Poll: Historical Kit & realistic rules

[Drifter Bob]

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 ;-)

Yep

As in the case of your examples: Sidestep Feat

Assuming that people can do things a 'flexible DM' should find reasonable is not in the spirit of modern D&D! :0 Seriously though, this feat grants some pretty handy extra options in combat and conveys a sense of nimbleness in a fight which comes across quite nicely.

Counterstoke Feat

This is instinctive, but not necessarily something a beginner can get right. (Frankly, as a rule, beginner swordsmen get few things right) learning the timing to conterstrike correctly without being hit yourself is tricky. So it's a good feat, intuitive yet difficult to master in real life, IMO.

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.

I kind of agree, but at the level of abstraction we are at, this actually works pretty well in game. Also, keep in mind, a human in RL does have a very hard time rushing someone with a longer weapon (Jake Norwood of ARMA and I tested this for a bet once, he tried rushing me with a dagger against an arming sword and found it impossible to get the first strike in even in 20 tries or so) but think of a charging wolf, or a boar, or a lion. Think of a human accelerated by some magic spell.

Cooperative Fighting Feat

Actually that wasn't really the intent though it could be used that way. Of course, to get feats those goblins would have to have levels...

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'll have to expand that then perhaps

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.

Well, thats one way it can be used, I suspect you train in material of a later era, but many 15th century longsword practioners ala ARMA think of it pretty much only in terms of an armor piercing gambit. I tried to include a bit of both. Also don't forget halfswording is a primary technique for using such enormous and powerful weapons as dopplehanders, which are of immense reach and power!

Now honestly Bob, how many of these type of feats would you consider yourself to have in your current skill level?

Well, I've been doing this in one form or another for 20 years, so I consider myself quite good Actually I get your point, but my answer is this: at the level of abstraction of D&D, where you have hit points, where a 1st level fighter can ony get a hit in roughly half the time, I feel that these are a reasonable approximation of some actual fencing mechanics which fit in the system well and play well as a game.

Also, we do have some special rules so it's not JUST the feats we are relying on.

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).

It may be at least as much that they are playing to the expectations of their audience. I think more and more people are being exposed to WMA though, (partly due to other rpgs like TROS) and I think this project is one more way to introduce some of these ideas. Keep in mind this is primarily about introducing realistic kit to the game, so it's a step in that direction.

Ultimately, yeah, a rewrite of the combat system would be a great idea, but the way that would cascade through the whole system, you basically have to do an entirely new game, which would turn off the audience. I think the game will evolve in this direction though because ultimately, I honestly believe it's the most fun way to handle combat. As you know real WMA is ten times more fascinating to watch than any fake hollywood fighting, no matter how much slow mo they use. So I think this is the wave of the future. (I'll bet $50 that D&D 4E replaces armor class with a defensive roll and damage reduction.)

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. ;-)

I'd love to see that, I can't make head or tails of those wierd buckler guards they are doing in I.33.... my favorite right now is David Lindholms translation of Ringeck from 2003. The interpretatoin is great, right next to the original german like seamus heaneys' translation of beowulf, and the illustratoins are the easiest to follow of any fechtbuch I've seen.

Incidentlly, let me know if you would like to participate in our open beta program. And tell me a bit about your background. What kind of sparring do you do?

DB

 

[Cavalorn]

That said, the house rules I have used with this weapon database (which was researched for a book for another RPG that happens to be very realistic and quite fast to play) do split AC into a defensive roll and a damage reduction, making the To Hit roll a contested roll and adding a layer of complexity in terms of one extra die roll. But something like this already exists in D20 modern, and from looking at threads on ENworld, I know it's in some recent game suppliments and a lot of people use something similar in thier house rules.

Personally I think it still basically goes just as fast, since die rolling is simultaneous, and players appreciate the feeling of playing a more active role in their defense, even just by rolling dice.

That sounds a lot like what I did with OGL Ancients, which also had Bronze Age armour, group tactics (e.g. phalanxes), a 'realistic' wound system that includes cautery (possibly the most popular section in the entire book), extensively researched historical weapons, and so on...

Regarding defensive die rolls, one thing I learned from my experience with OGL Ancients was: while it's true that some people do like to play a more active role in their defence, that's generally true of lower levels or one-on-one combats. When you move on to higher levels and have multiple attacks in a round, or you're facing off multiple opponents, then the allure of getting to roll an extra die (even simultaneously) can pall. Now, OGL Ancients was based on the premise that most of the longer fights would be one-on-one in the old heroic style, so for that kind of epic scene by scene cut and thrust, the defensive die roll works.

However, contrast that with something like Ian Sturrock's exquisite Conan combat system, where it's more likely that you're going to be facing off five cutthroats in a Zamoran alley. To maintain the pace of the encounter, you need to know very quickly whether they've hit you or not. Conan doesn't have a defence roll, it has static values for parry defence and dodge defence, which can vary depending on the circumstances. In practice, this works like a dream.

I think it's significant that over on the Conan forums, there's quite a consensus in favour of dropping the only contested combat roll in Conan (the Grapple check) in favour of a roll against a static Grapple value, just for swiftness's sake.

Just my 2 denarii.

 

[Arrgh! Mark!]

Yet more interestingness.

DB

Well, I'd be interested in a test game. Problem being is i'm an Aussie.

Question: As per characters in Swashbuckling Adventures, you may note the characters pretty much always fight (And are effective against) other humans. Against monsters my D8+3 isn't so hot. Sure, I can disarm, bind, parry, counterrattack - against people. A monster isn't anything so subtle, and alot of those expensive feats suddenly look less attractive than Power Attack, gothic harness and a greatsword.

Would this system of yours have something like that as a problem? I can see limitless real-world adventures and so on, and interesting ones at that. But would this system still have the effectiveness against non-humans? I.e., Is it liable in a traditional D+D setting?

 

[Aaron2]

I'll bet $50 that D&D 4E replaces armor class with a defensive roll and damage reduction.

I'll take that bet. There are many people, myself included, who will fight vehemently to keep this from happening. For me, it would be trading one faulty abstraction, for another, more cumbersome faulty abstraction.

A couple random thoughts …

On defenders rolling: I like to let the players roll all the dice. They roll a 1d20 plus AC bonus versus a static monster attack value. I’ve usually got so many things in my hands that finding dice takes too long. The system is in Unearthed Arcana (only you should add 12 instead of 11).

On feats: I agree that feats might not be the best way to handle some of these fighting styles as there aren’t enough of them. If you do use feats you might want to give multiple benefits for each one. There is a book called Master of Arms

http://www.second-world-simulations.com/Masters of Arms.htm

that introduces a multi-attack maneuver system. It’s fairly complicated and I haven’t figured it out completely but you can download some previews and stuff to see what they are up to. It’s similar to what you’re trying to do so it should be worth a look.

On Conan: I’ve heard good things about this game but its price tag and the out-of-control power inflation have kept me away. I’ll pick it up used if I get the chance.


Aaron

 

[Drifter Bob]

That sounds a lot like what I did with OGL Ancients, which also had Bronze Age armour, group tactics (e.g. phalanxes), a 'realistic' wound system that includes cautery (possibly the most popular section in the entire book), extensively researched historical weapons, and so on...

Sounds like an interesting project, I'd like to check it out

Regarding defensive die rolls, one thing I learned from my experience with OGL
(snip)
I think it's significant that over on the Conan forums, there's quite a consensus in favour of dropping the only contested combat roll in Conan (the Grapple check) in favour of a roll against a static Grapple value, just for swiftness's sake.

Well, to each his own. We've been testing this for two years and I've had other people test it in their own groups. I have found it very fast and efficient, I don't know how many pepole you are expecting to fight, hundreds at a time? This is a kind of a gritty system so maybe that is not happeneing as much. In my campaign, our party has 6 members, and would fairly regularly get in combat with as many as 20 or so enemies. I didn't have any problems running this - to the contrary. Our other test groups had the same reaction.

That said, I'm not certain more realistic rules will be everyones cup of tea, or that 100% of D&D players will even like this project, but I think some people will like it a lot

Regarding Conan RPG, I thought there were some problems with the combat system. I read a review which said that they had a situation where none of the "bad guys", who were wielding weilding axes and short swords, could even damage a warhorse due to it's damage resistance .... that doesn't seem to cool to me!

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

DB

Well, I'd be interested in a test game. Problem being is i'm an Aussie.

Not a problem as long as you can round up a local play group. This project is initially going to be offered as a series of PDF's. One of my researchers who was also a playtester lives in New Zealand, another guy lives in Prague, and it looks like I'll be working with this fellow from Denmark. In the internet age, the world is a small neighborhood my friend...

Would this system of yours have (snip)still have the effectiveness against non-humans? I.e., Is it liable in a traditional D+D setting?

Actually our system is heavily focused on making combat more realistic and nuanced with animals and monsters just as much as with other human (oids). One of the things I really didn't like about 1E D&D and so many D&D inspired CRPG's up until today, is the way animals fight, sitting there taking a bite, then waiting to be hit, then biting again etc. Thats really silly. With 3.X D&D you can take advantage of grapple, improved grab etc., and we do so with these rules even more. That is why you will notice so many of the sample feats I listed above are expediencies against grapple, by conveying extra opportunity attacks or allowing a sidestep etc.: because a non-humanoid monster or animal (like a lion or a wolf) is often at it's most dangerous in a grapple.

Having said that, in our rules mods, humans can now very effectively use shorter weapons in grapple as well, which in conjunction with our critical hit system and armor bypass (which works against natural armor as well) can give a skilled human an advantage even in a grapple against a single animal opponent, ala Tarzan with his "iron tooth" (getting grappled by multiple predatory animals or monsters is much more dangerous however, which is why it's so important not to get pulled down!). Also, generally, precision is just as important as brawn in this system, and there are many ways to enhance your attacks, whether against that uppity Fop in the tavern, or the unwholseome beast from the haunted woods....

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

Conan doesn't have a defence roll, it has static values for parry defence and dodge defence, which can vary depending on the circumstances. In practice, this works like a dream.

With our system, incidentally, if you wanted to replace active defense with a passive defensive target number per above, you could easily do so with the same data. It even works just fine with Armor Class.

DB

 

[mmadsen]

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."

From my perspective, what you've just done is to provide colorful descriptions of a few simple options:

• Trade away AC/Defense for to-hit bonus (and, perhaps, to-hit for extra attacks).
• Trade away to-hit (and, perhaps, number of attacks) for AC/Defense.
• Trade away to-hit for extra damage -- or, in a system like D&D, where AC = Defense, simply roll to hit against a guy in armor.

The second option is quite clearly covered by Fighting Defensively and optionally using Combat Expertise. The first option is really just the flip side of the second option; I guess it deserves a Fighting Offensively option (-4 AC for +2 to-hit) and conceivably its own feat too. The third option could mean a simple attack roll, or a simple attack roll by a character with Weapon Finesse -- or it could mean using a new feat mechanically just like Power Attack, but with a different set of prereqs and a different rationale.

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...

I hear you.

 

[Drifter Bob]

From my perspective, what you've just done is to provide colorful descriptions of a few simple options:

The optoins are fairly simple, the point of the example is to allow characters to describe specific combat options they may wish to take and translate those into actual rules mechanics.

The first is an example of using our "reckless attack" option, which as you surmise is the opposite of defensive fighting, lose some AC (or Defense) in exchange for a bonus To Hit.

The second is en example of using our Countersrike feat, which at it's most basic level, means you skip one attack and gain a +2 bonus to hit on your next attempt; in conjunction with another feat which allows you to use an offhand weapon for defense only, forgoing attacks with that (offhand) weapon in exchange for a bonus to AC (Defense).

The third is using the lunge feat to move a bit further, plus an attempt at armor bypass and an attempt at a forced critical... probably by a guy with weapon finesse.

DB

 

[mmadsen]

Earlier I noted that complicated, "realistic" systems with many choices often devolve into a single "correct" choice for the informed player:

"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 responded:

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.

I'm afraid I wasn't clear.

To address arms and armor -- not my original focus -- most systems have clear optimal choices, and those choice don't reflect reality. After all, when's the last time you saw a player choose a spear for his character? (Not a long spear. A spear.)

What I was discussing was complicating the combat system in ways that make sense and provide meaningful options -- only to find out that the mathematically minded players in your group did the analysis and found the single, best choice: "I jump kick him to the head. Again." (Or, as Elder-Basilisk suggested, "I shoot him in the eye. Again.")

When you introduce a mechanic like Power Attack, you tend to think you're providing a meaningful option: "I really need to hit this thing hard or not at all." What you really end up doing is creating a simple math problem: optimize to-hit probability times expected damage.