Poll: Historical Kit & realistic rules

[Aaron2]

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.

I always assumed that BAB represented the skill of the character and that BAB can be used for attack, defense, or damage. Ordinarily, the character is focusing all his skill trying to kill the bad guy as fast as possible. So a reckless attack is the default attack. I once had a way IMC for the character to convert AC to to-hit chance but ran into to many problems. Imp. Inv. rogues not only get sneak attack dice but a to-hit bonus to boot (on top of the normal invisibility bonuses!). Any character with reach (either by weapon or being large) can now make a "reckless" attack safely behind the party tank. In short, bonuses to hit for AC are usually too good a deal since there are many ways to avoid getting hit entirely. A reckless attack option only give those characters an extra bonus they don't need.

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;

Does your opponent know if you are counterstriking? If so, can't he just take a 5' step back and ready an action, avoiding your counterstrike attack entirely?


Aaron

 

[qstor]

I'd be interested.

I'll check out Stone to Steel too.

Mike

 

[Drifter Bob]

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.)

They are popular weapons in my campaign, where reach is a factor

What I was discussing was (snip) What you really end up doing is creating a simple math problem: optimize to-hit probability times expected damage.

actually, I understood you perfectly. The balance among weapons which I mentioned is just another example of this same issue. Though as I said, you cannot 100% prevent minmaxing and nerfing, the best solution is to try to find the balance which exists, so that there is no ONE best way, and so that the best strategies in the game actually reflect the most logical RL strategies (so you don't end up with say, "super" spiked chains which nobody feels real comfortable with). Balances did exist in real life which is why there is more than one approach to fighting. That said, some approaches are sub-optimal just like some weapons are. The best "slap fighter" in the world is not going to be any match for a competent Brazillian Jujitsu expert.

With regard to the game, all I can say is that we did our best to balance the various techniques and gambits so that there are several effective ways to fight within the system. We will continue to tinker with balance and with preventing nerfing through the beta program. Hopefuly in the long run we will have a system which cannot be so easily 'broken.' My experience has been so far that it has not broken down that way, we do have some minmaxer players in our test groups and the game seems to flow well, and they enjoy it as much as the more roleplaying oriented players do.

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

I always assumed that BAB represented the skill of the character and that BAB can be used for attack, defense, or damage.

Thats how I'm using it

Ordinarily, the character is focusing all his skill trying to kill the bad guy as fast as possible.

Yeah, but in a real fight, you are also focusing on not being hit.

So a reckless attack is the default attack. (snip) A reckless attack option only give those characters an extra bonus they don't need.

I've heard this argument before, but I don't buy it. If you can attack without worrying about being attacked back, you should have an easier chance of hitting. That is one of the things which made heavily armored knights so dangerous against less armored opponents, as in the crusades. Your examples are not quite the vast loopholes you suggest either. The guy with the reach polearm has just lost 4 of is AC / defense, and can still be hit with missile weapons, among other things. Even the rogue is taking a risk, he has lost his AC bonus for the whole round and doesn't necessarily know if someone else could attack him, all for a +2 to hit. Functionally it's not much different than defensive fighting.

Does your opponent know if you are counterstriking? If so, can't he just take a 5' step back and ready an action, avoiding your counterstrike attack entirely?

It doesn't matter, the counterstrike takes place immediately after their attack, they cannot attack, take a 5 foot step, and be safe. They will be attacked before they take the step. Of course, they may choose to retreat to reconsider their options rather than attack at all.... which may be exactly what the guy who went into counterstrike mode intended.

DB

 

[ledded]

With all due respect to monkeygods, this would have a slightly different emphasis. A more hard core functional perspective if you will, based on the historical fencing manuals and western and eastern martial arts techniques as practiced by the masters, interpreted by modern historical swordsmen. Not so much an examination of cultures, as an examination of fighting, how it was really done, how it really worked, how to really win.

In terms of the kit, in the spirit of D&D this is still reflected in an abstracted manner, but some provision is made to differentiate weapons in terms of attack and defense ability, and an alternate (quite simple) critical hit system allows different weapons to effect armor differently.

The feats and combat rules are designed to fit with D20, but allow for the actual feel and tactical flow of real hand to hand combat, without detracting from the heroic feel of D&D.

DB

I like the sound of this myself; I'd like to see a more educated attempt at a book of this nature. I haven't read many of the 3rd-party products mentioned here, but from even a moderately educated perspective a good bit of WotC's work revolving around weapons and armor systems seems to be a bit under-researched. Playability is all find and good in an RPG, but there is the small few of us who like d20-based or similar games but would like a more well-researched physics/reality based view on arms and armor, with optional rulesets for combat for the truly hard-core.

 

[RFisher]

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

Yes. I've been trying to articulate that idea for a while, and you've summed it up.

The thing that I've realized about simple systems (or complex system after the optimal tactics are discovered) is that it becomes about making decisions on a higher level.

Like Diplomacy. The rules are extremely simple. The game is won or lost at a higher level than mastery of the rules.

 

[jasper]

...
To compliment this, would you like to see Rules which easily incorporated features such as weapon effects on attack and defense, armor as damage reduction, defensive fighting abilities, and feats based on actual fighting technques from the Masters, and interpreted by historical martial artists?

no why buy another splat book. I can do the research myself and come with what would be available in the time period.
Another stupid weapon effect charts like first edition. NO.
Armour as damage reduction. Depends on the write up but NO!.
Gee more feats. Um What next the Doctor Sueuss Web book of Left Feat Right Feat.
Exact who are these masters. What have they written? How can just some simple language be turn into a feat. Voiding. Um not being there when the blow lands. Firstius, Secondius, Thirdies, fouries. Gee great patterns when I fencing on the line but what does help when mr mind flayer and ralph intellicent devouler both want to chew on what little brain I have left.
No thank you. I vote no on this poll.

 

[Cavalorn]

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!

That wasn't the fault of the system per se, but of one of the individual stats. The horse's damage resistance was way too high. I can assure you that this has been corrected in the Atlantean Edition.

 

[mmadsen]

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.

In game-mechanic terms, the simple-martial-exotic breakdown tends to mean (1) anyone can use it, (2) only trained fighters can use it, or (3) only trained specialists can use it.

With that in mind, I tend to think that many martial weapons should be simple in game terms -- they're only martial in real life because they're expensive (they aren't modified field tools) or martial in game terms because they're effective. A normal guy can pick up and swing a sword or hatchet as well as he can swing a club or mace.

On the other hand, some martial weapons should be exotic. A typical soldier cannot use a longbow competently, at least not in real life. In fact, I'm not sure a normal guy or a normal soldier could pick up and use the simple sling -- even though it was an extremely common weapon throughout history, it's not one you can immediately pick up and use.

 

[Drifter Bob]

In game-mechanic terms, the simple-martial-exotic breakdown tends to mean (1) anyone can use it, (2) only trained fighters can use it, or (3) only trained specialists can use it.

With that in mind, I tend to think that many martial weapons should be simple in game terms -- they're only martial in real life because they're expensive (they aren't modified field tools) or martial in game terms because they're effective. A normal guy can pick up and swing a sword or hatchet as well as he can swing a club or mace.

On the other hand, some martial weapons should be exotic. A typical soldier cannot use a longbow competently, at least not in real life. In fact, I'm not sure a normal guy or a normal soldier could pick up and use the simple sling -- even though it was an extremely common weapon throughout history, it's not one you can immediately pick up and use.

I agree. Another non simple weapon is the arbalest or "super-heavy" crossbow. Have you ever tried to span a crossbow with a 1,200 lb draw?

If you follow the historical guidelines I mentioned above, you'll find that it falls into place quite well with the D&D concept, though a few things do need to be moved around. Medieval Longbowmen and arlbalestiers were special mercenary troops, recruited from Wales and Italy respectivley, recieving extra pay, like two-handed swordsmen. Slingers, though employed mostly in earlier periods such as the Classical era, were fairly rare mercenaries as well in their own time, usually being recruited from places such as the baeleric isles where there was a local tradition of using slings to hunt.

On the other hand, in the medeival period, many people could use an ordinary bow (i.e. shortbow), and a simple hunting crossbow. There were even some swords which were fairly simple to use and seemed to be in widespread utilization by commoners and burghers, such as the messer, the sax, and the cutlass at different periods in time.

DB