

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

A look at the I.33 manual, a fencing manual from the 13th century, for those who might be interested.

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/i33/i33.htm

John Clements related a scandalous anecdote about this manual to me, one aspect of which is that one of the fighters depicted in some of the illustrations is supposed to be a female.

DB

 

[TheLostSoul]

Thats interesting, I'm sure you know that the immediate area around Denmark was fairly unique for making stone weapons well into the bronze age and beyond, apparently due to a lack of local resources. As a result, some of the finest stone weapons ever made come from there. I've seen some photos of stone knives from Denmark which were very beautiful copies of nearly identically shaped bronze knives.

These slum fu rules do have some neolithic weapons, various protoswords, hardwood clubs, the atlatl and a few others.

My cousin married a Dane, one of my most interesting experiences was a visit to Roskilde when we were allowed to go on a short ride on an authentic viking ship. What an amazing feel, unlike any other boat...

DB

The Nordic Bronze age was very unique in many ways, including the production of flint tools and weapons. The huge amount of rockcarving, with a very discernable mythology is also one of our trademarks. And yes, our late neolithic flint knives are some of the most beautifull in the world.

I have yet to ride on a vikingboat, even though I live only 30 min. from Roskilde, but I have had other priorities My last assignment was about the Hjortspring boat. A boat that is clearly a predecessor of the viking ship. It was a light attack vessel, for use in the early pre-roman iron age and could seat about 20 fully equiped warriors. It is also the earliest known nordic ship, because we have yet to see one of the boats depicted on our many bronze age rockcarvings. There are a few depictions of ships of the Hjortspring kind, so we can safely assume that they also had ships in the bronze age. What their precise constructions was, though, we cannot tell.

 

[Drifter Bob]

The Nordic Bronze age was very unique in many ways, including the production of flint tools and weapons. The huge amount of rockcarving, with a very discernable mythology is also one of our trademarks. And yes, our late neolithic flint knives are some of the most beautifull in the world.

One of the most interesting neolithinc European weapons I encountered were some references to boomerang - like throwing sticks. The romans refer to the celts using something called a "catea", the egyptians and Indians had their own versions, and there were some archeological finds, I think one near denmark, where they found a throwing stick which looks just like a boomerang.

I was wondering what you would list as the most important neolithic weapons.

Some of the ones we have included are

rocks (much more effective than people realise!)
slings
bows (long bows apparently go way back in scandinavia)
spears
javelins
"atlatls" and other spear throwers
sword-like hardwood clubs
stone chip edged wooden 'protoswords'
stone axes
stone hammers and maces
stone knives
jawbone axe

 

[ajanders]

Here are examples of a few of the feats
UNIVERSAL
Sidestep Feat
Evade by moving aside instead of counterattacking. Prerequisites: Speed 20’, Dodge. You have the option of taking a five-foot step instead of making an attack of opportunity. This feat can be used in conjunction with Combat Reflexes to move multiple 5’ steps. In addition, sidestep grants a +2 to any Grapple check for purposes of avoiding Grapple only. If evading a Grapple attempt, the Sidestep feat can be used multiple times against the same opponent (as many as the limitations of Combat Reflexes normally allow, i.e. one time per Dexterity bonus factor)
DB

Unfortunately, Attacks of Opportunity can get a little tricky in D20, where you may fight some ahistorically large things. An attack of opportunity is also not necessarily the same thing as a counterattack: attacks of opportunity are also granted when an opponent does something that really reduces their ability to defend themselves. The big problem here will be attacks provoked by opponents moving through your threatened area. Many times those opponents won't be attacking at all: the attack of opportunity represents a cheap shot to the back of the head. This feat means someone can move faster just because an opponent walked past them...which makes little sense.
It's also worth considering creatures with, say, a 20 foot reach. From 20 feet away, characters can arguably sidestep right along with the monster. Heck, they can make a chicane if they have to.

Counterstroke Feat
Counter Attack Feat
Prerequisites: Dodge, Weapon Focus with weapon to be used
May skip one normal melee attack to gain a single special Opportunity Attack in the same round at +2 To Hit. The individual must wait until attacked by the target designated for Dodge. Once attacked by the selected target, they may, if they survive, then counterattack as a special Attack of Opportunity with a +2 bonus. Only the first attack can be responded to in this way.
DB

Interesting...

Cooperative Fighting Feat
Prerequisites: Situational Awareness Feat, must have fought along side a partner through the entire period since attaining the previous level. Partner must gain the same Feat.
Benefit: +2 to hit against any single opponent that their partner has attacked in the same round.
DB

I like the idea. I've always wanted something that justified the phalanx and shield pair.

Lunge Feat
Melee Combat Feat
Prerequisites: Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus with the weapon in question (must be a sword capable of thrusting).
A special thrusting attack. A technique developed for the rapier or cut-and-thrust sword during the renaissance, emphasized leaping forward in coordination with the thrust, enabling the attacker to reach opponents out of apparent attack range and to concentrate power and energy and to attack with remarkable speed. This technique allows a combatant to take an additional 5’ step in the attack, and to then conduct a single attack at +2 To Hit, and +2 Damage, suffering –4 to Defense in the process. Can only be used by a single-handed thrusting weapon which is also considered a Finesse Weapon. Once gained, the technique can be applied to any finesse weapon for which the user has both Weapon Focus and Weapon Finesse feats.
DB

I've always modeled this using Power Attack, myself. This looks awfully like it could be done with a Charge/Power Attack combination instead of a feat, but I'd need to double-check all my rules first.

Half-Sword Fighting Feat
Special sword fighting technique for use with hand and a half and two- handed swords which have a thrusting point, including Long Swords, Bastard Swords, Great Swords, Claymores, Dopplehanders (Zweihanders), and Flambards. The technique involves grasping the sword blade. It is easiest and safest to use with weapons built with a Riccasso, an unsharpened section near the hilt of the blade.
Prerequisites: Weapon Focus with a Bastard Sword, Great Sword, or Two-Hand Sword, Expertise, Dodge. This Feat can be gained up to two times. Benefits depend on the number of times the Feat has been chosen.
Benefit may make close-range thrusting attack at +2 Damage for a –2 penalty to AC / Defense.
DB

This Half-swording stuff isn't going to work.
The D20 world is divided up into 5 foot squares. It's annoying, but it's true.
A greatsword, long sword, bastard sword, etc, only threatens a 5 foot area. There's nothing "closer". Now, if you could use that to turn the slashing damage into thrusting damage (because the half sword uses stabbing techniques) or treat the sword as a smaller weapon (making it useful against grappling) we might be allright. But the current feat has no use.

 

[Taneel BrightBlade]

not if it was really really realistic, may be make the books come with real swords

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I'd be interested in different historical eras information... if it were both balanced for play AND gave those eras a different feel from standard D&D and from each other.

D&D works within a spectrum of balance and choices made in one area will reflect upon the overall balance of the system. For instance, without magic items, the game begins to become unbalanced around 5th level or so when the defensive abilities of shields and heavy armor become insufficient protection to make up for sacrificing the damage of wielding a two handed weapon--and going to two handed weapons is the only way to gain damage in the absence of enhancement bonusses and special weapon abilities. Consequently in such environments, there's a strong pressure towards multiclassed fighter/barbarian characters with maxed strength and con who are designed to do as much damage as possible. It is a testament to the recognition of this problem (and the similar "I'm going to get hit on every enemy attack no matter what" problem) that a number of systems (like Wheel of Time) that set out to be lower-magic than standard D&D address this difficulty with a class based defense bonus. If I were to be interested in historical era supplements to the rules, it would have to be functional with some standard D&D challenges. I should be able to take a troll from the monster manual and have him be a good challenge for 4th-7th level fighters and lunch meat to 9th-12th level fighters. I would also want the system to support a few different styles of fighting. While I understand that a part of the appeal of historical "kit" is that the vikings will wear byrnies and carry round shields, spears, and viking swords or axes, the Normans will wear chain mail hauberks and carry kite shields, lances, and swords, and the samurai will find their traditional bows, Naginatas, and katanas to be effective and that if one were to try to balance chain hauberks with Milanese or Gothic plate armor it would defeat the point of historical kit rules, I believe it's important that saxon huscarles in chain hauberks with two handed axes or shields and spears be able to hold their own against the norman knights and that Saladin's armies be able to hold their own against the crusaders. Even in the fairly homogenous world of Arthurian legend, we have Sir Bors, knight of the two swords and I would want the ruleset to give support to the variety of historical kit.

The eras would also need to feel different from each other. To some degree, this runs counter to the goal of balance and variety. A homeric greek era kit should encourage different character designs and choices than the high renaissance. The game should still be workable across a broad range of levels and there should still be multiple viable ways to make a fighting character but the difference between the eras should not be merely cosmetic.

As to more "realistic" rules for combat, I'm not interested in anything too complex or too rock/paper/scissors. The 1e weapon vs. armor type table was a good deal more realistic than the rules that make all weapons equally good at penetrating all armor. However, it was far too clumsy to work in game. The 2e weapon type vs. armor modifiers were so broad as to be less realistic than the system they replaced. A dagger and a military pick (both piercing weapons), a quarterstaff and a warhammer (both bludgeoning), and a battle axe and a sword have the same chance to penetrate a non-helpless foe's plate armor? I can imagine plenty of more workable ways to differentiate between a falchion, a falcatta, and an executioner's sword or a viking sword, a cut and thrust sword, a warsword, a chinese Jian, and a basket hilted broadsword, but I suspect that a system detailed enough to give a realistic account of those differences will have to be much more complex than D&D. There's only so much you can do with the difference between 18-20, 19-20, and 20 /x2, /x3, and /x4 crits and 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d4, 1d10, 1d12, and 2d6 damage. Though one could devise a system with more increments of reach and fighting styles and attacks of opportunity but that's not going to get much traction with the guy in my gaming group who can barely wrap his head around attacks of opportunity as written.

More detailed rules for attack, counter-attack, dodge, riposte, etc are also of questionable utility. While I haven't played Riddle of Steel, I have played the old computer game Knights of Legend and got some familiarity with the guessing game. It worked OK but combat took ten times as long as it did in the old gold-box 1e D&D games and wasn't really that much more exciting or interesting. Playing Shattering Lances (a similarly "guessing game" set of jousting rules for D&D), was frustrating because the results had far more to do with the player's skill at the guessing game than any character's skill at riding, attacking, or dodging.

The beauty of D&D's feat system at the moment is that, with the exceptions of rather basic manuevers like tripping, disarming, sundering, and grappling, most of the combat options are variations on "I'm better with this weapon/tougher/etc" (weapon focus/toughness/etc) or "I'm better at one on one combat" (Dodge), or I'll attack more recklessly (power attack, rage), or I'll attack more defensively (expertise, fight defensively, etc). One doesn't need to study WMA manuals in order to understand them nor does one suffer a whole lot if you just say "orc? I hit orc with sword. Me smash." That may often seem unrealistic but it has the positive effect of enabling ordinary people to play fighters and makes the character's performance depend more upon his ability than the player's. And, IMO, that's a good thing.

 

[Drifter Bob]

This Half-swording stuff isn't going to work.
The D20 world is divided up into 5 foot squares. It's annoying, but it's true.
A greatsword, long sword, bastard sword, etc, only threatens a 5 foot area. There's nothing "closer". Now, if you could use that to turn the slashing damage into thrusting damage (because the half sword uses stabbing techniques) or treat the sword as a smaller weapon (making it useful against grappling) we might be allright. But the current feat has no use.

Well, there are two reasons why this actually works in our rules system. No. 1, one of the weapons we (re)introduce is the 'true' two hander, the dopplehander or so - called zweihander. This is a six foot sword ...

http://www.st-mike.org/groups/german/images/lkarmor1.jpg
http://www.rittersteel.com/images/landsknechte-sword-2630.jpg

... which is considered a 'reach' weapon and does threaten two squares.

No 2, we also use the grappling rules a litle differently. The 'close range attack' mentioned above actually means an attack while in grapple, which if you are aware of halfswording techniques, that is often exactly what one does with halfswording.

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

I'd be interested in different historical eras information... if it were both balanced for play AND gave those eras a different feel from standard D&D and from each other.

D&D works within a spectrum of balance and choices made in one area will reflect upon the overall balance of the system. For instance, without magic items, the game begins to become unbalanced around 5th level or so when the defensive abilities of shields and heavy armor become insufficient protection to make up for sacrificing the damage of wielding a two handed weapon--and going to two handed weapons is the only way to gain damage in the absence of enhancement bonusses and special weapon abilities. Consequently in such environments, there's a strong pressure towards multiclassed fighter/barbarian characters with maxed strength and con who are designed to do as much damage as possible. It is a testament to the recognition of this problem (and the similar "I'm going to get hit on every enemy attack no matter what" problem) that a number of systems (like Wheel of Time) that set out to be lower-magic than standard D&D address this difficulty with a class based defense bonus. If I were to be interested in historical era supplements to the rules, it would have to be functional with some standard D&D challenges. I should be able to take a troll from the monster manual and have him be a good challenge for 4th-7th level fighters and lunch meat to 9th-12th level fighters. I would also want the system to support a few different styles of fighting. While I understand that a part of the appeal of historical "kit" is that the vikings will wear byrnies and carry round shields, spears, and viking swords or axes, the Normans will wear chain mail hauberks and carry kite shields, lances, and swords, and the samurai will find their traditional bows, Naginatas, and katanas to be effective and that if one were to try to balance chain hauberks with Milanese or Gothic plate armor it would defeat the point of historical kit rules, I believe it's important that saxon huscarles in chain hauberks with two handed axes or shields and spears be able to hold their own against the norman knights and that Saladin's armies be able to hold their own against the crusaders. Even in the fairly homogenous world of Arthurian legend, we have Sir Bors, knight of the two swords and I would want the ruleset to give support to the variety of historical kit.

The eras would also need to feel different from each other. To some degree, this runs counter to the goal of balance and variety. A homeric greek era kit should encourage different character designs and choices than the high renaissance. The game should still be workable across a broad range of levels and there should still be multiple viable ways to make a fighting character but the difference between the eras should not be merely cosmetic.

As to more "realistic" rules for combat, I'm not interested in anything too complex or too rock/paper/scissors. The 1e weapon vs. armor type table was a good deal more realistic than the rules that make all weapons equally good at penetrating all armor. However, it was far too clumsy to work in game. The 2e weapon type vs. armor modifiers were so broad as to be less realistic than the system they replaced. A dagger and a military pick (both piercing weapons), a quarterstaff and a warhammer (both bludgeoning), and a battle axe and a sword have the same chance to penetrate a non-helpless foe's plate armor? I can imagine plenty of more workable ways to differentiate between a falchion, a falcatta, and an executioner's sword or a viking sword, a cut and thrust sword, a warsword, a chinese Jian, and a basket hilted broadsword, but I suspect that a system detailed enough to give a realistic account of those differences will have to be much more complex than D&D. There's only so much you can do with the difference between 18-20, 19-20, and 20 /x2, /x3, and /x4 crits and 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d4, 1d10, 1d12, and 2d6 damage. Though one could devise a system with more increments of reach and fighting styles and attacks of opportunity but that's not going to get much traction with the guy in my gaming group who can barely wrap his head around attacks of opportunity as written.

More detailed rules for attack, counter-attack, dodge, riposte, etc are also of questionable utility. While I haven't played Riddle of Steel, I have played the old computer game Knights of Legend and got some familiarity with the guessing game. It worked OK but combat took ten times as long as it did in the old gold-box 1e D&D games and wasn't really that much more exciting or interesting. Playing Shattering Lances (a similarly "guessing game" set of jousting rules for D&D), was frustrating because the results had far more to do with the player's skill at the guessing game than any character's skill at riding, attacking, or dodging.

The beauty of D&D's feat system at the moment is that, with the exceptions of rather basic manuevers like tripping, disarming, sundering, and grappling, most of the combat options are variations on "I'm better with this weapon/tougher/etc" (weapon focus/toughness/etc) or "I'm better at one on one combat" (Dodge), or I'll attack more recklessly (power attack, rage), or I'll attack more defensively (expertise, fight defensively, etc). One doesn't need to study WMA manuals in order to understand them nor does one suffer a whole lot if you just say "orc? I hit orc with sword. Me smash." That may often seem unrealistic but it has the positive effect of enabling ordinary people to play fighters and makes the character's performance depend more upon his ability than the player's. And, IMO, that's a good thing.

Um, er... right on...


(I'll answer this in more detail when I get some time to go through it point by point...)

DB

 

[doghead]

Here are examples of a few of the feats

<snip>

Chew these over a bit...

DB

I've only got as far as the first page. This thread is going to need a little time to work through. But it looks interesting. It looks like a way of improving the realism without necessarily cluttering up the game with too many rules, charts etc. I'm hoping that you have a better way of handling disengaging and falling back type actions.

I also like the sound of the universal group plus historical period modules. A nice way of cleaning out all the rapiers, katanas and plate mail from your Classical Greek and Roman setting. And stocking up on javlin, spears and shortsword appropriate fighting feats. If you want to.

I'll be back later.

doghead.