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: 1677096" data-attributes="member: 3146">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.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).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.That's all that one can ask.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.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.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.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).</blockquote>

Verification