Poll: Historical Kit & realistic rules

[mmadsen]

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.

I think the need to create a special lorica segmentata armor with a higher movement rate points to the flaws in D&D's armor system. The lorica of the Roman legions matches the description of the D&D breastplate (which includes a helmet) -- except that it's composed of bands of metal instead of a single plate -- and infantry in such armor (and carrying a heavy shield) could clearly march long distances at a good pace. Renaissance-era infantry (Swiss pikemen, Spanish conquistadors, etc.) generally wore such "half plate" too. Even modern troops wear what amounts to a breastplate (armored vest) and helmet without being slowed down too terribly.

It's D&D's heavy armor (e.g., full plate) that should slow troops down. That was armor for cavalrymen.

As far as representing realistic fighting styles, I think Complete Warrior's Phalanx Fighting and Formation Expert feats elegantly capture the feal of Roman maniple or Greek phalanx fighting without introducing an inappropriate level of detail to an otherwise abstract system.

 

[Drifter Bob]

I think the need to create a special lorica segmentata armor with a higher movement rate points to the flaws in D&D's armor system. The lorica of the Roman legions matches the description of the D&D breastplate (which includes a helmet) -- except that it's composed of bands of metal instead of a single plate -- and infantry in such armor (and carrying a heavy shield) could clearly march long distances at a good pace.

I'll say! Roman legions regularly marched more than 40 miles in a day. Whats perhaps more important, they were trained to charge, i.e. sprint, out several hundred yards, as a cohort in battle, and then make a fighting retreat back into their lines. This is why the roman legionaire didn't have any leg protection. Their armor was only torso armor and a helmet, although it was fairly heavy armor (usually being mail armor or lorica hamata, which was replaced in the mid to late imperial period by that lorica segmentata.)

D&D has a hard time depicting something like this because it currently has no way to differentiate armor coverage. Therefore all armor is meant to cover the entire body more or less equally. Thats why the "breast plate" is depcited as a full head to toe suit of armor in the PhB.

Renaissance-era infantry (Swiss pikemen, Spanish conquistadors, etc.) generally wore such "half plate" too.

This was actually a bit more substantial armor than what the Romans had, but ok.,..

Even modern troops wear what amounts to a breastplate (armored vest) and helmet without being slowed down too terribly.

Ha! All that stuff is pretty damn heavy dood! I saw a study once comparing the amount of gear carried by infantry from Roman times through medieval, and up to modern era. The amount of weight carried by each individual troop actually remains constant at around 75-100 lbs. For the Roman or medieval soldier, half of that weight was armor. During the Napoleonic or civil wars, other kinds of kit. Today armor is appearing again and creeping up in both weight and coverage.

It's D&D's heavy armor (e.g., full plate) that should slow troops down. That was armor for cavalrymen.

Don't forget some plate armor was actually made for infantry...

As far as representing realistic fighting styles, I think Complete Warrior's Phalanx Fighting and Formation Expert feats elegantly capture the feal of Roman maniple or Greek phalanx fighting without introducing an inappropriate level of detail to an otherwise abstract system.

Maybe I should just buy a copy of that and forget my whole scheme....

DB

 

[mmadsen]

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.

Frankly, I think that differentiating "between the blunt attack of a club and that of a flail or mace" is the kind of "realism" that gives "realistic" systems a bad name. Even the difference between a slashing saber and a chopping axe is a bit nitpicky -- not that I haven't considered it.

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.

Decreasing the D&D grid from 5' squares to 2.5' squares might be pretty seamless, actually. And then you could add in 7.5' reach for two-handed swords, spears, etc.

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.

The downside of fully compatible historical kits rules is that they can't offer much more than pretty pictures and alternative names for existing weapons -- which is something I'd enjoy, but it wouldn't add much to my game. All of us here can already call a shortsword a gladius, a javelin a pilum, etc.

On the other hand, a few well-thought-out feats can go a long, long way toward creating a more realistic feel. As Drifter Bob explained earlier, if you swap out Power Attack and Cleave for more realistic feats, you haven't made the game any more complex, but you have changed its tone.

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).

As you point out, there are ways to define a character as a skilled fencer (Weapon Finesse, Combat Expertise), but he won't, in fact, have much chance of skewering anyone, using the rules as written.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Frankly, I think that differentiating "between the blunt attack of a club and that of a flail or mace" is the kind of "realism" that gives "realistic" systems a bad name. Even the difference between a slashing saber and a chopping axe is a bit nitpicky -- not that I haven't considered it.

You're right that it's the kind of realism that gives systems a bad name. However, let's not pretend that a flanged mace, a wooden club, a quarterstaff, a flail, and a warhammer are equally effective against fullplate. One of the primary differences between a club and a mace is the mace's superior ability to penetrate armor. Nor should we pretend that an arming sword, a falchion, a battle axe, a greatsword, and a halberd are equally effective against fullplate. One of the reasons that falchions were developed was to better concentrate the force of a blow and to penetrate armor. Similarly, as I understand it, hand and a half swords developed when arming swords began to have greater difficulty penetrating armor.

Dividing weapon vs. armor effectiveness into slashing, bludgeoning, and piercing may be more complex than simply giving armor equal defense against all three categories but I don't see it as being any more realistic. Added complexity without added realism or playability is a bad thing in my book. Just because the 1e weapon vs. armor type chart was not conducive to play doesn't mean that the simpler classification system is an improvement. If the selling point of tracking three armor classes rather than one is realism, I want the system to actually be more realistic than what it replaces.

Decreasing the D&D grid from 5' squares to 2.5' squares might be pretty seamless, actually. And then you could add in 7.5' reach for two-handed swords, spears, etc.

Fair enough. I guess I can see that. However, it seems like it would overly advantage two handed weapons unless it were coupled with adequate rules for shields. 3e is a lot better in that regard than previous editions but adding a 7.5' reach increment would be a big push back towards the previous editions where shields were really only good if they had massive magical bonusses.

The downside of fully compatible historical kits rules is that they can't offer much more than pretty pictures and alternative names for existing weapons -- which is something I'd enjoy, but it wouldn't add much to my game. All of us here can already call a shortsword a gladius, a javelin a pilum, etc.

On the other hand, a few well-thought-out feats can go a long, long way toward creating a more realistic feel. As Drifter Bob explained earlier, if you swap out Power Attack and Cleave for more realistic feats, you haven't made the game any more complex, but you have changed its tone.

Actually, I think swapping out power attack (and, to a lesser extent, cleave) would go a long way towards allaying some of my concerns. Power Attack is, IMO, the biggest failing of the armor as DR systems I've seen presented since, with 3.5 power attack an Unearthed Arcana style armor as DR system trades 4 points of AC from fullplate for 4 points of DR. This works fine until the barbarian with the greataxe power attacks for three, does more damage to you than before and still has a better chance of hitting than he did before. If you replace power attack with other feats, I think the resulting system probably has a better chance of being balanced.

As you point out, there are ways to define a character as a skilled fencer (Weapon Finesse, Combat Expertise), but he won't, in fact, have much chance of skewering anyone, using the rules as written.

I suppose so. It's really too bad these are being sold as a pdf. They're the kind of thing I'd want to pick up and read through in a store before making a purchasing decision rather than buying sight unseen.

 

[Drifter Bob]

let's not pretend that a flanged mace, a wooden club, a quarterstaff, a flail, and a warhammer... (or) (snip) ...an arming sword, a falchion, a battle axe, a greatsword, and a halberd are equally effective against fullplate.

Of course they aren't, but you don't have to postulate six different types of bludgeoning or nine types of cutting attacks in order to portray this. One factor is in terms of sheer impact (i.e. damage) which is the chief difference between say a flail and a mace, or the axe blade of a halberd and that of a hatchet; and the other is special armor-piercing ability, such as that of weapons such as icepicks, pilum, war hammers (picks), estocs, stilettos etc. etc., which often sacrifice overall damage for armor (and bone!) piercing ability. You can actually portray this a number of ways in a game system.

I don't want to give away every secret of our own rules in this forum but I will say that we do recognize this issue and there is a significant difference in effectivness of all such weapons in our system. I also want to point out, I didn't say we restricted ourselves to the three attack types already used in D&D, I simply said that was the basis of how we handled it.

It's really too bad these are being sold as a pdf. They're the kind of thing I'd want to pick up and read through in a store before making a purchasing decision rather than buying sight unseen.

Well, they're gonna be real cheap (probably in the realm of $5 -$8 for each time period chapter) and you can always wait to read some reviews. If you really don't want to pay, you could probably find 'em on kazaa . Or you could write a review yourself and you might be able to finagle a free review copy. Also, if the PDF's do well, we will probably be putting the whole thing out as a book, though seeing as how many local Gaming Stores only carry books by established companies, it might not make it any more easy to find and flip through.

DB

P.S. you could also sign up for our beta program. There are plenty of options!

 

[Arawyn]

Yep
Assuming that people can do things a 'flexible DM' should find reasonable is not in the spirit of modern D&D! :0

Honestly that is there loss. But this is a cultural issue, rather than a mechanical one.

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.

I prefer to think getting a Countercut against a skilled opponent is difficult to master. This is an issue of correct judgement of timing and distance which is where the real mistakes are made by all novices.
Techniques can be parroted, but the timing needs to be mastered.

A good arguement of a Class Defence Bonus I guess.
(Though I never liked the Soldier Advanced class with the average Defence bonus)

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.

Fair enough, you changed to a low-HP variation and increased the defence to the levels needed you would need to change. But if you see losing HP as also being a overly-simple type of Fatigue (WP/VP) that is fair enough.

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...

Of course. ;-)
1HD Mooks are too limiting, give them some NPC warrior levels and you can can use through a long campaign instead of just the first five levels.

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!

I don't fight with a Harness often and my focus is more towards Silver and other English/Scottish manuals with a dip into Italian Longsword and Rapier.
(though 18thC Backsword more resembles the footwork of La Verdadera Destreza but oh well)
Only Workshopped German Longsword for about 6 months going over Tobler's books (and having found too many translation errors <frown>)
In my political climate (Victoria, Australia the land of prohibited swords and speed cameras) means I feel English and Italian Longsword is a better choice since German appears extremely aggressive in style and needs heavier protection for the hands, (but that is another topic)...

Well, I've been doing this in one form or another for 20 years, so I consider myself quite good

LOL
You are with ARMA aren't you. ;-)

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.

I have not seen Riddle of Steel, how no clue aboout it, but half of my school are roleplayers. I know many of Stoccata (I guess you know of Stephen Hand) are roleplayers of old (University culture I guess).
The guess there is a lot of synergy there.

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.

Not a rewrite, more tweaks. I am certainly interested in looking at your work (sign my up for the BETA testing), maybe I can corrupt you on some ideas <grin>.

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.)

Well when they keep cutting out the interesting historical techniques for the cinematic/keep in camera-shot ones that will happen.
I don't agree with the 4E comment though, I think they(WotC) are more interested in the view of a quick simple system with less dice rolls then improved realism.

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.

I should check it out, but my local gaming/military store rarely touches Paladin Press becase it seems to encourage the nutters into the store. (his words).

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?

Throw me in (snimmo AT interconnect/com/au)

I am the instructor of Melbourne Swordplay Guild in Australia.
We started this year as an offshoot of Australian College of Arms when it left Melbourne (instructor in the army and was posted 3000miles away).

Since he knew he was likely going, we did a simple introduction many weapons which gave us a chance to work out what we wanted to.
Right now I teach Silver and 18thC Backsword, but we have a German Longsword guy, a sword and shield guy and couple of rapier/smallsword guys (Swetnam/P.Armata/Hope), some of them I hope I can develop them to level they can teach.
I also get along with the rest of the community and some instructors from other schools come interstate to run weekend workshops.

We start training with Shinai converted into Backsword for tournament play and to develop Timing, Distance and Footwork up to full speed.
We wear a leather vest, gloves, vambraces and fencing mask for that.
We train unarmoured with steel for control and correcting bad techniques that develop from a non-steel no-edge weapon.
We also train with steel with the same leather vest, vambraces, etc but with a barbute or a sheath for sabre over a FIE fencing mask.


regards,
Scott Nimmo

 

[Drifter Bob]

Hi Scott, I created an off-topic thread for us to discuss our relative WMA backgrounds. I introduce myself here in terms of WMA training.

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1679739#post1679739

DB

 

[Drifter Bob]

It's funny, I've just been reading some of Robert E Howard's original conan stories in a recently printed anthology, and to my surprise, Howard's treatment of combat, and arms and armor is extremely realistic, historically grounded and within quite reasonable reach of real world physics. I'd have to say in fact that it's some of the best fantasy literature I have ever read in this sense.

I had always assumed Howard was one of the sources for the rather silly interpretations of kit in rpg's, but apparently, he's just like Leiber and Vance and Moorcock in being historically grounded, even more so. Conan seems to wear armor to a fight every chance he gets and it has saved his life about 3 times more often than his own brawn in the stories I've read so far...

DB

 

[doghead]

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

OK. Just found some time to get back here and Wow. The I.33 was fascinating. The idea that monks (and others) might practice sword and bucker combat for exercise or as a 'sport', or that it was used in judicial duals opens up a whole range of possibilities game applications. I think that the commoner just got a little tougher. (Which is easy to do when you play classless).

It is also looking like this is going to help sort out weapon choice. I always seem to struggle to select weapon/armour combinations that seem to cover a decent range of situation without the character ending up looking like a porter.

I also love the Bling Bling Charisma bonus. It'll get the PC's out of their battered armour and 'earth tone' duds and into some shiny kit decent threads. Unless they're not interested in what others think (which is perfectly valid position. but now its one they will need to think about) Lovely.

Back to the thread.

 

[doghead]

Just saw your last post.

It has always struck me that armour is far less effective in dnd* than it seemed to be in real life. I got the impression that in a fight, an unarmoured man was considered to be at a serious disadvantage to an armoured one. The single largest factor seemed to be the rapid drop in performance resulting from wounds. Something which armour significantly protected the fighter from.

* or the grim n gritty system which uses a damage soak system with the armours AC value being the amount of damage soaked by the armour. 14 Con gives you as much soak as Leather Armour. Seemed a little odd.