Poll: Historical Kit & realistic rules

[Drifter Bob]

Being a fencer, I must say that I would be beyond happy to see such a system come into use.

Glad to hear it!

But. And here's the big but. I don't think it's possible with d20; simply the way the class system works and the regular fighting system works is too abstracted for a realistic fighting sequence. The base attack system? One simply knows where his weapon is when you train with it and what it can do.

We don't scientifically model every aspect of combat, we just get as close as we can within the spirit of D&D

When I began training, my first weapon was a Rapier; fair enough. I was but
(snip) certainly not worthy of a +3. Thats just a poor example.

With a little tinkering, the basic D&D concept of simple, martial, and exotic weapons is not too far off base. We tend to look at history for a guide, so the way we look at it, simple weapons are those typically wielded by peasants, burghers, and ordinary civilians; martial by soldiers, mercenaries, knights, and other military specialists; and exotic weapons are basically any weapons which are unique or difficult enough to require special training in their use. Those military weapons used by elite troops (like the dopplehander or the arbalest) and those civilian weapons which seemed to historically require special training. For example, renaisance era soldiers who weilded dopplehander swords were in a category called "dopplesoldner" because they recieved double pay due to their extraordinary skill.

Frankly, I believe that a rapier, as well as a smallsword or any other principly thrusting sword is also an exotic weapon. It is not as intuitive as say, a club or even a spear. Most people who used them recieved training. An arming sword, by contrast, normally used in conjunction with a shield, is something you can pick up with much less formal training. I was never formally trained in sword and shield at all (though I had a lot of experience) and I can fence much better that way than with a rapier or smallsword.

That is one of the reasons aristocrats liked rapiers so much, few commoners or even soldiers knew how to use them.

Whats my Armor Class? What the hell is that? It's all an abstraction. You would need to rework the basic class-system and combat system completely. Fighter class knowing how to use every weapon? But at level 1 you'd miss a small barrel 1/2 the time? right.

We take a cue from an optional rule in D20 modern and similar variants presented in some other recent sourcebooks, and break up AC into a defense roll and armor damage reduction. Your base defense bonus is based on your BAB plus your dex bonus. Your melee defense bonus also includes the defense value of your weapon. Thus a staff is effetively a better defensive weapon than a dagger.

But less on the rule side, I must ask: How would you resolve such issues (as previously mentioned) between cultures that never met? George Silver, or Marozzo against Musashi?

Actually, the cultures did in fact meet.

Generally speaking, what we do is rationally evaluate what we see as the strengths and weaknesses of various fighting styles (mostly as translated into feats) from different eras and cultures, and their items of kit (weapons and armor) and attempt to model them as well as we can within the spirit of D&D, i.e. still in an abstracted manner, but with a little more realistic feel, in terms of their actual merits.

This specific issue (knight vs samurai or rapier vs samurai) keeps coming up in this thread so I'll post this link, which I also bumped up.

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=73933&highlight=samurai

I reccomend reading John Clements article which is linked to page one of the thread and my own comments on page 4.

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.

I think they do, though the differences are somewhat subtle, and naturaly much more relevant at lower levels. If you are a 20th level fighter it really does't matter much if you are armed with a dagger or a bastard sword, you are a killing machine either way.

It is a testament to the recognition of this 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.

We sepearate AC into a (class based) defensive roll to determine hits, and damage reduction for the armor, with simple rules for armor bypass and an alternate but equally simple critical hit system.

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.

One of the nice things about this is that because AC is already divided into natural armor, dex, size etc. etc, and each monster has a BAB, it's fairly easy to adapt any creature from the MM or any other D20 source and adapt it into this combat system. Some non-weapon using monsters lose out a little bit on reach but they can usually compensate by taking advantage of the grappling rules. In our playtesting so far it has been relatively easy to take monsters straight from the book and expect them to be the same challenge relative to the power of the players as before.

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
(snip)
I believe it's important that saxon huscarles in chain hauberks with two handed axes ...be able to hold their own against the norman knights

All the various weapons balance out pretty well within a given era (Saxons versus vikings, knights vs saracens) but if you go say, Renaissance vs Bronze age there is no guarantee!

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.

Boyo, you are asking a lot from a series of inexpensive PDFs! I do feel that the game is workable across a broad range of levels, though as I said before, combat nuances and kit become somewhat less relevant at very high experience levels.

The differences between the eras are quite substantial, though of course some more so than others. Classical to Dark Ages or Medieval to Renaissance is a bigger step than Dark Ages to Medieval, for example.

As to more "realistic" rules for combat, I'm not interested in anything too complex or too rock/paper/scissors.

We still use the basic D20 die based combat system, we don't use a strategy based or dice pool system like TROS, (which you describe as a guessing game).

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.

There is an optional rule in this system where weapons can attack different ways (as you now currently have piercing, slashing, and blunt attacks), and armor resists each type of attack differently. For example, a mail hauberk (worn with a paded gambeson undergarment) might resist Cuts for 5 points, and Blunt attacks for 2. This has proven simple to implement in practice, but if you don't like it, you can assume all armor defends at the same rate, which is always the assumption for natural armor.

Both simple and advanced methods are suported by this system, which is designed to be modular so you can pick and chose how much detail you want.

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.

Well, we model three other features besides damage, such as defense for example, so it's actually pretty easy to model the differences betwen all of the weapons you listed abovel, (in fact, all the weapons listed above are in our databse.)

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.

Fighting 'styles' really only come into play vis a vis feats. Weapon characteristics just go onto the character sheet under the weapon listing, and are incorporated with the base attack and base defense, just like the strength bonus and dex bonus. Our test groups included several people who were first time D&D players (like my girlfriend) and they have no problem using it.

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 o

well, it sounds like you have already convinced yourself it can't work, so maybe this won't be your cup of tea. On top of D&D's existing dodge rule, we do have a few feats that allow counterattack etc., (see above) but these are no more difficult to implement than any other feat. They also work together nicely to convey a bit more of a realistic gritty feel to combat, for those who want that.

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.

You seem to be percieving the very concept of this as an attack on D&D, which it certainly isn't.

In any event, you can play these rules any number of ways, either simple or complex, as a brawny orc who relies on his 18 strength or a dainty fopp who depends instead on his expensive rapier training and special fencing skills. This way you have the option...

DB

 

[mmadsen]

I don't think that is true. Realism = complexity is an old fallacy, something which goes back to many gamers early experiences with systems like rollmaster, etc.

People regularly confuse detail and realism -- as if D&D's combat mechanics were largely realistic but with a few details glossed over.

So for example, in D&D, you model dynamics for tumbling in combat and whirlwind attacks, and two bladed weapon fighting, and subdual damage. I might prefer a system which ignores that and focuses instead on some other factors, like say dealing with weapon reach or, or giving the combattants a different set of tactical options, as for example reflected in some of the feats above.

There are many, many ways a game could be as simple as D&D -- or even simpler -- yet more realistic (where we define "realistic" appropriately). Increasing AC/Defense and reducing Hit Points (or replacing them with a Damage Save) immediately comes to mind.

In other words, it's not just the quantity of your data and variables which make something more or less realistic, it's also the quality of your data.

Well said. A better model can be more accurate without being more complex.

The problem up to now with the vast majority of RPG's is that A) nobody has bothered to improve much on the initial research done in the early days of D&D...

I find it odd that we still have chainmail, splint mail, banded mail, etc. and shortswords, longswords, bastard swords, etc.

 

[Drifter Bob]

Glad to see some folks agree with this approach. I hope we have done it justice.

Have a look at some samples of the art if you haven't already

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=95368&page=2&pp=20

Anyone interested in getting involved in our beta program should contact me here. I'm looking for about ten people. We need help with wording for clarity (see some of the earlier parts of this thread), double checking balance, finding and fixing loopholes, and rules compatability with D20.

At least half of the beta testers will need to be willing to committ to running a live playtest and provide detailed feedback. Beta testers will be credited as such and will recieve a free download of the basic rules plus their choice of one arms and armor era suppliment.

DB

 

[mmadsen]

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.

Some combat systems (e.g., Basic D&D) allow a player with no fighting knowledge to play a skilled warrior just as well as a player with practical fighting experience, because the player doesn't make any low-level decisions.

Of course, most people find that having no meaningful choices gets dull:
"What do you do?"
"I hit him. With my sword. What else can I do?"

Other combat systems (e.g., The Riddle of Steel, from what I gather), expect the player to make informed decisions about low-level details. (For the character, of course, this isn't an academic exercise; he has to make the right decisions in real time.)

Of course, most players won't know the optimal choices to make -- until they study the system, its various charts, etc. And then, if what goes into those charts doesn't change from fight to fight, they repeat the optimal strategy.

I don't know if this is true of the Riddle of Steel, but you could often end up with this situation in other games:
"What do you do?"
"I jump kick him to the head. Again."

Often a more complicated mathematical model means a longer learning process before players discover the optimal choices, but once they do, they've gamed the system, and the interesting choices go away -- but everything requires more math than a simpler system.

 

[Drifter Bob]

Some combat systems (e.g., Basic D&D) allow a player with no fighting knowledge to play a skilled warrior just as well as a player with practical fighting experience, because the player doesn't make any low-level decisions.

Of course, most people find that having no meaningful choices gets dull:
"What do you do?"
"I hit him. With my sword. What else can I do?"

Other combat systems (e.g., The Riddle of Steel, from what I gather), expect the player to make informed decisions about low-level details. (For the character, of course, this isn't an academic exercise; he has to make the right decisions in real time.)

Because this is still fundamentally a D20 system, and we are not inventing a whole new combat system here as Heroquest or so many others have done, of course you can still fight 'simple'.

The "I swing my sword" option is still an acceptable option. We have just introudced a small level of extra nuance, so that if the player does want to make some of those low level decisions, whether it's something as simple as...

"I have to hit this guy or we're sunk! I'm going for broke, I'm going to try to frantically rain blows on him without any regard for my own safety"

... something more complex like
"...to heck with this, I'm going to hang back and wait to counterattack, using my offhand weapon for defense... I'll nail him when he opens himself up a bit"

... or something more sophisticted which may even require special training, like

"While Dave has him distracted, I'm going to leap toward him and lunge with my rapier, aiming for a suitible gap in his armor, preferably in his face or neck."

The real idea behind this is to give those players who want to use them a few more combat options, and I simply found realistic ones worked the best, were the easist to predict etc. Frankly, In doing this I was trying to find a way to give players the options I wanted to give them my first time running a game...

Of course, most players won't know the optimal choices to make -- until they study (snip)
I don't know if this is true of the Riddle of Steel, but you could often end up with this situation in other games:

Well, no, riddle of steel has a completely different dynamic. There is no optimal strategy because you really don't know what your opponent is going to do. The outcome of a fight depends almost as much on your opponents skill as a player as upon the relative merits of your characters.

"What do you do?"
"I jump kick him to the head. Again."

Often a more complicated mathematical model means a longer learning process before players discover the optimal choices, but once they do, they've gamed the system, and the interesting choices go away -- but everything requires more math than a simpler system.

Well, no system is immune to this kind of nerfing, but I think there is a good deal of balance in it, again because we are taking our cue directly from history instead of reinventing the wheel. Contrary to some opinoins, military weapons which did not have some value that sufficiently offset any liability did not persist on the battlefield, particularly in the pressure cooker of perpetual warfare and political and cultural diversity which existed in Europe from the Dark ages through the Renaissance.

In terms of nerfing the ideal fighting archetypes, I would say that we have at least added a few. In terms of more or less 'pure' fighting classes, if you had the "tank" type fighter before from ODD, the two wepaon figher of 2E, and 3.X has added barbarians, archer specialists and the finesse fighter, we have taken all those and added to them.

If you want to be a tank, and not rely on any special tactics, then you are well advised to get heavy armor, and heavy weapons which cause a lot of damage, and get good at using them. The finesse fighter now has several added options and potential advantages which paritcularly bloom at mid to high levels, but still has to be careful when facing the tank. The Barbarian has new fighting techniques and weapons as well, but has to take care if he chooses not to wear armor. The 2E two weapon fighter has been replaced by other new sub-types.

Some of the newer archetpyes I have recognized in our playtesting include, the medium armored (two handed) longsword specialist with all the fechtbuch techniques; the 'friar tuck' defensive/ counterattacing staff fighter; the 'dopplsoldner' spear or polearm specialist; the lightly armored cut-and-thrust sword and dagger (or buckler) specialist, the 'smasher', a variant on the tank specializing in blunt weapons, and the 'grappler', often roguish characters specializing in wrestling, ambushing, and knife fighting (this latter is also an option for barbarian types), the 'artillerist; , a heavy missile weapon specialist, and the 'peltast', a hit and run light imssile weapon specialist / scout.

Of course, all this has to be rethought when you mix spellcasting multiclass into the mix... also, several pepole who rely on heavy weapons, especially two handed weapons, have to have backup strategies for fighting indoors or underground.

DB

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I think they do, though the differences are somewhat subtle, and naturaly much more relevant at lower levels. If you are a 20th level fighter it really does't matter much if you are armed with a dagger or a bastard sword, you are a killing machine either way.

Well to some degree. What I meant by different feel was not so much in terms of capabilities--as you note, a 20th level fighter should be a killing machine whether he's armed with a gladius, an arming sword, or a flamberge--as with what "full harness" means and the style of fighting encouraged. It doesn't do a lot of good to have rules for Homeric era arms and armor if they put hoplite spears and bronze breastplates in the same category as animal hides and bone clubs. Homeric era warriors should want their armor like D&D characters want their +5 fullplate. At the same time, I get the feeling that the Homeric equipment should make different manuevers possible and encouraged than high middle ages equipment. I would want a system that did more than simply call the best armor available a "definitive harness" and the best weapon a "good thwacky thing" and left it up to me to describe them although the milanese fullplate and bronze breastplate of achilles had exactly the same mechanical qualities.

Paradigm Concepts' adaptation of Roman arms and armor for their Arcanis setting is good in this manner. By creating Lorica Segmentata as a +5 medium armor that allows 30' movement and a +4 max dex, and the gladius as a light weapon, they created rules that encourage the use of Lorica Segmentata and (if Complete Warrior rules are allowed--especially Phalanx Fighting and Formation Expert) shields and gladii in formation. At the same time, the equipment is not so overpowering that characters from the breakaway province of Miliandir where fullplate and long or bastard swords are more popular, find that their equipment underperforms mechanically. I can't say whether their depiction of Roman arms and armor is historically accurate or not (though I suspect it shouldn't be taken too seriously) but it works very well for the game.

From what I can tell, the Nyambe product also does a fairly good job of adapating D&D mechanics to ancient Africa. I haven't played with the system much but, from the looks of it seems pretty workable.

We sepearate AC into a (class based) defensive roll to determine hits, and damage reduction for the armor, with simple rules for armor bypass and an alternate but equally simple critical hit system.

I'd have to see this to know what I think of it. Prima Facia, I'm not much of a fan of defense rolls--I prefer only rolling one die to rolling two given the choice).

One of the nice things about this is that because AC is already divided into natural armor, dex, size etc. etc, and each monster has a BAB, it's fairly easy to adapt any creature from the MM or any other D20 source and adapt it into this combat system. Some non-weapon using monsters lose out a little bit on reach but they can usually compensate by taking advantage of the grappling rules. In our playtesting so far it has been relatively easy to take monsters straight from the book and expect them to be the same challenge relative to the power of the players as before.

From the sounds of things, you're creating an alternative d20 combat system. Good or bad, that's a different matter than simply a set of rules for historical kit in D&D. While I would be interested in pdfs that gave alternate historical equipment tables within the current rules, I'm not really interested in learning and implementing a new combat system.

All the various weapons balance out pretty well within a given era (Saxons versus vikings, knights vs saracens) but if you go say, Renaissance vs Bronze age there is no guarantee!

That's all that one can ask.

Boyo, you are asking a lot from a series of inexpensive PDFs! I do feel that the game is workable across a broad range of levels, though as I said before, combat nuances and kit become somewhat less relevant at very high experience levels.

Maybe so. However, I don't think that a series of rules that doesn't address these concerns is useful to me. If it's only marginally compatible with D&D then its its own system--I'd expect to pay more for that and for it to be advertised as such. If it's fully compatible with D&D, I expect to be able to plug in different equipment, figure out how to use it (as, in D&D rules at the moment, chain shirts are for light, mobile fighters, fullplate is for mounted combatants and people in slugfests, guisarms and spiked chains are for characters with combat reflexes and Improved Trip, etc, Greatswords and greataxes are for tank-type characters, etc) and have it all work.

That may be asking for a lot from inexpensive pdfs but a partially functional set of rules isn't helpful. So, if it can't be done right in inexpensive pdfs, I'd sooner live without it entirely than live with it done wrong.

There is an optional rule in this system where weapons can attack different ways (as you now currently have piercing, slashing, and blunt attacks), and armor resists each type of attack differently. For example, a mail hauberk (worn with a paded gambeson undergarment) might resist Cuts for 5 points, and Blunt attacks for 2. This has proven simple to implement in practice, but if you don't like it, you can assume all armor defends at the same rate, which is always the assumption for natural armor.

Both simple and advanced methods are suported by this system, which is designed to be modular so you can pick and chose how much detail you want.

If that's all the differentiation there is, it seems to run counter to the stated goal of the system--realism. There's a big difference between the blunt attack of a club and that of a flail or mace. Similarly, there's a massive difference between the slashing attack of a arming sword and that of falchion (of the historical variety--not the D&D 3.x version) or an axe. Adding the simplified slash/bludgeon/pierce variety of weapon vs. armor modifiers strikes me as notably less realistic rather than more realistic.

Well, we model three other features besides damage, such as defense for example, so it's actually pretty easy to model the differences betwen all of the weapons you listed abovel, (in fact, all the weapons listed above are in our databse.)

Let me see: proficiency type, damage (and damage type), crit threat/multiplier, reach, and defense. Adding defense is a pretty simple way to add a lot of tactical interest and make different weapons different. (If you use some kind of an armor as DR variant, defense will also make the game work a lot better--my biggest reservation about armor as DR systems is that, with the current D&D classes and feats, level 5-8 characters are often dealing 30-40 points of damage per hit when they power attack for full and reducing AC to get DR generally results in an increase of the amount of damage such characters deal per round). Adding more reach increments would seem to be a much more far-reaching change and I'd have to actually see it in action to guess at how it would work.

You seem to be percieving the very concept of this as an attack on D&D, which it certainly isn't.

In any event, you can play these rules any number of ways, either simple or complex, as a brawny orc who relies on his 18 strength or a dainty fopp who depends instead on his expensive rapier training and special fencing skills. This way you have the option...

DB

I don't see it as an attack on D&D, but if it's advertised as historical kit rules for D&D, I would want it to be functional with the current system rather than require a new system which doesn't interest me at the moment.

Expensive rapier training and fencing skills can be modelled by the D&D system at the moment so you already have the option you're talking about (though it may be somewhat challenging to create a fop who's as effective as the brawny orc in full harness under the current rules). If your rules end up being more flexible and interesting than the D&D rules, I may well take a look but at the moment, I prefer less radical ways of altering the rules. (And I am cognizant that, as mmadsen points out, more complex systems don't necessarily become more interesting--Fallout's SPECIAL system, for instance, had quite a bit of detail but generally came down to two or three choices: If I'm using a normal weapon or an energy weapon: "Am I good enough to take the shot to the eye or should I just shoot at the enemy and hope to hit him somewhere?" and "Is now a good time for full auto/heavy weapons?" By the time a character got skilled with his weapons, the default answer was: "I shoot him in the eye with my plasma rifle...and he dies in a fashion determined by the game's gore level." At that point, the complexity of the rules ceases to be interesting).

 

[sword-dancer]

defend yourself with a sword and shield against a polearm, that is my point. DB

Sorry I misunderstood you.

 

[Drifter Bob]

It doesn't do a lot of good to have rules for Homeric era arms and armor if they put hoplite spears and bronze breastplates in the same category as animal hides and bone clubs.

Well, it's certainly not handled that way. Hoplite era warfare is about heavy infantry fighting in formation (hoplites) with light infantry (peltasts) running around throwing javelins and slings, and sometimes light cavalry attacking the flanks. The hoplite equipment is designed to be used in formation, and the most important and expensive part of their kit was actually their shield (spartan mothers used to tell their sons to return with their shield or it....)

On a personal combat level, there is also a lot of emphasis on wrestling and grappling.

milanese fullplate and bronze breastplate of achilles had exactly the same mechanical qualities.

Hardly! You must be thinking in terms of the D&D breastplate which is actually a full suit of armor!

Paradigm Concepts' adaptation of Roman arms and armor for their AI can't say whether their depiction of Roman arms and armor is historically accurate or not (though I suspect it shouldn't be taken too seriously) but it works very well for the game.

I don't want to comment to much on another companies material but that doesn't sound too far off the mark nor unhistorical. Sounds like they did a good job.

I'd have to see this to know what I think of it. Prima Facia, I'm not much of a fan of defense rolls--I prefer only rolling one die to rolling two given the choice).

Well, as I said, you can try the d20 modern variant rule, or you can try it as introduced by a few well known d20 suppliments. It is an optional rule for our material, not necessary to use the equipment but it will allow you play with more nuance and arguably, more realism. In my experience it works great, it's actually just as fast as one die roll because both people roll at the same time, and it greatly improves the 'feel' of combat without adding undue complexity.

From the sounds of things, you're creating an alternative d20 combat system. Good or bad, that's a different matter than simply a set of rules for historical kit in D&D. While I would be interested in pdfs that gave alternate historical equipment tables within the current rules, I'm not really interested in learning and implementing a new combat system.

I've explained this before, but I'll make the point again. This system is scaled, if you want more nuances between equipment types, you can use the advanced rules: They are playtested and they are rapid in implementation and simple to learn. If you prefer to stick with the original rules however, you can do that too, you just don't get quite as much differentiation between weapons.

That may be asking for a lot from inexpensive pdfs but a partially functional set of rules isn't helpful. So, if it can't be done right in inexpensive pdfs, I'd sooner live without it entirely than live with it done wrong.

With all due respect, I get the impression that you don't like this idea at all, which is fine. I've answered all of your questions and explained how it works pretty clearly. Ultimately, you can try it out to see if you like it, wait to hear what other people say about it, or just blow it off. I'm not really sure what more I can add.

There's a big difference between the blunt attack of a club and that of a flail or mace.

Really? As far as I can see, there are only three factors: mass, hardness, and shape. A flail hits a lot harder than a mace or a club, but they all do the same type of damage. I really don't want to focus overmuch on damage anyway, I think that is the downfall of many 'realistic' system in the past.

I don't see it as an attack on D&D, but if it's advertised as historical kit rules for D&D, I would want it to be functional with the current system rather than
require a new system which doesn't interest me at the moment.

As I explained above, the equipment can be used with the rules as is, or with the advanced rules. I frankly see the latter, such aspects as the defensive roll, as an evolutionary step D&D is going to be taking sooner or later.

Expensive rapier training and fencing skills can be modelled by the D&D system at the moment so you already have the option you're talking about

With our feats the smallsword or rapier armed finesse fighter is greatly enhanced. A well trained finesse fighter can actually take on a traditional 'tank' fighter one on one, with a lot of caution and a little luck...

DB

 

[Arawyn]

Is this better achieved with Education than Feats

Hi Bob,

:-D Great idea,
it is the problem that every WMA'er who roleplays moans about but rarely tries to fix (or like me, follow through with ;-)

I have looked into this issue myself and have tried Feats but I don't think it works (mind you we have shared some very similar thoughts).

The problem is including Feats as a way to explain basic techniques means that valuable feat slots are wasted on techniques that any (semi-)competent swordsman should know.

As in the case of your examples:
Sidestep Feat
You are giving a Feat to a basic bit of footwork that I expect my students to know before they even touch a sword. (though the feat woudl mean competent and consistant, unlike a beginner)
Now the Dodge feat really is just a way of explaining the application of Judgement and Measure and knowing when to Fly In and Out (Governors-Silver).
This feat gives little benefit other than some basic free movement that a flexible/condidant GM would give in these circumstances if asked by a player.
The Grapple check bonus really should be kept to Improved Grapple, which any competent swordman should know.

Counterstoke Feat
I start with teaching Open Fight to my students. Other than knowing how to stand in a Guard, this is one of the first techniques they learn.
Now okay this is a little better than reality becuase you are taking advantage of the correct timing and distance/movement to catch your opponent laying spent which is a lot harder to get between swordsman at full speed and martial intent than in d20...

Point Control Feat
Good idea, but I personally think avoiding AoO when unarmed against a armed opponent to be rubbish anyway. (It should just give you something like a +4 dodge bonus for the AoO instead).
As you can guess though, I think it is a feat to fix an unrealistic artifact in the d20 system. So changing the system should be the choice, not a waste of a Feat slot.

Cooperative Fighting Feat
Tell me if I am wrong here, but I am making ASSumptions. ;-)
Fixing that multiple opponent issue in d20. It is not that easy in reality as we know. It is like a free assist action though isn't it?
If you try to make multiple opponents more challenging remember this will effect CRs. In addition it should be easier for goblinoid races to take.
What I have tried is using the Class Defence Bonuses(d20Modern)+Dex+Dodge(but double) as a "Defence Pool" that can be allocated as a Dodge bonus per attack that can be replenished at the start of your action.

Lunge Feat
Isn't Spring Attack supposed to be a mechanic for Lunging?

Half Swording
Gotta love it don't you. :-D
Actually half-swording is done with Silver's single sword and 18thC Backsword as well just for a start.
I could imagine Swetnam's Rapier and Dagger having mechanics similar to half-swording as well.

I personally think that Halfswording benefits are more about improved defence
against weapons with greater reach and power. It is method of a moving into close distance defensively.
I imagine Halfswording as the technique when your swordsman is moving to the adjacent square of an opponent with reach.

Now honestly Bob, how many of these type of feats would you consider yourself to have in your current skill level?
Work out a d20 Modern character that can take all of it into account.

You end up being pretty high-level don't you?
You just don't get all the Feat slots you would need.

So what I have tried is looking at ways to explain realistic techniques within the broad combat strategies that currently exist (Special Initative Actions, Combat Modifiers and Special Attacks).
I also gave additional bonuses for more detailed descriptions of attacks.

This is can be an ugly hack and really needs to be detailed properly at some time (when I have some spare).

The issue is that the d20 Developers at WotC don't have the knowledge of a WMA community (and are not the intended audience either).
A rewrite/tweak of the Combat section of the SRD could do wonders to the realism of the game without the addition of many Feats.
Articles of weapon styles/techniques and related Combat Feats could also help. (there was a basic one in Dragon in the last year).

Education of Western Martial Arts in relation to d20, rather then rules addition I think is a better solution.

BTW: Medievil Sword and Shield (I.33) by Stephen Hand and Paul (Mac)Wagner is a good book, though I want my Modern Swordman's Companion and Highland Broadsword books already. ;-)

regards,
Scott Nimmo