Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 1672444" data-attributes="member: 3146">I'd be interested in different historical eras information... if it were both balanced for play AND gave those eras a different feel from standard D&D and from each other.D&D works within a spectrum of balance and choices made in one area will reflect upon the overall balance of the system. For instance, without magic items, the game begins to become unbalanced around 5th level or so when the defensive abilities of shields and heavy armor become insufficient protection to make up for sacrificing the damage of wielding a two handed weapon--and going to two handed weapons is the only way to gain damage in the absence of enhancement bonusses and special weapon abilities. Consequently in such environments, there's a strong pressure towards multiclassed fighter/barbarian characters with maxed strength and con who are designed to do as much damage as possible. It is a testament to the recognition of this problem (and the similar "I'm going to get hit on every enemy attack no matter what" problem) that a number of systems (like Wheel of Time) that set out to be lower-magic than standard D&D address this difficulty with a class based defense bonus. If I were to be interested in historical era supplements to the rules, it would have to be functional with some standard D&D challenges. I should be able to take a troll from the monster manual and have him be a good challenge for 4th-7th level fighters and lunch meat to 9th-12th level fighters. I would also want the system to support a few different styles of fighting. While I understand that a part of the appeal of historical "kit" is that the vikings will wear byrnies and carry round shields, spears, and viking swords or axes, the Normans will wear chain mail hauberks and carry kite shields, lances, and swords, and the samurai will find their traditional bows, Naginatas, and katanas to be effective and that if one were to try to balance chain hauberks with Milanese or Gothic plate armor it would defeat the point of historical kit rules, I believe it's important that saxon huscarles in chain hauberks with two handed axes or shields and spears be able to hold their own against the norman knights and that Saladin's armies be able to hold their own against the crusaders. Even in the fairly homogenous world of Arthurian legend, we have Sir Bors, knight of the two swords and I would want the ruleset to give support to the variety of historical kit.The eras would also need to feel different from each other. To some degree, this runs counter to the goal of balance and variety. A homeric greek era kit should encourage different character designs and choices than the high renaissance. The game should still be workable across a broad range of levels and there should still be multiple viable ways to make a fighting character but the difference between the eras should not be merely cosmetic.As to more "realistic" rules for combat, I'm not interested in anything too complex or too rock/paper/scissors. The 1e weapon vs. armor type table was a good deal more realistic than the rules that make all weapons equally good at penetrating all armor. However, it was far too clumsy to work in game. The 2e weapon type vs. armor modifiers were so broad as to be less realistic than the system they replaced. A dagger and a military pick (both piercing weapons), a quarterstaff and a warhammer (both bludgeoning), and a battle axe and a sword have the same chance to penetrate a non-helpless foe's plate armor? I can imagine plenty of more workable ways to differentiate between a falchion, a falcatta, and an executioner's sword or a viking sword, a cut and thrust sword, a warsword, a chinese Jian, and a basket hilted broadsword, but I suspect that a system detailed enough to give a realistic account of those differences will have to be much more complex than D&D. There's only so much you can do with the difference between 18-20, 19-20, and 20 /x2, /x3, and /x4 crits and 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d4, 1d10, 1d12, and 2d6 damage. Though one could devise a system with more increments of reach and fighting styles and attacks of opportunity but that's not going to get much traction with the guy in my gaming group who can barely wrap his head around attacks of opportunity as written.More detailed rules for attack, counter-attack, dodge, riposte, etc are also of questionable utility. While I haven't played Riddle of Steel, I have played the old computer game Knights of Legend and got some familiarity with the guessing game. It worked OK but combat took ten times as long as it did in the old gold-box 1e D&D games and wasn't really that much more exciting or interesting. Playing Shattering Lances (a similarly "guessing game" set of jousting rules for D&D), was frustrating because the results had far more to do with the player's skill at the guessing game than any character's skill at riding, attacking, or dodging.The beauty of D&D's feat system at the moment is that, with the exceptions of rather basic manuevers like tripping, disarming, sundering, and grappling, most of the combat options are variations on "I'm better with this weapon/tougher/etc" (weapon focus/toughness/etc) or "I'm better at one on one combat" (Dodge), or I'll attack more recklessly (power attack, rage), or I'll attack more defensively (expertise, fight defensively, etc). One doesn't need to study WMA manuals in order to understand them nor does one suffer a whole lot if you just say "orc? I hit orc with sword. Me smash." That may often seem unrealistic but it has the positive effect of enabling ordinary people to play fighters and makes the character's performance depend more upon his ability than the player's. And, IMO, that's a good thing.</blockquote>

Verification