Initiative modifier based on weapon size? (was Re: 3E doesn't add up)
Anonymous Jack
> There is *every* guarantee that the "oh, so much heavier" sword will
> attack first. In fact, in the real world, someone with a dagger will never
> get to attack a swordsman at all unless he is far more talented than his
> opponent. Reach *matters*. <snipped some>
> -Michael
Been following that thread, and it seems to me like there should be
some initiative modifier. In the real world, I'd have to agree that
there should be significant advantages vis a vis first strike between
dagger and a longsword, but I don't believe that is reflected in the
core rules.
I think when there are differences in reach, the AoO rules pretty much
cover it, but there is nothing that comes to mind in the dagger vs
longsword/rapier etc match, and clearly the longsword/rapier etc
should have some intrinsic initiative advantage. +2 or +4 to
initiative, maybe, when there is a difference in weapon size but not
reach?
Or treat small melee weapons as not extending the unarmed reach of the
wielder, medium size weapons as extending reach by 5', large extending
by 10'? This would kill AoOs for the dagger wielder, but hey - most
med sized unarmed combatants don't get them and a dagger really
doesn't extend your reach more than a foot (don't recall offhand if
it's official, but I always thought of daggers as being less than 1',
short swords being between 1' and 2')
IDHMPHBIFOM, but when I get a chance to sit down and look at all the
weapon sizes and possible permutations (ie, ogre wielding a dagger vs
human with reach weapon or halfling using longsword two handed) I
might come up with a rule for my campaign that encompasses these. In
the meantime, please discuss.
Michael Scott Brown
news:cf889346.04031...@posting.google.com...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mbr...@rand.org> wrote in message
news:<c3as88$kqo$1...@lumberjack.rand.org>...
> > There is *every* guarantee that the "oh, so much heavier" sword will
> > attack first. In fact, in the real world, someone with a dagger will
never
> > get to attack a swordsman at all unless he is far more talented than his
> > opponent. Reach *matters*. <snipped some>
>
> some initiative modifier. In the real world, I'd have to agree that
> there should be significant advantages vis a vis first strike between
> dagger and a longsword, but I don't believe that is reflected in the
> core rules.
It isn't.
> I think when there are differences in reach, the AoO rules pretty much
> cover it, but there is nothing that comes to mind in the dagger vs
> longsword/rapier etc match, and clearly the longsword/rapier etc
> should have some intrinsic initiative advantage.
"Should" is a matter of perspective. The game writers wanted to let
daggers be a viable fantasy choice - so perhaps there "shouldn't". Those of
us that feel that there should be a more realistic representation can do so
by extending the ideas of the reach rules.
> +2 or +4 to initiative, maybe, when there is a difference in weapon size
but not
> reach?
Such a suggestion could only work for cases where the people involved
already had weapons drawn and already threatened one another *and* all were
intending to strike, as one might argue then that the length of the weaponry
would favor the longer party's very-first blow. However, if people are
pulling out weapons, or have to move to close, or someone intends to
disengage ... then this doesn't make any sense - why would holding a spear
make you faster at casting a spell, for instance? And we don't declare
actions before initiative anyway!
Remember - D&D's initiative is about *reaction* time, and everything
after the first actions isn't a reaction anymore.
The only situation I see this idea working, or being beneficial to the
fun-factor, would be if a bunch of combatants were weapons-ready and
face-to-face, each having Readied an attack against the other (if they
attack) - at which case we have a mexican standoff. Breaking it should
involve a fresh initiative contest to determine the order of the attacks,
IMO, and weapon reach might be a fair factor in that case.
> Or treat small melee weapons as not extending the unarmed reach of the
> wielder, medium size weapons as extending reach by 5', large extending
> by 10'?
Small melee weapons are fine for a decent threat radius; you can parry
OK with a shortsword so you're able to move in and out of the danger zone
without being complete barmy; it's the Tiny ones that are nonsensical, since
they offer no reach and don't offer a credible defensive option.
It seems reasonable to suggest that persons armed with tiny weapons - or
unarmed persons (barring IUS) - don't threaten the squares around them;
therefore they would have to 'enter opponent's square' to attack and *this*
would be the root cause of provoking an AoO when attacking. However, that
has a funny effect on touch attacks. <ponders>
-Michael
Vulpes Argenteus
<mister...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> It seems reasonable to suggest that persons armed with tiny weapons - or
>unarmed persons (barring IUS) - don't threaten the squares around them;
>therefore they would have to 'enter opponent's square' to attack and *this*
>would be the root cause of provoking an AoO when attacking. However, that
>has a funny effect on touch attacks. <ponders>
>
>-Michael
That all seems fine to me. Bit puzzled about your <ponder> re touch
attacks. Attacking an opponent with a touch attack doesn't provoke an AoO -
the PHB talks about 'credible threat' which makes sense - if my opponent's
hands are glowing crimson, I'm going to take his attack seriously !
Cheers
Martin (sandylane.d.c.u)
--
Remove ".spam." from my address to email
Cavalorn
Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> writes
> It isn't.
I think the closest it gets to being covered in terms of weapon length
(as opposed to reach) is in the rule that an unarmed attack against an
armed opponent provokes an AoO. Of course, that could just be my
reading of it.
> "Should" is a matter of perspective. The game writers wanted to let
>daggers be a viable fantasy choice - so perhaps there "shouldn't". Those of
>us that feel that there should be a more realistic representation can do so
>by extending the ideas of the reach rules.
Well, at present the primary advantage of a short weapon over a longer
one isn't really covered either, i.e. the cut-and-thrust speed with
which you can wield it. As the rules stand, if you can make three
attacks in a round, you can make three greatsword attacks just as easily
as three dagger attacks.
I've seen quite a few examples in LARP (obviously not the best of
examples, but it is at least an illustration of sorts) of a dagger
wielder getting inside the reach of a greatsword wielder and slashing
them to ribbons. The longer, slower weapon keeps the shorter one at
bay, but once the quicker weapon has the advantage, it gets more hits
in.
Cav
--
Give me a woman who's taken her knocks,
Who's tasted both gutter and stars.
Give me a lady with holes in her socks.
Give me a princess with scars.
Michael Scott Brown
> > It seems reasonable to suggest that persons armed with tiny
weapons - or
> >unarmed persons (barring IUS) - don't threaten the squares around them;
> >therefore they would have to 'enter opponent's square' to attack and
*this*
> >would be the root cause of provoking an AoO when attacking. However,
that
> >has a funny effect on touch attacks. <ponders>
>
> attacks. Attacking an opponent with a touch attack doesn't provoke an
AoO -
> the PHB talks about 'credible threat' which makes sense - if my
opponent's
> hands are glowing crimson, I'm going to take his attack seriously !
The point is that this perspective changes the basis for the AoO;
ordinarily you provoke the AoO when attacking unarmed "because you are
sticking your hands out near sharp things"; you have to essentially stop
defending yourself in order to attack - but if your attack is with a
dangerous item then your opponent is compelled to address the lethal weapon
(dagger, magic spell, etc.) rather than taking advantage of your
vulnerability. Note that the official basis is pretty shaky when you
really think about it (why would I *not* want to try to cut the hand off a
wizard's blue-glowing hand if I could?) - but it is what it is. End result
is that daggers and touch attacks don't provoke AoO, officially.
If you change the basis for the AoO to "having to get very close to
attack" (even if it is with a quite lethal armament such as a +5 vorpal
kukri) then there is no reason not to penalize touch attacks as well, as
these suffer the same range deficit as unarmed attacks. I'm all about
nerfing punches, kicks, and daggers, because I have real world experience
with these weapons and their limitations - but magic spells? What do I know
about those!?! What's the most fun?
The game's balance doesn't depend on being able to fight well with a
dagger, but I would argue that touch spells and thus many spellcasters will
take a major hit if these magics can't be used without being smacked in the
process of striking (casting, we're OK with); and therefore I would want a
robust rationale that kept them "safe" from AoO.
There may be an out b/c touch attacks can work by just grazing - and by
grazing extremities at at that, whereas credible attacks with very short
weapons would typically need to threaten the body to maximize the chance of
having a fair target and delivering a decent hit. Or perhaps we give touch
spells a radius of sorts, the ability to 'arc', or whatnot, such that they
have the same effective reach as a Small weapon.
-Michael
Drifter Bob
have any interest in making combat feel more realistic in the game. I use
this is my house rules.
In hand to hand weapon combat, the longer weapon has an immense advantage,
in both striking first and in the ease of striking the opponent. If you
have experienced fighters, a sword will usually strike before a dagger and a
spear before a sword.
I give each weapon a basic bonus of about +1 for anything at or over a
daggers size, plus +1 per 1 and 1/2 feet of overall length (to a max of +5),
and I subtract from that for some two handed weapons and for very slow,
clumsy or akward weapons. So a knife has 0, a dagger +1, a short sword +2,
an arming sword (what y'all would call a long sword) +3, a great sword +4,
and a shortspear or a halberd +5.
I only allow the initiative advantage if the player has announced preparing
their weapon beforehand. (Drawing a weapon takes a partial action I think
anyway) but I want to hear "I ready my sword", and this gives them a reason.
The issue of dagger versus sword is interesting. I believe the longer
weapon has a huge initial advantage, but the smaller weapon has the
advantage of course after a successful rush and close.
We recently had an ongoing argument about this on the Riddle of Steel Forum
on the Forge. It put it to the test during the "Southern Knights" ARMA
event in New Orleans a few weeks ago. Jake Norwood, the top fencer at ARMA
and probably the best WMA fencer in the world, attempted to rush me with a
dagger where I was armed with a viking sword, and then later again a viking
sword with a small shield (center grip targe). We had about 20 or 25 bouts.
Jake was unable to get the first strike in at any time, though we did land
several simultaneous kills initially, which is largely because I was being
the aggressor and rushing him instead of vise versa. Eventually I was able
to kill him safely over and over. Against the shield he had an even harder
time. To me that settled the issue, since Jake is much faster on his feet
than I am and we are pretty close to the same skill level in basic fighting
ability (though he is far, far superior in Longsword technique!)
Anyway, I think the way to handle this in DnD, is to use the grapple rules
if I understand them correctly. If I remember right, a short weapon gets a
huge bonus (+4) when fighting from within a grapple, but in order to enter a
grapple they have to risk an attack of opportunity. If I've got this right
I think this models how it really works pretty well for DnD. It can make
the fight a lot more interesting too. You just eliminate that reach
advantage altogether when they are in grapple, (or you can even reverse it!)
You also have to consider missile weapons initiative bonus,
....whether there should be a reach To Hit bonus as well, (I think there
should be)
...and finally, if you give the dagger this disadvantage in reach, you have
to make up for it somehow. This brings the issue of the daggers damage. A
much more fundamental rules modification to tinker with! But the only
reason a dagger is so weak in RPG's is precisely because they never did
differentiate much about reach and range, or other important aspects like
defensive factors of weapons. So to distinguish a dagger from say, a sword,
they gave it this very low damage.
In reality of course, a dagger with a 9" or 12" or 14" blade is incredebly
lethal, hard to survive being stuck with. If you are thrusting into a man
sized humanoid, at around 12" or so you are getting close to running him all
the way through. There is no reason a sword would do much more damage with
a thrust anyway.
One simple way to get around this a bit is to lower the daggers crit threat
range a point or even two. I personally handle it differently but my house
rules for DnD are quite elaborate....
DB
--
Check out The Primer of Practical Magic,
A new D20 supplement of subtle spells, new classes,
And curious magic artifacts from Jack Vance's
popular Dying Earth genre.
Available on Amazon.com and the Dying Earth website
http://www.dyingearth.com/products.htm
http://www.dyingearth.com/article5.htm
"Cavalorn" <cava...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dH0LUbEU...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk...
Malachias Invictus
"Cavalorn" <cava...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:dH0LUbEU...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk...
> Well, at present the primary advantage of a short weapon over a longer
> one isn't really covered either, i.e. the cut-and-thrust speed with
> which you can wield it.
I think you are seriously misinformed.
> As the rules stand, if you can make three attacks in a round, you can
> make three greatsword attacks just as easily as three dagger attacks.
Have you ever seen a skilled combatant do combinations with a sword? I can
guarantee I can swing a sword effectively more times in, say, six seconds
than I can a dagger.
> I've seen quite a few examples in LARP (obviously not the best of
> examples, but it is at least an illustration of sorts) of a dagger
> wielder getting inside the reach of a greatsword wielder and slashing
> them to ribbons. The longer, slower weapon keeps the shorter one at
> bay, but once the quicker weapon has the advantage, it gets more hits
> in.
In the hands of a skilled combatant, the greatsword is not slower.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Bradd W. Szonye
> Well, at present the primary advantage of a short weapon over a longer
> one isn't really covered either, i.e. the cut-and-thrust speed with
> which you can wield it.
There is no such advantage.
> As the rules stand, if you can make three attacks in a round, you can
> make three greatsword attacks just as easily as three dagger attacks.
That's not a problem.
> I've seen quite a few examples in LARP (obviously not the best of
> examples, but it is at least an illustration of sorts) of a dagger
> wielder getting inside the reach of a greatsword wielder and slashing
> them to ribbons. The longer, slower weapon keeps the shorter one at
> bay, but once the quicker weapon has the advantage, it gets more hits
> in.
A real greatsword is longer, but it isn't slower. What you witnessed was
probably the result of either superior training with the dagger or a
poorly balanced greatsword.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Drifter Bob
> In the hands of a skilled combatant, the greatsword is not slower.
There is considerable misunderstanding in the RPG community about the true
nature of weapons (and armor), due largely to old mistakes being copied and
in some cases exxagerated with each new generation of the game (instead of
the designers doing any actual research)
Given the fairly large numbers of people today with at least some experience
with period weapons (even casual LARP play will show you a lot of the
problems with most RPG combat systems right away) you would think they would
make a bigger effort to get it right.
One of the biggest myths is this idea of the huge lumbering, slow
greatsword, ala Conan. D&D lists greatswords i think as weighing 15 pounds!
As if anyone could wield a 15 pound weapon. What they call a "longsword"
they list at 5 pounds, if i remember correctly. Only the biggest six foot
true dopplehanders ever weighed anywhere near that much historically. It's
amazing how even some people who should know better, including a lot of
historians, still don't grasp this. I recently read an otherwise excellent
D20 book about Vikings which described viking swords as being "very heavy"
and too heavy for a woman to wield.... (typical viking swords weighed around
2 - 2.5 lbs)
The typical longsword (two handed), greatsword, bastard sword etc. weighed
from around 3.5 lbs to as little as just over two pounds. Some replicas are
still made wieghing as much as 4 lbs or more but these have been falling out
of favor in light of increasingly systematic analysis of actual period
weapons.
And with accurate period training, especially incorportating false edge
cuts, the speed of a greatsword can be truly phenomenal. I wish people
could see real experts like John Clements or Jake Norwood doing a longsword
flourysh. It will open your eyes.
Thats not to say that a smallsword isn't a little quicker, nor that a dagger
isn't handier in a "grapple" situation...
Drifter Bob
--
--
Check out The Primer of Practical Magic,
A new D20 supplement of subtle spells, new classes,
And curious magic artifacts from Jack Vance's
popular Dying Earth genre.
Available on Amazon.com and the Dying Earth website
http://www.dyingearth.com/products.htm
http://www.dyingearth.com/article5.htm
"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote in message
> A real greatsword is longer, but it isn't slower. What you witnessed was
> probably the result of either superior training with the dagger or a
> poorly balanced greatsword.
LARP weapons bear little resemblance to reality in any case, both weapons
probably were made with carbon fiber kite sticks or fiberglass cores and
weighed around 6 ounces, and are rarely balanced at all. Also in LARP they
stike over and over to rack up hit points of damage (ala DnD) so the weapons
really don't tell you much about reality.
DB
Cavalorn
<bradd...@szonye.com> writes
>A real greatsword is longer, but it isn't slower.
Are you saying that something with the weight and heft of a claymore can
deal out as many blows in the same amount of time as something the size
of a switchblade?
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to know where you get that
data from.
Drifter Bob
> Are you saying that something with the weight and heft of a claymore
> deal out as many blows in the same amount of time as something the size
> of a switchblade?
Depending on the specific era, the two handed claymore (there was another
single handed basket hilt sword in the 18th century also called a claymore)
was generaly about a foot longer than a typical greatsword, which were
usually around 50" or so (a bit over 4 feet). German renaissance era
dopplehanders (also called Zweihanders) were as long as six feet.
A four foot greatsword or longsword is a very versatile weapon and can be
wielded very quickly. To imagine what this might look like in your head,
think of video you may have seen of people fighting with samurai swords. A
typical greatsword probably didn't weigh significantly more than a larger
samurai sword (no-daci)
Of course, in a grapple a switch blade, IMHO, would be handier, although
that can be offset somewhat with certain halfswording techniques.
DB
Malachias Invictus
> In article <slrnc5k5j5.f...@szonye.com>, Bradd W. Szonye
> <bradd...@szonye.com> writes
> >A real greatsword is longer, but it isn't slower.
>
> Are you saying that something with the weight and heft of a claymore can
> deal out as many blows in the same amount of time as something the size
> of a switchblade?
Yes. In some cases, more.
> I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to know where you get that
> data from.
Personal experience.
Malachias Invictus
"Drifter Bob" <nob...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:mkp6c.21641$zP2....@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> "Cavalorn" <cava...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > Are you saying that something with the weight and heft of a claymore
> > deal out as many blows in the same amount of time as something the size
> > of a switchblade?
>
> Depending on the specific era, the two handed claymore (there was another
> single handed basket hilt sword in the 18th century also called a
claymore)
> was generaly about a foot longer than a typical greatsword, which were
> usually around 50" or so (a bit over 4 feet). German renaissance era
> dopplehanders (also called Zweihanders) were as long as six feet.
>
> A four foot greatsword or longsword is a very versatile weapon and can be
> wielded very quickly. To imagine what this might look like in your head,
> think of video you may have seen of people fighting with samurai swords.
A
> typical greatsword probably didn't weigh significantly more than a larger
> samurai sword (no-daci)
>
> Of course, in a grapple a switch blade, IMHO, would be handier, although
> that can be offset somewhat with certain halfswording techniques.
<light applause>
Well presented. Incidentally, if anyone wants to see some actual data on
actual weapons, go here:
http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cariadoc/shield_and_weapon_weights.html
Drifter Bob
> actual weapons, go here:
>
> http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cariadoc/shield_and_weapon_weights.html
>
> --
> ^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
Are you SCA or something Mal?
DB
Justisaur
news:cf889346.04031...@posting.google.com:
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mbr...@rand.org> wrote in message
> news:<c3as88$kqo$1...@lumberjack.rand.org>...
>> There is *every* guarantee that the "oh, so much heavier" sword
>> will
>> attack first. In fact, in the real world, someone with a dagger will
>> never get to attack a swordsman at all unless he is far more talented
>> than his opponent. Reach *matters*. <snipped some>
>> -Michael
>
> Been following that thread, and it seems to me like there should be
> some initiative modifier. In the real world, I'd have to agree that
> there should be significant advantages vis a vis first strike between
> dagger and a longsword, but I don't believe that is reflected in the
> core rules.
>
In real life the longsword wielder has an advantage of reach over the
dagger wielder, and may be able to keep him at bay. D&D doesn't address
this, but there's as much variation in the size difference between a dagger
& a lonsword as there is in someone's arm length. I don't think it's
necessary to make it that fine.
In D&D the dagger wielder has one advantage that's true to real life. If
he can get in close (i.e. grapple) the longsword user isn't going to be
able to do much with it, while the dagger wielder will still be able to
attack with it.
--
Justisaur
http://justisaur.tripod.com/well.htm for my encounter generator, xp
calculator & other files.
Cavalorn
<capt_ma...@hotmail.com> writes
>Well presented. Incidentally, if anyone wants to see some actual data on
>actual weapons, go here:
Very informative indeed. Thanks folks!
Drifter "Bob"
Justisaur <just...@removespam.net> wrote in message
> In real life the longsword wielder has an advantage of reach over the
> dagger wielder, and may be able to keep him at bay. D&D doesn't address
This brings up another major flaw in not only D&D, but practically every rpg
combat system in existence (even most crpgs): there is no defensive value to
any weapon. This is another indication of just how much rpgs copy from each
other and fail to take into consideration the most simple dynamics of real
life combat.
Most weapons have some defensive value. Some can be used to parry, beat,
bind etc. (active defense) and almost every weapon has a passive defensive
value due to the threat of potential counter-attack. This is the defensive
dynamic of a spear. It's not so much that the spear wielder is parrying
every attack (though you can indeed parry with a spear) but that he is
warding you back by his potential to thrust his weapon into you if you
attempt to move into striking range.
It's not for everybody, but i personally allocate a defensive value to all
hand weapons in my house rules. This vallue is applicable to melee combat
only, and I think it works out better if you are using defensive rolls
instead of AC, but it can be done either way.
This dynamic also helps make some defensive weapons more useful, like the
Main Gauche, and allows a different strategy for off - hand weapons (using
them defensively) which is exactly how they were often used in real life.
Anyone doubting the validity of this mechanic should try striking an unarmed
person and then a person with a weapon the equivalent size of a sword or a
cane.
DB
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 2/21/2004
Malachias Invictus
> > Well presented. Incidentally, if anyone wants to see some actual data
on
> > actual weapons, go here:
> >
> > http://www.pbm.com/~lindahl/cariadoc/shield_and_weapon_weights.html
> Are you SCA or something Mal?
Recovering ;-)
However, I was fortunate to meet and chat with Dr. Friedman on a number of
occasions. He is one Hell of a cook, and so is his wife. He is also hands
down the best storyteller I have ever heard in person.
heratyk
> dagger wielder, and may be able to keep him at bay. D&D doesn't address
> this, but there's as much variation in the size difference between a
dagger
> & a lonsword as there is in someone's arm length. I don't think it's
> necessary to make it that fine.
>
> In D&D the dagger wielder has one advantage that's true to real life. If
> he can get in close (i.e. grapple) the longsword user isn't going to be
> able to do much with it, while the dagger wielder will still be able to
> attack with it.
It may even be justifiable to make an attack against someone with a larger
size-category weapon provoke an AoO, unless it is inside a reach weapon's
reach.
As for initiative, I think that would be more an issue of reflexes and
experience than the relatively small difference in weapon speed. Now I
could see an initiative bonus for higher levels...
--
heratyk
http://members.cox.net/cyberdungeon/index.html
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day.
Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm the rest of his life.
Michael Scott Brown
> one isn't really covered either, i.e. the cut-and-thrust speed with
> which you can wield it.
<shakes head sadly>
There is more to attacking that waving your arm menacingly with a
pointy thing in it.
> As the rules stand, if you can make three
> attacks in a round, you can make three greatsword attacks just as easily
> as three dagger attacks.
Which is very generous to the dagger, in practice.
> I've seen quite a few examples in LARP (obviously not the best of
> examples, but it is at least an illustration of sorts) of a dagger
> wielder getting inside the reach of a greatsword wielder and slashing
> them to ribbons. The longer, slower weapon keeps the shorter one at
> bay, but once the quicker weapon has the advantage, it gets more hits in.
Irrelevant. Pay close attention to the phrase "inside the reach". This
has nothing to do with your *incorrect* suggestion that the greatsword is
slower than the dagger and everything to do with the attacker slipping into
a space where a person using the greatsword cannot attack. D&D would
represent this as a successful grapple.
Think harder about your assertions about speed - the greatsword is used
with *two* arm's strength, spaced apart so as to provide enormous torque.
A small motion of the hands produces a much greater acceleration and top
speed than a person with a dagger will *ever* hope to achieve with his
weapon. The greatsword requires more *force* to _move_ than a dagger, but
that does not make it slow (just more tiring to use). Further, the dagger
does not have a fraction of the mechanical advantage that a greatsword
provides, which means that the energy you have to expend to hurt someone
with a knife is in fact *higher* than the swordsman in the long run - he
can put energy into the sword and let momentum and kinetic energy work for
him.
-Michael.
Michael Scott Brown
> One of the biggest myths is this idea of the huge lumbering, slow
> greatsword, ala Conan. D&D lists greatswords i think as weighing 15
pounds!
> As if anyone could wield a 15 pound weapon. What they call a "longsword"
> they list at 5 pounds, if i remember correctly.
D&D uses inflated values to reflect encumbrance!
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> deal out as many blows in the same amount of time as something the size
> of a switchblade?
Absolutely. Just put the knife user and the swordsman the same
distance from the target before each attack. You will notice something
amusing - the guy with the knife can't reach it without *stepping closer*.
So much for the "speed" advantage of the knife - it's not even relevant to
determining the pace of his attacks; his ability to step and retreat is.
Further, the "weight" and "heft" of a claymore is feather-light and
willing to move (presuming one that is balanced for you).
> I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to know where you get that data
from.
Swordsmanship.
Cut this ignorant Larp stuff out and learn to use a weapon before
talking about them again. You are perpetuating ignorant myths.
-Michael
Drifter "Bob"
Michael Scott Brown <mbr...@rand.org> wrote in message news:c3dj82
> Cut this ignorant Larp stuff out and learn to use a weapon before
> talking about them again. You are perpetuating ignorant myths.
>
There is no reason to be rude. You can learn a few things from LARP and
there is no reason why the guy shouldn't feel free to describe his own
experiences. They are valid evidence as such. It just so happens that
other evidence suggests that LARP does have it's limits in accurately
simulating combat, to say the least. But like it or not, all forms of
simulated combat, even the most accurate ARMA combat with steel blunts,
wasters, or padded weapons, still only goes so far because it's still
simulated combat. You can't know 100% unless you are really killing people
with swords!
Drifter "Bob"
Malachias Invictus <capt_ma...@hotmail.com>
> However, I was fortunate to meet and chat with Dr. Friedman on a number of
> occasions. He is one Hell of a cook, and so is his wife. He is also
hands
> down the best storyteller I have ever heard in person.
>
I'm sorry, who is Dr. Friedman?
Drifter "Bob"
Michael Scott Brown <mbr...@rand.org> wrote in message news:c3dj92$
> D&D uses inflated values to reflect encumbrance!
No offense, if you are serious, but that sounds like a pretty typical D&D
rationalization... and if it is true, they might want to change that to
"encumbrance points" or something.
Chris Camfield
wrote:
I suppose that may be still the case to some extent, but it's much less
pronounced in 3.5. The greatsword weighed 15 lbs in 3.0, but is 8 in 3.5.
Heavy maces dropped from 12 to 8, greataxes from 20 to 12, etc.
Michael Scott Brown
> Michael Scott Brown <mbr...@rand.org> wrote in message news:c3dj82
>
> > Cut this ignorant Larp stuff out and learn to use a weapon before
> > talking about them again. You are perpetuating ignorant myths.
>
> There is no reason to be rude.
Yes there is. You were being an ignorant disseminator of blatant
misinformation, in public.
*That* is rude, and invites such treatment in return.
> You can learn a few things from LARP and
> there is no reason why the guy shouldn't feel free to describe his own
> experiences. They are valid evidence as such.
Not of fighting. With weapons.
When we make a game that tries to represent geeks fighting in the woods
with nerf sticks, then clearly, you will be someone to consult.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> Michael Scott Brown <mbr...@rand.org> wrote in message news:c3dj92$
>
> > D&D uses inflated values to reflect encumbrance!
>
> No offense, if you are serious, but that sounds like a pretty typical D&D
> rationalization... and if it is true, they might want to change that to
> "encumbrance points" or something.
RTF(AD&D)M!
-Michael
Chipacabra
> D&D uses inflated values to reflect encumbrance!
>
I have a sneaking suspicion that that's just an excuse for bad research.
Weights for EVERYTHING are just random and insane in D&D. Remember the
discussions about how much ogres weigh? And a regular old brown bear
weighs more in D&D than a real life cave bear ever did.
As far as item weight, though, there's a very concrete drawback to
fudging the numbers for encumbrance. Sometimes you need to know how much
someone weighs including their gear. Maybe their flying carpet has a
weight capacity. The carpet doesn't care if the sword is awkward to stow,
after all. Neither does the thin ice that will break if 500 pounds are
placed on it.
Hmm. Maybe someone should come out with the Netbook Of What Things
Actually Fricken' Weigh.
Drifter "Bob"
Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > There is no reason to be rude.
>
> Yes there is. You were being an ignorant disseminator of blatant
> misinformation, in public.
> *That* is rude, and invites such treatment in return.
Ok, first of all, you moron, it wasn't ME you were being rude to, it was
Cavalron. I do not LARP, and I have not disseminated any misinformation,
blatant or otherwise, about medieval fencing or weapons, which I'm pretty
confident I know more about than you do.
Nor was Cavalron, by the way, he was just describing his own experiences.
> Not of fighting. With weapons.
>
> When we make a game that tries to represent geeks fighting in the
woods
> with nerf sticks, then clearly, you will be someone to consult.
>
> -Michael
Oh, and I suppose you have a lot of experience in real, to the death fencing
bouts with sharp steel swords? Please do tell us all about them.
DB
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 2/22/2004
Malachias Invictus
>
> Malachias Invictus <capt_ma...@hotmail.com>
>
> > However, I was fortunate to meet and chat with Dr. Friedman on a number
of
> > occasions. He is one Hell of a cook, and so is his wife. He is also
> hands
> > down the best storyteller I have ever heard in person.
> >
> I'm sorry, who is Dr. Friedman?
He is the guy that did that research I gave the URL to. David D. Friedman
(aka Cariadoc of the Bow), son of famous economist Milton Friedman.
Vulpes Argenteus
wrote:
> The point is that this perspective changes the basis for the AoO;
>ordinarily you provoke the AoO when attacking unarmed "because you are
>sticking your hands out near sharp things"; you have to essentially stop
>defending yourself in order to attack - but if your attack is with a
>dangerous item then your opponent is compelled to address the lethal weapon
>(dagger, magic spell, etc.) rather than taking advantage of your
>vulnerability. Note that the official basis is pretty shaky when you
>really think about it (why would I *not* want to try to cut the hand off a
>wizard's blue-glowing hand if I could?) - but it is what it is. End result
>is that daggers and touch attacks don't provoke AoO, officially.
OK
> If you change the basis for the AoO to "having to get very close to
>attack" (even if it is with a quite lethal armament such as a +5 vorpal
>kukri) then there is no reason not to penalize touch attacks as well, as
>these suffer the same range deficit as unarmed attacks. I'm all about
>nerfing punches, kicks, and daggers, because I have real world experience
>with these weapons and their limitations - but magic spells? What do I know
>about those!?! What's the most fun?
I'm troubled by the +5 vorpal kukri example. I guess that's because I'm
still in the good old official days above. I'd also add creatures with
draining touch attacks to the list - they'd have to provoke an AoO in the
new world too, which doesn't make sense.
> There may be an out b/c touch attacks can work by just grazing - and by
>grazing extremities at at that, whereas credible attacks with very short
>weapons would typically need to threaten the body to maximize the chance of
>having a fair target and delivering a decent hit. Or perhaps we give touch
>spells a radius of sorts, the ability to 'arc', or whatnot, such that they
>have the same effective reach as a Small weapon.
I like the grazing rationale here ... that seems to fit. Not so the spell
radius - too much fast and loose.
Cheers
Martin (sandylane.d.c.u)
--
Remove ".spam." from my address to email
Drifter "Bob"
Ah yea
For even more up to date stuff, you might also try myarmoury
their gallery of (real) weapons is incredible, full of statistical
information of that sort along with photos of the actual weapons. The site
also has amazing resources for evaluating weapon reproductions, and a very
active discussion forum. They also have a good brief overview of medieval
weapons, explaining what they are.
ARMA has an excellent site as well
http://www.thearma.org
...including all kind of practical test cutting experiments, translations
and / or direct scans of nearly every one of the old "fectbuchen" (Medieval
fencing manuals) analysis of all kinds of weapons, meieval art, excerpts
from the viking sagas, and on and on and on
DB
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 2/22/2004
Cavalorn
<mbr...@rand.org> writes
> Cut this ignorant Larp stuff out
Heh. Perhaps there was some part of 'obviously not the best of
examples, but it is at least an illustration of sorts' that came across
as 'OMG I have seen this happen and it MUST be like that with REAL
weapons.'
>and learn to use a weapon before
>talking about them again.
I've fenced sabre. Your point about step and retreat makes good sense.
Cavalorn
<nob...@nowhere.net> writes
>Nor was Cavalron, by the way, he was just describing his own experiences.
Ah, but this is Usenet. The moment you make an observation, even if you
qualify it heavily, it is assumed that you are stating a position that
you are prepared to defend to the death, or something. :)
You can even ask a question, such as 'Are you saying...' with the
additional caveat 'I'm not saying you're wrong' and *still* have people
think you're making assertions.
As a games designer, I can only draw from the information I have
available. It's extremely useful that some people take their position
as experts very seriously. You can rely on such people to provide well
researched information. Sometimes you get a little invective into the
bargain, but these people are usually somewhat short on patience, having
corrected the same kind of misapprehensions time and time again, so you
have to forgive them that.
I'm not sure exactly what misinformation I'm supposed to be
disseminating, but it seems likely that 'Well, at present the primary
advantage of a short weapon over a longer one isn't really covered
either, i.e. the cut-and-thrust speed with which you can wield it' was
the sticky point, and that's been quite adequately covered.
Cavalorn
<mbr...@rand.org> writes
>snip<
*applause*
Excellently put, if slightly condescending. Are you used to having to
explain things patiently to idiots or something? :)
Cavalorn
<nob...@nowhere.net> writes
>There is considerable misunderstanding in the RPG community about the true
>nature of weapons (and armor), due largely to old mistakes being copied and
>in some cases exxagerated with each new generation of the game (instead of
>the designers doing any actual research)
Well, that's kind of why I'm here. This matter of weapon length is
exactly the point I'm chewing on right now with my current project, so
it was rather rewarding to find a thread devoted to it.
>Given the fairly large numbers of people today with at least some experience
>with period weapons (even casual LARP play will show you a lot of the
>problems with most RPG combat systems right away) you would think they would
>make a bigger effort to get it right.
Indeed, but LARP can just as easily provide misleading information.
>One of the biggest myths is this idea of the huge lumbering, slow
>greatsword, ala Conan.
Quite. The image one has is of the great length of iron being swung in
huge, ponderous arcs by some muscular grunting barbarian. It's easy to
suppose, as I was at first inclined to suppose, that in the time it
takes the sword to swing from point A to point B, a lighter weapon could
get several jabs in.
>And with accurate period training, especially incorportating false edge
>cuts, the speed of a greatsword can be truly phenomenal. I wish people
>could see real experts like John Clements or Jake Norwood doing a longsword
>flourysh. It will open your eyes.
>
>Thats not to say that a smallsword isn't a little quicker,
I suppose the question is whether or not that additional speed makes any
practical difference.
A thought. Can one say that slashes are generally slower than stabs, or
not?
Robert Scott Clark
>> Not of fighting. With weapons.
>>
>> When we make a game that tries to represent geeks fighting in the
> woods
>> with nerf sticks, then clearly, you will be someone to consult.
>
> Oh, and I suppose you have a lot of experience in real, to the death
> fencing bouts with sharp steel swords? Please do tell us all about
> them.
He doesn't need it. Larping teaches you about real fighting in the same
way that sleeping on long bus trips rests you - it counts negative. A
newborn baby knows more about real fighting than a larper.
Varl
> In article <c3dj07$4ts$1...@lumberjack.rand.org>, Michael Scott Brown
> <mbr...@rand.org> writes
>
> >snip<
>
> *applause*
>
> Excellently put, if slightly condescending. Are you used to having to
> explain things patiently to idiots or something? :)
Heh. You're new here, aren't you?
Ubiquitous
: Been following that thread, and it seems to me like there should be
: some initiative modifier. In the real world, I'd have to agree that
: there should be significant advantages vis a vis first strike between
: dagger and a longsword, but I don't believe that is reflected in the
: core rules.
Umm, there's a reason that nonsense was removed from 3E.
--
ISLAM: Winning the hearts and minds of the world, one bomb at a time.
Cavalorn
<bsm...@premier1.net> writes
>Heh. You're new here, aren't you?
Oh yes indeed. Just stepped off the boat. I hear this is a place where
enlightened and well-informed literati exchange views in an atmosphere
of scholarly cameraderie. Nobody ever stoops to ad hominem or questions
another's interpretation of the rules - except, of course, in the most
gentlemanly and circumspect fashion.
btw, do Balors have wings?
;)
Cavalorn
Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> writes
> When we make a game that tries to represent geeks fighting in the woods
>with nerf sticks, then clearly, you will be someone to consult.
FWIW, we don't use nerf sticks or boffers in the UK. British LRP
weapons actually look like weapons.
While on that point, you were on much firmer ground pointing out that
the *reach* of the weapon was what made the difference, not the alleged
*speed* with which it was wielded. The fact that the example case comes
from a LARP context doesn't actually seem to have entered into it.
If you'd said 'let's throw this greatsword/dagger example out from the
start, since it's from LARP experiences and therefore useless' then fair
enough, but you didn't.
So, given that *you* have now used an example from LARP (shock, horror)
to illustrate *your* point (albeit by turning my example back at me and
pointing out where I was misconstruing it) I fail to see what your
problem with LARP is in this particular instance. Your objections,
valid as they were, were all focused on my *reading* of the LARP
situation and not at all on its inherent validity or lack of same.
So, what's with this non-sequitur derision of LARP?
My suspicion is that it's a cultural thing and has cock all to do with
the validity of the example. Everyone likes to look down on someone
else's pastime as even more geeky than theirs. Metal weapon wielders
sneer at those who bop each other with foam rubber sausages, who in turn
sneer at the scissors-paper-stone bad-eyeliner brigade.
As we have already seen:
http://www.brunching.com/images/geekchartbig.gif
Michael Scott Brown
news:Xns94B0E540C7...@216.196.105.134...
> "Michael Scott Brown" <mbr...@rand.org> wrote in
> news:c3dj92$50l$1...@lumberjack.rand.org:
>
> > D&D uses inflated values to reflect encumbrance!
> >
>
> I have a sneaking suspicion that that's just an excuse for bad research.
The original rules *said* as much!
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> >talking about them again.
>
> I've fenced sabre.
I said learn to use a *weapon*. A thumb-guided flyswatter does not
count.
>Your point about step and retreat makes good sense.
Of course it does. It's correct.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> In article <c3dj07$4ts$1...@lumberjack.rand.org>, Michael Scott Brown
> <mbr...@rand.org> writes
> >snip<
> *applause*
>
> Excellently put, if slightly condescending. Are you used to having to
> explain things patiently to idiots or something? :)
That is what MSB does, albeit usually without the patience.
-Michael
Bradd W. Szonye
> While on that point, you were on much firmer ground pointing out that
> the *reach* of the weapon was what made the difference, not the alleged
> *speed* with which it was wielded.
Longer weapons, especially swords, tend to have better reach and speed
than small, handheld weapons do. It's a leverage thing.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Michael Scott Brown
> not?
No. There is a huge variety in the characteristic time of an attack of
any type that depends ultimately on the intended start and finish points of
the weapon, the intended power of the strike, and its current momentum at
the initiation of the attack. There are combinations of strength and
position such that a direct thrust might be more *efficient* (such as if you
have your sword held in line between yourself an your foe), but one can make
a less efficient attack at the same pace simply by expending more strength.
We've all seen fencers do their little pop-pop-pop trick, but really, such
attacks would be mere tickles against any sort of armor if you changed to
real kits and blades - and once you dial up the power to the lunge level to
make up for this, the requirement to thrust the entire body into the attack
negates any myths about the stabbing style being "faster". Is a lunge still
fast? Yes, in the sense that when done correctly and with strength then it
advances with great velocity (b/c leg muscles are strong!), but even a
not-terribly strong man with a greatsword can bring his weapon around in a
blur, too - further, the person making the lunge can just as easily arrange
to swing his sword in a slash with exactly the same time-of-arrival for his
blade as the lunging thrust, so how was the thrust any "faster"?
Certain weapons are more efficient at slashing or stabbing in certain
configurations, of course. A roman in close quarters with a shortsword held
at the waist can body-slam and make a short stab more quickly than he can
raise the weapon up to his head and bring it back down again, but if he were
in a gladiatorial arena in a circling duel, such an attack wouldn't even
reach his opponent! So how "fast" is the stab?
It's all conditional.
Any tool worthy of being called a "weapon" is sufficiently balanced and
used in a sufficiently intelligent fashion that the pace at which it can be
moved to strike and defend is fast enough to fight other people; a weapon
that was too 'slow' would have been darwinized - which actually explains the
surprisingly light weight ranges of "surviving" weaponry quite effectively.
We don't see weapons that are prodigiously heavy (save for ceremonials) -
there is very much such a thing as a mace or pick that is too big, despite
the advantage that greater striking power from more length or weight would
otherwise provide. You can't hit anyone if you are counterattacked every
time you go to lumber your weapon about!
-Michael
Malachias Invictus
"Cavalorn" <cava...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:SpNoPNEy...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk...
> A thought. Can one say that slashes are generally slower than stabs, or
> not?
In my experience, the opposite is generally true, at least with swords.
Michael Scott Brown
> In article <j3w6c.28618$%06.2...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> writes
> the *reach* of the weapon was what made the difference, not the alleged
> *speed* with which it was wielded.
I am on perfectly firm ground at all times, on account of knowing a
thing or two about a thing or two. I was trying to make a point that was
apparently missed - when discussing "speed" of a weapon, what are you really
trying to describe? The velocity of the striking surface at impact? That
varies with the geometry of the attack, but it is most certainly higher for
a weapon in rotation (after a certain point) than a weapon that is making a
linear traverse at the speed of the arm+leg.
Perhaps you are discussing the "ease" with which the weapon is
manipulated? But that has nothing to do with _speed_; one simply expends
more strength to accelerate a heavier object to the same velocity. Fighting
weapons aren't used at "full" strength; so there is ample room to dial
things up a notch as long as the weapon is of the right size for your
strength. People often describe light weapons as "fast" but they actually
mean that it is *easy* to make it go "fast".
Perhaps "speed" describes your ability to bring an attack to bear at a
given range in a given time frame? But that depends completely on where the
weapon is and your intended target - a weapon held over the head in one of
the Japanse styles of waiting-for-godot will require less work to bring down
upon an incoming attacker's head in a slash than a weapon held in a line
between the opponents (as it must be raised first), but if the weapon is in
line, then perhaps a disrupting thrust attack is in order instead - so given
these three ways of attacking, how do we decide how "fast" the katana is in
that case?
Perhaps you mean to describe the pace at which the weapon can sustain
attacks? But that depends entirely on the attack patterns selected, which
depends on the situation, and each attack involves the fighter's entire body
*and* the weapon since each weapon has a different biomechanical technique
behind it; so is it the weapon or the fighter that determines how quickly he
can implement a given sequence of movements appropriate to his weapon?
> So, what's with this non-sequitur derision of LARP?
My derision was of larp combat's informative value. Any geek hierarchy
elitism I might have I try to keep to myself. :)
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:Xns94B1548AD2BB1cl...@216.77.188.18...
> > fencing bouts with sharp steel swords? Please do tell us all about
> > them.
>
> He doesn't need it. Larping teaches you about real fighting in the same
> way that sleeping on long bus trips rests you - it counts negative. A
> newborn baby knows more about real fighting than a larper.
That sums the issue up rather neatly.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:qvo6c.88975$JN2....@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
> I only allow the initiative advantage if the player has announced
preparing
> their weapon beforehand. (Drawing a weapon takes a partial action I think
> anyway) but I want to hear "I ready my sword", and this gives them a
reason.
This still only makes sense if the intention upon rolling initiative is
to attack; why should someone with his sword out be more adroit at
disengaging or casting a spell?
> The issue of dagger versus sword is interesting. I believe the longer
> weapon has a huge initial advantage, but the smaller weapon has the
> advantage of course after a successful rush and close.......
> Anyway, I think the way to handle this in DnD, is to use the grapple rules
> if I understand them correctly.
That is my belief as well, and it works smashingly.
> If I remember right, a short weapon gets a
> huge bonus (+4) when fighting from within a grapple
Not in 3rd edition. 2nd edition had a "weapons in defense" rule that
gave attack priority regardless of initiative (recall, we declared before
rolling in that system, so you know if your foe is coming unarmed at you),
and it gave +4 to hit and damage against an unarmed attack intiation in that
case, but it's not clear whether that advantage persists once wrestling was
engaged, as the implicit assumption ("coming onto your weapon") no longer
holds.
At any rate, it's been degraded to being able to be used at -4 to attack
(on the principle that your opponent is interfering with your attacks while
you wrestle). This is still advantageous compared to pummeling (also at -4)
to attack for subdual damage, or doing grapple checks for subdual damage,
and it clearly beats *not* attacking with one's longsword, so it's still
quite viable. I'd rather do d4 to zero than be zero to 2*2d6!
> You also have to consider missile weapons initiative bonus,
.. also only reasonable if one's intention is to attack immediately. If
you use this mechanic, I suppose you just poll the players "who is
attacking?", and slide their initiatives up accordingly before resolving the
round - if someone's turn comes up and they decide that the battle has
unfolded in a way that makes them not want to attack with their readied
weapon after all, then you slip them down to their original intiative score
with a forced delay.
> ....whether there should be a reach To Hit bonus as well, (I think there
should be)
A circumstance bonus of +2 to the person with the larger weapon is
reasonable in principle, but the greater damage output already covers the
matter to some degree.
> ...and finally, if you give the dagger this disadvantage in reach, you
have
> to make up for it somehow.
No you don't.
> In reality of course, a dagger with a 9" or 12" or 14" blade is incredebly
> lethal, hard to survive being stuck with.
The typical fighting man in D&D has 4 hit points; a 1d4 damage weapon
that does 2-8 on a critical is more than adequate to dispatch someone when
it "really hits him".
> One simple way to get around this a bit is to lower the daggers crit
threat
> range a point or even two. I personally handle it differently but my
house
> rules for DnD are quite elaborate....
That's absurd - daggers are pitiful weapons and are not *more* likely to
hit vital areas given their reach deficit. I personally prefer them at
20/x3, as I think that better represents the occasions where a dagger
"really" stabs someone, and allows the dagger to at least have a chance of
dispatching a first level fighter on a critical (3-12 > 10). As you did
correctly observe, if you absolutely nail someone with the dagger - which is
hard to manage, most dagger wounds are superficial - you can do serious
harm.
-Michael
Malachias Invictus
> In article <c3dj07$4ts$1...@lumberjack.rand.org>, Michael Scott Brown
> <mbr...@rand.org> writes
>
> >snip<
>
> *applause*
>
> Excellently put, if slightly condescending. Are you used to having to
> explain things patiently to idiots or something? :)
You learn fast, son ;-)
heratyk
> -Michael
It would seem, all in all, that skill plays a bigger role in quickness of
attack than does weapon size. This fits in quite well with the D&D
abstraction, whereby one attack roll in a turn may actually represent
several attempted blows, feints, and so on.
On a related matter, we have discussed the merits of differently-sized
swords & daggers at some length already. do you feel this applies equally
well to "unbalanced" weapons, such as axes & maces? I know of at least one
other RPG where these are penalized quite heavily for their alleged
slowness.
--
heratyk
http://members.cox.net/cyberdungeon/index.html
Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day.
Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm the rest of his life.
Drifter "Bob"
> way that sleeping on long bus trips rests you - it counts negative. A
> newborn baby knows more about real fighting than a larper.
For one thing, every serious WMA fighter uses padded weapons of some kind,
because that is the only way you can really fight full contact / full force.
ARMA uses padded weapons. They can actually be made much more realistic
than shanai or sca style rataan sticks.
Second (I can't believe I'm sitting here defending LARP but) not all LARP
groups are the same, not all have the same rules systems or uses the same
weapons. In Europe in general they are a lot less squeamish about safety
standards and a lot more into realism.
Finally, of course you can learn some valid things about real fighting from
LARP, like the importance of reach, which is exactly what we were discussing
here, for one thing.
I've done WMA for 20 years, and I have sparred full contact with
practitioners of every background in the field, from escrima and kendo and
various EMA staff fighting through SCA, to ARMA, and everthing in between.
I have also been in real fights with weapons where my life is on the line,
one of which is a matter of public record. So I know what I'm talking about
here, and I don't think it pays to as arrogant as you have been.
Cavalorn
>apparently missed - when discussing "speed" of a weapon, what are you really
>trying to describe?
Fair question. I'm thinking about the rate at which a weapon can strike
significant blows, or if you prefer the length of the time between one
blow and the next.
>The velocity of the striking surface at impact? That
>varies with the geometry of the attack, but it is most certainly higher for
>a weapon in rotation (after a certain point) than a weapon that is making a
>linear traverse at the speed of the arm+leg.
> Perhaps you are discussing the "ease" with which the weapon is
>manipulated? But that has nothing to do with _speed_;
It does when you are talking about 'speed of attack', though quantifying
the process into sections of 'attack' and 'not-attack' is a tricky
process at best. Now I come to chew it over even more, it's not so much
the attack itself that's the bugger, it's the process between one stroke
and the next.
Forgetting greatswords for the moment, as they are balanced weapons,
let's look at a greatclub. Swinging one of those things around is going
to create a momentary lag between one stroke and the next. At the
conclusion of the sweeping arc, you're going to have to take a moment to
set up the next blow.
(Please understand that I don't have any particular *stance* in all of
this, I'm just trying to model a process in a feasible way.)
Let me try it another way. Set up two posts in the middle of a field.
Alf is swinging a broom handle at his post. (Swish, whack, swish,
whack.) Betty is jabbing a kitchen knife into hers after the fashion of
Norman Bates. (Stab stab stab stab stab.) Now, I may be wrong, and I'm
perfectly willing to accept it if so, but it seems to me that in the
space of ten seconds, Betty will land more blows on her post than Alf
will on his, if only because the length of the stroke is so much
shorter.
Which is fine, I hear you say, if you're attacking a post in a field,
but real combat isn't like that. Looking over at your slash versus stab
posting, I see you've addressed the issue comprehensively, so perhaps
that's the last word that need be said on the subject.
> Perhaps "speed" describes your ability to bring an attack to bear at a
>given range in a given time frame? But that depends completely on where the
>weapon is and your intended target - a weapon held over the head in one of
>the Japanse styles of waiting-for-godot will require less work to bring down
>upon an incoming attacker's head in a slash
That sounds like some sort of 'readying' in game terms.
On the point of game terms, I concur with your suggestion that a dagger
wielder diving inside a greatsword wielder's reach and stabbing away
merrily is, to some extent, performing the equivalent of a grapple,
*but* I hardly need to point out to you that there is no grabbing
involved, unlike the usual grapple mechanics.
Furthermore, the size modifiers that usually apply to a grapple would
seem to be exactly opposite to those involved in the success of an
attack of this kind, since a smaller creature could more easily dash
inside the reach of a larger one. The fight between Sam and Shelob
comes to mind, assuming you have no a priori objection to using a
fantasy scene to illustrate the point. He certainly wasn't grappling
her in any sense that the rules currently cover, but he did enter her
space and attack with a shorter weapon than hers.
So, it seems to me that what we're taking about involves the same
'entering of space' as a grapple and the same enabling of light weapon
use as a grapple but without the other grapple mechanics. Infighting,
maybe? Close-quarter combat?
>than a weapon held in a line
>between the opponents (as it must be raised first), but if the weapon is in
>line, then perhaps a disrupting thrust attack is in order instead - so given
>these three ways of attacking, how do we decide how "fast" the katana is in
>that case?
I suppose one would have to quantify the degree of 'readiness' and the
mode of attack used.
> Perhaps you mean to describe the pace at which the weapon can sustain
>attacks? But that depends entirely on the attack patterns selected, which
>depends on the situation, and each attack involves the fighter's entire body
>*and* the weapon since each weapon has a different biomechanical technique
>behind it; so is it the weapon or the fighter that determines how quickly he
>can implement a given sequence of movements appropriate to his weapon?
What would you suggest?
>> So, what's with this non-sequitur derision of LARP?
>
> My derision was of larp combat's informative value.
Ironic, then, that the one and only example of LARP combat that was
actually *cited* was perfectly adequate to illustrate your point!
>Any geek hierarchy
>elitism I might have I try to keep to myself. :)
I think gamers really need their own hierarchy table.
Cav (wondering where the diceless roleplay sessions that eventually led
to the creation of the 'Otherkin' concept would go in that - and no, I
wasn't involved)
Michael Scott Brown
news:GYG6c.10234$272.1604@lakeread03...
> It would seem, all in all, that skill plays a bigger role in quickness of
> attack than does weapon size. This fits in quite well with the D&D
> abstraction, whereby one attack roll in a turn may actually represent
> several attempted blows, feints, and so on.
Very good. You get an A.
We haven't even gotten to the issue of whether a single movement of the
weapon even qualifies as an attack ..
> On a related matter, we have discussed the merits of differently-sized
> swords & daggers at some length already. do you feel this applies equally
> well to "unbalanced" weapons, such as axes & maces? I know of at least
one
> other RPG where these are penalized quite heavily for their alleged
> slowness.
Such slowness is only "alleged". Fighting maces are *short*, which says
all that needs to be said about their supposed "ponderousness". Enough mass
is still concentrated on the end that they'll still stave in your armored
skull. Good weapon - but you'd better have a shield because they're not
much for parrying. This applies to axes as well; the reversed balance makes
them _harder_ to use defensively (though there are still techniques that
work - they're just little like swords'). In fact, that makes something of
a point - if you try to use an axe as you do a sword, you will suck ass -
the balance is utterly buggered for that!
So *don't*.
An axe used in two hands is very agile - if you just *choke up* when you
need a quick-change! Greatsword users know this, of course, but the axe
user can take it to a more extreme degree.
Further, given that parrying with an axe is harder than a sword, a fine
strategy would be one that therefore makes parrying irrelevant - *attack* -
*aggressively*. Keep your opponent off-balance and on the defensive from a
continuous barrage of blows, until his shield sunders or his arm gets tired
and you can cleave his noggin. And what do you know? - there's a technique
for wielding an axe that delivers such pow-pow-pow-pow assaults.
Ignorant jackasses like Gurps' writers assume these Ponderous Weapons
must be Slowly Read-ied to Attack Again as if they were giant
balls-on-chains or something - but you can easily pound on someone at a rate
faster than 1/second with an axe ... if you keep the thing in front of your
body rather than larking it 'round your head.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
news:dVG6c.55412$xL3....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> I've done WMA for 20 years, and I have sparred full contact with
> practitioners of every background in the field, from escrima and kendo and
> various EMA staff fighting through SCA, to ARMA, and everthing in between.
> I have also been in real fights with weapons where my life is on the line,
> one of which is a matter of public record. So I know what I'm talking
about
> here, and I don't think it pays to as arrogant as you have been.
It always pays to mock the idea that LARP fighting could possibly be
educational about combat. Any correct lessons one might infer from the
exercise are an accident of coincidence. The importance of reach, for
instance, was taught to us as schoolchildren, by those occasions where only
one us had the yardstick.
Some people just *forget*.
Like our founding moron, Gary Gygax.
-Michael
Cavalorn
>must be Slowly Read-ied to Attack Again as if they were giant
>balls-on-chains or something
What would you suggest? Mandatory gladiatorial school for all aspiring
RPG writers? :)
Cavalorn
Scott Clark <cla...@mindspring.com> writes
>He doesn't need it. Larping teaches you about real fighting in the same
>way that sleeping on long bus trips rests you - it counts negative. A
>newborn baby knows more about real fighting than a larper.
That entirely depends on who the larper is; and I'm beginning to think
that American LARP is nothing at all like British LARP.
For instance, I have one very good friend who practices Kendo, and uses
the techniques in LARP. Others are fencers. I've had limited
experience as a sabreur myself and found it useful when running around
in fields hitting people in rubber masks. As I said, our weapons *look*
like weapons. They're not those humongous boffers or rattan sticks like
the US LARPers seem to go in for.
This is the kind of thing:
Now, if it was a case of folks having *nothing but* LARP experience,
well... sheesh. Have you ever seen someone use a replica greatsword
like a French maid wielding a feather duster?
Michael Scott Brown
> Fair question. I'm thinking about the rate at which a weapon can strike
> significant blows, or if you prefer the length of the time between one
> blow and the next.
What about feinting? What about blows that are blocked? What about the
fact that some weapons make attacks of such power that they force the
opponent onto the defensive, and therefore require less work to put into
play? This way of thinking about the matter is simply irrelevant in
practice - if you're on the wrong end of a greatsword, and you're holding a
dagger, what do you have to do to attack? You have to somehow get his weapon
out of line, and then dash in close enough to attack, make your strike, and
then *get the hell out of there* before he brings some portion of the hilt
down upon the back of your skull - or steps back and reverses the blade
through your body ... or you can try to get control of one of his arms.
So how "fast" did the *dagger* make your attack? Given that you are
significantly out-reached, would the pace of your attack change *one bit* if
you had a shortsword instead of a dagger? How about a short knife instead of
a fighting dagger? The proposal that the "speed" of your attacks is in
*any* way influenced by the inertia of your weapon (presuming it's a decent
weapon) falls flat on its face once the realities of combat are considered.
You have to work very hard and push your agility to attack with that
dagger, and it will take many motions on your part to deliver a credible
attack; the swordsman, even if for the sake of making a point we *grant*
your (incorrect) hypothesis that the weapon "cycles" less quickly, has to be
make fewer cycles in order to attack you (a simple arc of the arms will send
5 feet of steel your way).
> Now I come to chew it over even more, it's not so much
> the attack itself that's the bugger, it's the process between one stroke
> and the next.
And that process is an enormous variable. You have big attacks, small
attacks, jabbing stabs, power lunges, draw cuts, reversals, circles, you
have high/medium/low gates, you have attacks that flow from one into the
next. Fighting does *not* entail standing there like a jackass hitting a
person and then lifting the weapon back to the same starting point. You
make "phrases" - bop-pop-pow.
> Forgetting greatswords for the moment, as they are balanced weapons,
> let's look at a greatclub. Swinging one of those things around is going
> to create a momentary lag between one stroke and the next. At the
> conclusion of the sweeping arc, you're going to have to take a moment to
> set up the next blow.
Bullshit. Learn to fight with such a weapon. Then get back to us.
> Let me try it another way. Set up two posts in the middle of a field.
> Alf is swinging a broom handle at his post. (Swish, whack, swish,
> whack.) Betty is jabbing a kitchen knife into hers after the fashion of
> Norman Bates. (Stab stab stab stab stab.) Now, I may be wrong, and I'm
> perfectly willing to accept it if so, but it seems to me that in the
> space of ten seconds, Betty will land more blows on her post than Alf
> will on his, if only because the length of the stroke is so much
> shorter.
And what does the characteristic time of performing the same repeated
stroke with a long and a short object have to do with fighting? Do you
fight with a knife by playing Bates? No. Do you fight with a broomstick by
hammering away at someone? No. Why not use a kendo technique with your
broomstick, charging your foe with the weapon extended forward at your
waist, and leveling a "snap" against your foe's wrist to drive his weapon
out of line (and possibly breaking the wrist), using the "bounce" from that
impact to save you the trouble of having to reverse the momentum yourself as
you raise the weapon up enough to deliver a harder snapping strike against
the forehead, and using that bounce to help lift the weapon a second time so
that you can lunge past your foe with a deep step (bringing your center of
gravity down) while bringing the stick down with all your two-arms' strength
from that high point down through his gut?
At what point in this process did you raise the weapon back to your
starting point and swing it down again in some kind of repetitive motion?
Each attack flows from the circumstances of the first.
This is why "post hitting" examples don't mean very much.
> > Perhaps "speed" describes your ability to bring an attack to bear at
a
> >given range in a given time frame? But that depends completely on where
the
> >weapon is and your intended target - a weapon held over the head in one
of
> >the Japanse styles of waiting-for-godot will require less work to bring
down
> >upon an incoming attacker's head in a slash
>
> That sounds like some sort of 'readying' in game terms.
Nope. It's just a choice of guard.
> On the point of game terms, I concur with your suggestion that a dagger
> wielder diving inside a greatsword wielder's reach and stabbing away
> merrily is, to some extent, performing the equivalent of a grapple,
> *but* I hardly need to point out to you that there is no grabbing
> involved, unlike the usual grapple mechanics.
There is if he wants to stay there.
> So, it seems to me that what we're taking about involves the same
> 'entering of space' as a grapple and the same enabling of light weapon
> use as a grapple but without the other grapple mechanics. Infighting,
> maybe? Close-quarter combat?
I don't have any heartburn on switching the order of mechanics
slightly - as the rules stand you touch, hold, enter, and choose whether or
not to stay at the end of your turn. I'm fine with *enter* (AoO), and do as
you please (such as attacking with the dagger), at which point you have to
return to your starting square if you haven't successfully grappled by the
end of this time. It would be foolish not to grapple (b/c otherwise you
eat at least 2 more greatsword attacks), but perhaps you're too small/weak
to win anyway, and so taking +1 attack per round is just the price of doing
business.
> > Perhaps you mean to describe the pace at which the weapon can sustain
> >attacks? But that depends entirely on the attack patterns selected, which
> >depends on the situation, and each attack involves the fighter's entire
body
> >*and* the weapon since each weapon has a different biomechanical
technique
> >behind it; so is it the weapon or the fighter that determines how quickly
he
> >can implement a given sequence of movements appropriate to his weapon?
>
> What would you suggest?
Realizing that tools that qualify as weapons are able to be used at
"fighting speeds" appropriate to their style of use, and that none has clear
advantage over another save in matters of reach.
-Michael
Cavalorn
>educational about combat.
How do you square that with the tradition of teaching people to fight by
using dummy weapons? What's the qualitative difference between a Roman
soldier-in-training using a wooden sword to practice attacking and a
SCAdian using a rattan stick in a duel?
I'm really not sure why you think there's such a massive gulf between
LARP and 'real fighting', unless there are even more aspects of US style
LARP that I'm simply not aware of.
Michael Scott Brown
> In article <UjH6c.29124$%06....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> writes
> > Ignorant jackasses like Gurps' writers assume these Ponderous Weapons
> >must be Slowly Read-ied to Attack Again as if they were giant
> >balls-on-chains or something
>
> What would you suggest? Mandatory gladiatorial school for all aspiring
> RPG writers? :)
Yes. Or at least a gods-damnned education.
-Michael
Malachias Invictus
> Further, given that parrying with an axe is harder than a sword, a
fine
> strategy would be one that therefore makes parrying irrelevant -
*attack* -
> *aggressively*. Keep your opponent off-balance and on the defensive from
a
> continuous barrage of blows, until his shield sunders or his arm gets
tired
> and you can cleave his noggin. And what do you know? - there's a
technique
> for wielding an axe that delivers such pow-pow-pow-pow assaults.
It can also do something a sword *can't* do - hook his shield. Having a
nice pokey-thingie on the end makes this even more fun, as first you pull
the shield, then use his counterpull to drive the spike/spearhead/etc. right
into him using his own strength, *and* yours (possibly knocking him down as
well). How would we model this in D&D, I wonder?
Drifter Bob
> 20/x3, as I think that better represents the occasions where a dagger
> "really" stabs someone, and allows the dagger to at least have a chance
> correctly observe, if you absolutely nail someone with the dagger - whi
This is an extremely naive statement, and you obviously have very little
practical experience or knowlege of the field. Once a combattant is close
enough to strike with a dagger, there is no "reach deficit". In fact once
inside the reach of a sword or spear, the dagger is at a distinct advantage
vis a vis hitting.
As for daggers causing superficial wounds, this is absurd. Knifes cause
superficial wounds stastically, that being because most knives are designed
for things like slicing bread, spreading butter, opening mail, cutting
string and etc.
The same could be said for "sword wounds" stastically. There is a thread on
the ARMA forum with about 100 newspaper articles describing various modern
day sword fights and attacks with machetes and samurai swords and the like.
Probably only one or two of them were lethal attacks, and most involved
several strikes. That is because the wielders are not trained swordsmen,
and also to a large degree because the "sword like objects" they are using
are not actual military fighting weapons like the true swords of the
classical, medieval or renaissance periods, just as a pocket knife or a
letter opener is a far cry from a dagger.
An actual dagger as was used in the middle ages or renaissance, is a very
formidable (usually) double edged blade, much heavier than a kitchen knife
and stiffened for thrusting, with a blade length of between 6" and 16", with
the average blade length probably being around 12" and the average overall
length about 17".
Being struck with a stiff 9" or 12" blade is no laughing matter. Why don't
you have someone plunge one into your abdomen and you can tell me how
"pitiful" the weapon is. The British Government recently did a statistical
study about knife wounds to their police officers, and they helpfully
categorized the types of attacking weapons, as tools (screwdrivers etc.)
single edged pocket knives of a certain maximum length, kitchen knives of
two different lengths, and so called military knives of at least 7" blades.
They found that a knife wound from something in the last category (most like
a dagger) is considerably more lethal statistically than a gunshot wound
(and also, incidentally, passes through kevlar vests with ridiculous ease...
which was the whole purpose of their study, to find a knife proof vest for
their police)
The FBI did a similar study in the 1950s and again in 1973. The information
is available on their website, or used to be. They also estimated that a
wound from a knife with a "military blade or bayonett" was stastically more
lethal than a gunshot wound from a .38 caliber pistol.
So before blurting out all kinds of ignorant statements why don't you try to
actually learn something about the subject beforehand.
DB
Michael Scott Brown
> Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> writes
> > It always pays to mock the idea that LARP fighting could possibly be
> >educational about combat.
>
> How do you square that with the tradition of teaching people to fight by
> using dummy weapons?
You teach people *forms* with dummy weapons, and you can use dummy
weapons to train the body's muscles to learn the langauge of the weapon.
However, without proper supervision and discipline, one can easily learn the
wrong lessons. Steel is sharp and dummy weapons are not - the mechanics of
what happens on the impact of the weapon are completely different. Learning
to "fight" with a dummy weapon teaches incorrect habits if you optimize that
fighting style to the dummy weapon. Kendo, for instance, uses a lighter
implement to spar, and is optimized for quick "snaps" rather than power; a
kendo fighter using a sword would muff the first time his sword didn't
"bounce" off of a foe he cut, and he wouldn't attack with the power to cut a
man in two. Fencers do *ridiculous* things like BENDING THEIR SWORDS like
fishing poles to get touches on rear shoulders - and the flimsiness of their
implements produces buggered lesssons on the energy required to parry a real
attack or to deliver a killing blow. Stage-fighters are taught
"partner-safe" techniques that avoid many maneuvers that would in fact be
quite dandy in combat. Dummy weapons specifically suppress the issue of how
to penetrate armor (b/c the point is to re-use your partners, and therefore
striking hard enough to do damage through their protective gear is
bass-ackwards).
In short, there are lessons you can teach without the real weapon, but
the correct nuances will be lost without vigilance.
Kids in the woods with non-weapons are *not* in a relevant learning
environment.
-Michael
Drifter Bob
>
> Like our founding moron, Gary Gygax.
>
> -Michael
I actually think Gygax did ok for the first effort, he borrowed from the
miniatures industry at first.. which was fairly close to the laymans state
of the art for 1975 or whenever... and all his subsequent efforts to make
things more realistic were ignored and actively fought against by TSR and
the hyperconservative fan base, and until maybe the advent of GURPS, nobody
ever really tried to do any original research. THis is also largely because
some people made misguided attempts at more realistic systems which were
just more complex and werent realistic.,
The real problem IMHO was the lazy game designers who just copied from each
other instead of doing any new research and the ultra orthodox canonical
fanboys who freaked out any time anyone tried to improve anything...
Now wit hthe advent of games like Riddle of Steel we are at last seeing some
light at the end of the tunnel. I'm looking forward to the time when
realistic combat will t ake over RPGs, filter into CRPGS, and from there
maybe even hollywood...
DB
Malachias Invictus
> Let me try it another way. Set up two posts in the middle of a field.
> Alf is swinging a broom handle at his post. (Swish, whack, swish,
> whack.) Betty is jabbing a kitchen knife into hers after the fashion of
> Norman Bates. (Stab stab stab stab stab.) Now, I may be wrong, and I'm
> perfectly willing to accept it if so, but it seems to me that in the
> space of ten seconds, Betty will land more blows on her post than Alf
> will on his, if only because the length of the stroke is so much
> shorter.
Nope. A standard sword drill on a stationary target will show this to be
false. Picture 4 striking areas on the target: on-side low (1), on side
high (2), off-side high (3), and off-side low (4). The standard beginner's
combination drill might go something like this: 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 2-1,
2-2, 2-3, 2-4, 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-4, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4. Some combinations
are obviously faster than others, particularly with a shield (which tends to
bugger area 4 shots if you are not careful). After you get this down, you
start with three-area combinations (1-3-1, 2-3-2, 2-3-1, etc.). If you ever
experience or see this, you will notice that these three-hit combos come at
a rate you would never be able to match with your "stab-stab-stab"
technique, above. You are using the momentum of the weapon, your leverage,
and a bit of biomechanics to achieve a striking edge velocity and fluidity
that a dagger is just not capable of.
Mouse
<cava...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> raised a finger to the sky and
proclaimed:
>In article <105m1jr...@corp.supernews.com>, Varl
><bsm...@premier1.net> writes
>>Heh. You're new here, aren't you?
>
>Oh yes indeed. Just stepped off the boat. I hear this is a place where
>enlightened and well-informed literati exchange views in an atmosphere
>of scholarly cameraderie. Nobody ever stoops to ad hominem or questions
>another's interpretation of the rules - except, of course, in the most
>gentlemanly and circumspect fashion.
>
>btw, do Balors have wings?
>
>;)
>
>Cav
And fuzzy bunny slippers too, apparently.
Cavalorn
Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> writes
> Bullshit. Learn to fight with such a weapon. Then get back to us.
Right. Like anyone 'learns to fight' with a greatclub. :)
This is exactly the 'readying the ponderous weapon between blows' stuff
you object to in GURPS, right?
> And what does the characteristic time of performing the same repeated
>stroke with a long and a short object have to do with fighting? Do you
>fight with a knife by playing Bates? No. Do you fight with a broomstick by
>hammering away at someone? No.
Hang on a minute - do you actually think I'm *arguing* with you?
Evidently this has somehow escaped your attention, but I'm *taking
notes* here. When I give examples of posts in fields, it's because I'm
asking you to explain *why* and *how* it's not like that, when plenty of
people would think that it *was*.
Cav
Drifter Bob
> LARP and 'real fighting', unless there are even more aspects of US style
> LARP that I'm simply not aware of.
>
> Cav
US style LARP is considerably wimpier and more geeky than the European
equivalent, at least from what I have seen on the net. I have some
experience with both groups because I sell padded sparring weapons as a
little side business, mainly for WMA people (as my specialty is realistic
weight, shape, and balance) but sometimes to LARP people as well.
DB
--
Check out The Primer of Practical Magic,
A new D20 supplement of subtle spells, new classes,
And curious magic artifacts from Jack Vance's
popular Dying Earth genre.
Available on Amazon.com and the Dying Earth website
http://www.dyingearth.com/products.htm
http://www.dyingearth.com/article5.htm
Drifter Bob
> > A thought. Can one say that slashes are generally slower than stabs, or
> > not?
>
> In my experience, the opposite is generally true, at least with swords.
That depends enormously on the type of sword, the blade shape, wieght, reach
and balance. Rapiers and sideswords, and many earlier medieval
cut-and-thrust swords were balanced at least as well for thrusting and were
very quick on the thrust.
With an arming sword (what they would call a long sword in DnD) it's about
equal.
Some other swords like viking swords and greatswords are more specialized
for cutting, and don't thrust well at all.
DB
--
Drifter Bob
--
--
Check out The Primer of Practical Magic,
A new D20 supplement of subtle spells, new classes,
And curious magic artifacts from Jack Vance's
popular Dying Earth genre.
Available on Amazon.com and the Dying Earth website
http://www.dyingearth.com/products.htm
http://www.dyingearth.com/article5.htm
"Cavalorn" <cava...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> Ah, but this is Usenet. The moment you make an observation, even if u
> qualify it heavily, it is assumed that you are stating a position that
> you are prepared to defend to the death, or something. :)
Well , I am generally ;)
And i know of this usenet viciousness only too well... check out the earlier
of the two "primer of practical magic" threads...
DB
Michael Scott Brown
> In article <iWH6c.29227$%06....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> writes
>
> > Bullshit. Learn to fight with such a weapon. Then get back to us.
>
> Right. Like anyone 'learns to fight' with a greatclub. :)
> This is exactly the 'readying the ponderous weapon between blows' stuff
> you object to in GURPS, right?
I think you have a strange idea of what a greatclub is. A club weapon
covers anything from a tonfa to a baseball bat; a greatclub is just a
baseball bat with attitude (a few spikes and some metal banding). I
wouldn't expect the balance to be much different from a bat with weights.
A weapon so big and heavy that it can't be used effectively without
"ponderousness" isn't a weapon by the usual standards of the term.
> > And what does the characteristic time of performing the same repeated
> >stroke with a long and a short object have to do with fighting? Do you
> >fight with a knife by playing Bates? No. Do you fight with a broomstick
by
> >hammering away at someone? No.
>
> Hang on a minute - do you actually think I'm *arguing* with you?
I apply an "acidic Socratic method".
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > and you can cleave his noggin. And what do you know? - there's a
technique
> > for wielding an axe that delivers such pow-pow-pow-pow assaults.
>
> It can also do something a sword *can't* do - hook his shield. Having a
> nice pokey-thingie on the end makes this even more fun, as first you pull
> the shield, then use his counterpull to drive the spike/spearhead/etc.
right
> into him using his own strength, *and* yours (possibly knocking him down
as
> well). How would we model this in D&D, I wonder?
With an attack roll. :)
Might count as an improved-trip variant, too.
You know what's nice - the minute you said "hook the shield", I thought
"and then hit him in the face with the end of the axe" - and then you said
that very thing! You know!
-Michael
Drifter Bob
ARMA, which is arguably the most serious Medieval / Renaissance martial arts
organization in the world, with the endorsement of the late Ewart Oakeshott,
Sydney Anglo and nearly every other major historian and combat expert in the
field, uses steel weapons, wooden wasters, and padded weapons for their
training. Padded weapons are arguably the most important because they are
the only way that full-contact, full - force sparring can be done. Of
course these are lot different from LARP swords, but they are still used.
The only way to reach the top qualification in ARMA is to defeat all the
other free scholars in a round robin using the padded weapons.
> However, without proper supervision and discipline, one can easily learn >
wrong lessons. Steel is sharp and dummy weapons are not - the mecha
> what happens on the impact of the weapon are completely different.
This is true, in a sense. In practice though it works a bit differently
than you are saying. The padded weapons and wasters can effecitvely
simulate the balance and weight of a steel sword, the only real advantage of
the (blunt) steel swords is that they bind more realistically.
The sharps are used to learn proper cutting and edge placement, cutting
things like 2x4s, cardboard tubes, plastic bottles and even sides of beef.
> fighting style to the dummy weapon. Kendo, for instance, uses a lighter
> implement to spar, and is optimized for quick "snaps" rather than power; >
kendo fighter using a sword would muff the first time his sword didn't
Kendo, like the SCA, is a martial sport not a real martial art. The problem
is in the equipment, as you alluded, and the various special rules. All you
need are weapons which have correct shape (not too absurdly wide, and most
importantly with actual edges, instead of being tube shaped) and correct
weight, length and balance, and you have to allow full - contact, full force
sparring. No rules about the lower legs or not striking the head.
If you have that, you can learn quite a bit just from trial and error even
without any instruction at all.
Drifter Bob
> Ignorant jackasses like Gurps' writers assume these Ponderous Weap
> must be Slowly Read-ied to Attack Again as if they were giant
> balls-on-chains or something - but you can easily pound on someone at
> faster than 1/second with an axe ... if you keep the thing in front of
your
> body rather than larking it 'round your head.
You have a good point here. I'd also add the following. Most axes and
hammers and such weapons used for military purposes were lighter than their
civilian counterparts -- exactly the opposite to the assumption made by game
designers. Nobody ever used sledge hammers in combat, (like that ridiculous
drawing of a hammer in the players handbook)
Most real and realistric reproduction maces, axes and war hammers I have
handled weigh around 2-3 lbs just like a sword.
It's also worth noting that most single handed versions of what you might
call "mass weapons" like maces, axes etc. were traditionally used with
shields.
Two handed axes, hammers or maces... your poll axes, halberds etc., were
much more tactically flexible and could basically be deployed like staffs,
and with a variety of unique strategies. They were not, for the most part,
clumsy in the least.
DB
Drifter Bob
"Cavalorn" <cava...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> What would you suggest? Mandatory gladiatorial school for all aspiring
> RPG writers? :)
Sounds like a great idea to me!
DB
--
Michael Scott Brown
> > dispatching a first level fighter on a critical (3-12 > 10). As you did
> > correctly observe, if you absolutely nail someone with the dagger - whi
> > hard to manage, most dagger wounds are superficial - you can do serio
> > harm.
>
> This is an extremely naive statement, and you obviously have very little
> practical experience or knowlege of the field.
Bubba, you *have* been reading the thread, haven't you? Demonstrably
incorrect.
> Once a combattant is close enough to strike with a dagger, there is no
"reach deficit".
"Once", being the operative term. You are much less likely to have the
luxury of picking your targets with a dagger, as you are going to have
momentary openings at best. Consequently, it is absurd to suggest that it
should be *easier* to get criticals (ie; hit vital areas) with a dagger than
swords, which are rather a far sight easier to use to deadly effect. All
hail leverage.
A model that reflects serious damage less frequently is more appropriate
than a model that applies moderate damage with moderate frequency.
The dagger as-statted is *never* capable of putting down a 1st level
fighter in one blow, which can be trumped up as a testament to the
durability of the fighter class, perhaps, but even a basic 2xdamage club
(2d6) can do for one on a critical, and so it seems strange that the dagger
would be denied the privelege of the fortunate take-out.
> In fact once inside the reach of a sword or spear, the dagger is at a
distinct advantage
> vis a vis hitting.
Please. "At the range at which the weapon is meant to be used" you can
hit someone to the best of your ability as it is. The dagger is no more
likely to strike a vital area than your fist.
> As for daggers causing superficial wounds, this is absurd. Knifes cause
> superficial wounds stastically, that being because most knives are
designed
> for things like slicing bread, spreading butter, opening mail, cutting
> string and etc.
Your rant is a complete non sequitur. It is much harder to give someone
a serious injury with a dagger than a sword. Injuries collected in
mutual-dagger fights are *usually* defensive wounds on the limbs, which is
what I was referencing - and one can collect quite a few of these, which
rather clearly establishes how deadly any one of them is. *IF* you actually
nail someone with a dagger (ie; drive it through their torso, don't skitter
off the ribs, and get some good organ damage), then of course this is a
serious injury, as is any such wound from any weapon.
But the extant rules only make that true for commoners.
*Your* proposal also fails to address this.
> Being struck with a stiff 9" or 12" blade is no laughing matter. Why
don't
> you have someone plunge one into your abdomen and you can tell me how
> "pitiful" the weapon is.
<raises hand>
Notice your key terms there:
(a) plunge
(b) abdomen
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, there are weapons (such as swords and axes
and maces) capable of maiming (or even amputating) limbs if they strike them
(nowhere, even, in particular), wheras a dagger must be very precisely
placed in order to cripple or kill.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, if you have a dagger and your foe has a
bloody *stick* of about 5 feet in length, you'll not hurt him.
Compared to serious weapons, daggers *are* pitiful.
However, a pitiful weapon compared to other weapons is still dangerous
to the human body.
That's why we call it a *weapon*, you ignorant buffoon!
> They found that a knife wound from something in the last category (most
like
> a dagger) is considerably more lethal statistically than a gunshot wound
> The FBI did a similar study in the 1950s and again in 1973. The
information
> is available on their website, or used to be. They also estimated that a
> wound from a knife with a "military blade or bayonett" was stastically
more
> lethal than a gunshot wound from a .38 caliber pistol.
And gunshot wounds are not particularly deadly unless precisely placed!
They'd barely rate d4 damage in a D&D system.
Do you have a point?
> So before blurting out all kinds of ignorant statements why don't you try
to
> actually learn something about the subject beforehand.
Remove your head from your ass, kid.
-Michael
Drifter Bob
> On the point of game terms, I concur with your suggestion that a dagger
> wielder diving inside a greatsword wielder's reach and stabbing away
> merrily is, to some extent, performing the equivalent of a grapple,
> *but* I hardly need to point out to you that there is no grabbing
> involved, unlike the usual grapple mechanics.
>
I thnk the grapple rule or some simple variation is the way to go with this.
You provoke an attack of oppotunity rushing in, then make a contested dex or
strength check (you are charging and they are trying to step aside or back)
and if you make it, you are "in the zone" for the dagger, inside their
reach, and there you have the situation where the dagger has a huge
advantage, and the sword has none (unless they have maybe some kind of
special "half-swording" feat)
Isn't there a rule in grapple where weapons under size S get a +4 to hit, or
medium or larger weapons get a -4, or something like that?
by the way, the ancient masters combined dagger fighting with all kinds of
grappling (they also combined grappling with sword fencing)
DB
Justin Bacon
>This brings up another major flaw in not only D&D, but practically every rpg
>combat system in existence (even most crpgs): there is no defensive value to
>any weapon. This is another indication of just how much rpgs copy from each
>other and fail to take into consideration the most simple dynamics of real
>life combat.
I think its more indicative of the fact that most RPGs (and most RPG players)
aren't interested in that level of complexity.
JB
Justin Bacon
>I actually think Gygax did ok for the first effort, he borrowed from the
>miniatures industry at first.. which was fairly close to the laymans state
>of the art for 1975 or whenever... and all his subsequent efforts to make
>things more realistic were ignored and actively fought against by TSR and
>the hyperconservative fan base,
What a fascinating rewrite of history.
Gygax never let the interests or preferences of the fanbase dictate his design.
His infamous Dragon Magazine editorial is pretty indicative. And as for the
"hyperconservative" fanbase, how do you explain the overwhelming success of the
first edition of AD&D? Or the number of other designers whose efforts could
almost be defined, almost universally, as "it's not as stupid as (A)D&D"?
And until he was forced out of the company, he *controlled* TSR. So how could
TSR actively fight against his efforts? Not to mention his post-TSR track
record at game design... none of which showed the notable improvement you claim
we would have seen if Gygax wasn't being actively interfered with by elements
inside TSR.
I laud Gygax for what he accomplished, but I don't kid myself about his
limitations as a designer. The guy never understood the benefits of a unified
resolution mechanic, his work is systematically unfocused as a result of his
obsessions (e.g., polearms), and (IMO) his fantasy worlds are simply banal.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Justin Bacon
>Michael Scott Brown <mbr...@rand.org> wrote in message news:c3dj92$
>
>> D&D uses inflated values to reflect encumbrance!
>
>No offense, if you are serious, but that sounds like a pretty typical D&D
>rationalization... and if it is true, they might want to change that to
>"encumbrance points" or something.
RTFM. This has been explicitly true in every edition of D&D I have ever owned.
And it makes sense, too, because the only thing weight has *ever* been used for
in D&D is encumbrance and heavy lifting. (And weapons will never interact with
the heavy lifting rules except under the most bizarre of circumstances.)
Justni Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Chipacabra
> "Chipacabra" <ch...@efn.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns94B0E540C7...@216.196.105.134...
>> "Michael Scott Brown" <mbr...@rand.org> wrote in
>> news:c3dj92$50l$1...@lumberjack.rand.org:
>>
>> > D&D uses inflated values to reflect encumbrance!
>> >
>>
>> I have a sneaking suspicion that that's just an excuse for bad
>> research.
>
> The original rules *said* as much!
>
So? We're dealing with geeks here, Michael. Remember that we'd much
rather contrive a silly explanation like 'encumbrance' than admit to
being wrong.:)
I'm not really being all that serious, anyway.
Drifter Bob
news:20040319161933...@mb-m04.aol.com...
> Drifter Bob wrote:
> >This brings up another major flaw in not only D&D, but practically eve
>
> I think its more indicative of the fact that most RPGs (and most RPG
players)
> aren't interested in that level of complexity.
Realism and complexity are hardly the same thing.. 3.X D&D is actually
pretty complex, with the bizarre breakdown of the melee round, the multiple
armor classes (touch AC, flatfoot AC) various critical hit rules, grapple
rules, flanking, five foot steps multiple modifiers (fighting defensively)
innumerable combat related feats, etc, etc.
You could easily make a game with quite a simple combat mechanic that
modeled such basic elements of realism as the defensive features of various
weapons.
I've played the Riddle of Steel for example, which is moderatley complex,
but combat goes at least as fast if not faster than D&D combat....
Cavalorn
What *is* your combat experience, out of interest?
Cav
Drifter Bob
--
--
Check out The Primer of Practical Magic,
A new D20 supplement of subtle spells, new classes,
And curious magic artifacts from Jack Vance's
popular Dying Earth genre.
Available on Amazon.com and the Dying Earth website
http://www.dyingearth.com/products.htm
http://www.dyingearth.com/article5.htm
"Michael Scott Brown" <mister...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> > > most dagger wounds are superficial - you can do serio
> >
> > This is an extremely naive statement, and you obviously have very little
> > practical experience or knowlege of the field.
>
> Bubba, you *have* been reading the thread, haven't you?
> Demonstrably incorrect.
Must have missed that, what is your experience then? I recently tested this
exact scenario with no less than the top fencer and instructor at ARMA, in
full - contact, full force sparring using realistic weapons in a documented
event (at the recent Southern Knights seminar in New Orleans).
I have also cited a couple of the research sources where I have done
research into this matter.
What are you basing your claims on?
> > Once a combattant is close enough to strike with a dagger, there is no
> "reach deficit".
>
> "Once", being the operative term. You are much less likely to have t
> luxury of picking your targets with a dagger, as you are going to have
> momentary openings at best. Consequently, it is absurd to suggest that it
> should be *easier* to get criticals (ie; hit vital areas) with a dagger
than
> swords, which are rather a far sight easier to use to deadly effect. All
> hail leverage.
If a dagger is close enough to attack at all, it can strike from a distance
from which it is very difficult to defend against it, especially for someone
armed with a longer weapon. You apparently have little practical experience
with this or you would not be making this statement.
I am a big proponent of the value of reach in RPG's especially, but the fact
is it is not hard at all to close to range with a dagger, and yes, you can
often easily pick your target, like right under their rib cage, into their
throat, their groin, their armpit. You only have to penetrate a few inches
with a thrust to kill. Similarly, you can use a slash or a draw cut to
deliver a fatal cut very quickly.
I have done this many times in sparring and I can easily rush an
inexperienced sword-armed opponent with a dagger. This is also well
understood by the Masters and is amply illustrated in the Fecthbuchs, which
you can check yourself as most of them are online.
> The dagger as-statted is *never* capable of putting down a 1st level
> fighter in one blow, which can be trumped up as a testament to the
> durability of the fighter class, perhaps, but even a basic 2xdamage club
> (2d6) can do for one on a critical, and so it seems strange that the
> would be denied the privelege of the fortunate take-out.
yes, and this is absolutely absurd. An excellent example of how deficient
the D&D combat system is. A dagger is about 100 times more likely to cause
a fatal injury than a tonfa.
> > In fact once inside the reach of a sword or spear, the dagger is at a
> distinct advantage
> > vis a vis hitting.
>
> Please. "At the range at which the weapon is meant to be used" you c
> hit someone to the best of your ability as it is. The dagger is no more
> likely to strike a vital area than your fist.
The difference is (often) that of thrusting versus cutting, and (always)
that of fighting from very close range versus the outside of a swords reach,
say, or a spears. With a sword, particularly a long (two handed) sword, you
often strike at any opening you can get, whenever you can, and cannot
necessarily always deliver a blow of crippling strength or place it in the
ideal place on your targets body.
The closer the weapon the harder it is to get in past the other weapons
reach, but the more power and precision you can strike with. This was why
the Roman Gladius was so successful against the three foot swords of the
Celts in the Classical era...
> > As for daggers causing superficial wounds, this is absurd.
>> Knifes cause superficial wounds stastically, that being because most
> Your rant is a complete non sequitur. It is much harder to give some
> a serious injury with a dagger than a sword.
You should really think about the above statement.
> Injuries collected in
> mutual-dagger fights are *usually* defensive wounds on the limbs, which
Wrong, those are the injuries which stastically occur in knife attacks and
knife fights,...
> *IF* you act
> nail someone with a dagger (ie; drive it through their torso, don't
skitter
> off the ribs, and get some good organ damage), then of course this is a
> serious injury, as is any such wound from any weapon.
The point is you can strike with a little more discretion in this "sword
versus dagger situation", partially because once you are inside the swords
or spears guard, they presumably don't have anything else to defend with.
> But the extant rules only make that true for commoners.
> *Your* proposal also fails to address this.
I told you, I have my own house rules... the above was suggested as a
compromise...
> > Being struck with a stiff 9" or 12" blade is no laughing matter. Why
> > you have someone plunge one into your abdomen and you can tell me
> > "pitiful" the weapon is.
>
> <raises hand>
> Notice your key terms there:
> (a) plunge
> (b) abdomen
>
> Meanwhile, back at the ranch, there are weapons (such as swords an
> and maces) capable of maiming (or even amputating) limbs if they strike
> (nowhere, even, in particular), wheras a dagger must be very precisely
> placed in order to cripple or kill.
It's funny, that in the history of dueling for example, here in New Orleans,
when the duel was meant to be to the first blood and not to the death,
(first blood being the norm) cutting swords were selected over thrusting
weapons precisely because it was beleived by the experienced duelists at the
time that they were less likely to cause fatal or maiming industry. When
Americans first arrived to the town, they started fighting duels with Bowie
knives among other unadvisable weapons (like shotguns and squirrel rifles)
and as a result the fatality rate went up so high that duels became
unpopualr and were eventualy banned.
> Meanwhile, back at the ranch, if you have a dagger and your foe has
> bloody *stick* of about 5 feet in length, you'll not hurt him.
Give me a 20" rondel dagger and you take a 5' broomstick and we'll see how
it turns out... idiot
> Compared to serious weapons, daggers *are* pitiful.
That is an extremely idiotic statement, to put it mildly. You know, not all
Knights carried swords, not all carried lances, but all knights carried
daggers.
> And gunshot wounds are not particularly deadly unless precisely
placed!
> They'd barely rate d4 damage in a D&D system.
> Do you have a point?
Again, you are displaying a rather amazing degree of ignorance. A .38
pistol should do less damage than a Tonfa, or a short bow? You should think
before you write.
> Remove your head from your ass, kid.
Do you have any idea who you are talking to?
DB
Malachias Invictus
> "Cavalorn" <cava...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:aDAKVaEF...@newaeonbooks.demon.co.uk...
> > Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> writes
> > > It always pays to mock the idea that LARP fighting could possibly
be
> > >educational about combat.
> >
> > How do you square that with the tradition of teaching people to fight by
> > using dummy weapons?
>
> You teach people *forms* with dummy weapons, and you can use dummy
> weapons to train the body's muscles to learn the langauge of the weapon.
> However, without proper supervision and discipline, one can easily learn
the
> wrong lessons. Steel is sharp and dummy weapons are not - the mechanics
of
> what happens on the impact of the weapon are completely different.
Learning
> to "fight" with a dummy weapon teaches incorrect habits if you optimize
that
> fighting style to the dummy weapon.
For an SCA example, check out the "wrap shot". Try pulling that off with
sufficient force and proper trajectory against an armored opponent using a
steel blade.
Malachias Invictus
> I apply an "acidic Socratic method".
I am going to have to throw that one past my old Torts professor; I think he
would like it.
Malachias Invictus
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > It can also do something a sword *can't* do - hook his shield. Having a
> > nice pokey-thingie on the end makes this even more fun, as first you
pull
> > the shield, then use his counterpull to drive the spike/spearhead/etc.
> > right into him using his own strength, *and* yours (possibly knocking
> > him down as well). How would we model this in D&D, I wonder?
> With an attack roll. :)
> Might count as an improved-trip variant, too.
That could be interesting. You could even have some sort of Disarm variant.
> You know what's nice - the minute you said "hook the shield", I thought
> "and then hit him in the face with the end of the axe" - and then you said
> that very thing! You know!
Ugly move, that.
Justin Bacon
>"Justin Bacon" <tria...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040319161933...@mb-m04.aol.com...
>> Drifter Bob wrote:
>> >This brings up another major flaw in not only D&D, but practically eve
>> >combat system in existence (even most crpgs): there is no defensive va
>> >any weapon. This is another indication of just how much rpgs copy fr
>> >other and fail to take into consideration the most simple dynamics of
>> >life combat.
>>
>> I think its more indicative of the fact that most RPGs (and most RPG
>> players) aren't interested in that level of complexity.
>
>Realism and complexity are hardly the same thing..
Uh... You just got done suggesting that D&D should include a whole new class of
AC modifiers which will need to be applied only in a limited set of
circumstances (which would, presumably, be defined by a set of rules). How is
that *not* adding complexity to the system?
>3.X D&D is actually
>pretty complex, with the bizarre breakdown of the melee round,
Okay, I'll bite: What "bizarre breakdown of the melee round"?
>the multiple armor classes (touch AC, flatfoot AC)
Yeah, but those are all based off of three simple rules:
1. Your Armor Class is equal to 10 + all your relevant AC bonuses.
2. Against touch attacks only your Dex and deflection bonuses to AC are
relevant.
3. When flat-footed, you don't gain AC bonuses from Dex.
These are all simple and intuitive. Where's the complexity? Plus, these are all
calculated ahead of time specifically to make it as simple as possible.
>various critical hit rules,
There's only one critical hit rule.
The rest of your complaints are similarly silly. So we'll start with these.
Justin Bacon
tria...@aol.com
Michael Scott Brown
> Isn't there a rule in grapple where weapons under size S get a +4 to hit,
or
> medium or larger weapons get a -4, or something like that?
No. While discussing grappling on a D&D board, perhaps you would do
well to, say review the rules?
> by the way, the ancient masters combined dagger fighting with all kinds
of
> grappling (they also combined grappling with sword fencing)
Everyone combined things with grappling. It's fun to knock people down.
But grappling makes daggers work a whole lot better - if you're in close
like that you can do naughty things like push your foe onto your weapon,
which has an entirely different effect than the
slash-the-forearm-and-wait-for-the-blood-loss-to-kick-in technique.
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> In article <clJ6c.29448$%06....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> Michael Scott Brown <mister...@earthlink.net> writes
> >snip<
>
> What *is* your combat experience, out of interest?
I have essentially done ... everything. Taekwondo, Judo, Hapkido, Wing
Chun, Aikido, Jeet Kun Do, Escrima, Kendo, Rapier-and-dagger,
broadsword-and-shield, knife-fighting ... about 20 years of brawling for
fun in one fashion or another, not to mention a lifetime of academic
research for my personal pleasure, a dabbling in body armor design,
professional association with special forces commandos, a job that studies
warfare 24/7, and seriously powerful physics and engineering powers that
allow me to talk to biomechanics and metallurgy.
In short, I know how things work. And why.
-Michael
Drifter "Bob"
Michael Scott Brown <mbr...@rand.org> wrote in message
news:c3g67s$hn5$1...@lumberjack.rand.org...
>
> I have essentially done ... everything. Taekwondo, Judo, Hapkido,
Wing
> Chun, Aikido, Jeet Kun Do, Escrima, Kendo, Rapier-and-dagger,
> broadsword-and-shield, knife-fighting ... about 20 years of brawling for
> fun in one fashion or another, not to mention a lifetime of academic
> research for my personal pleasure, a dabbling in body armor design,
> professional association with special forces commandos, a job that studies
> warfare 24/7, and seriously powerful physics and engineering powers that
> allow me to talk to biomechanics and metallurgy.
>
> In short, I know how things work. And why.
In what manner, and with whom did you study "broadsword" and shield?
DB
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.593 / Virus Database: 376 - Release Date: 2/20/2004
Drifter "Bob"
Malachias Invictus <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> For an SCA example, check out the "wrap shot". Try pulling that off with
> sufficient force and proper trajectory against an armored opponent using a
> steel blade.
>
Well, the SCA does some strange things, because SCA combat is a combat sport
not a martial art. You can't strike below the thigh, people crawling around
on their knees. One of the biggest problems are their weapons. Rataan
sticks emulate staffs pretty well, but not swords. They have no edge
geometry and aren't weighed or balanced properly (especially when they put
those huge basket hilts on them)
Ironically however, the infamous SCA wrap shot might actually have some
basis in reality. I saw a real interesting article by a Viking re-enactment
group in Norway which was talking about different ways that false-edge cuts
could be done with those viking type swords. Against someone whose only
defense was a shield, something like that wrap shot may have actually been
employed.
Drifter "Bob"
Malachias Invictus <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > You know what's nice - the minute you said "hook the shield", I thought
> > "and then hit him in the face with the end of the axe" - and then you
said
> > that very thing! You know!
>
> Ugly move, that.
I saw a film clip of an SCA fight one time where one guy hooked a shield
with a bill, pulled it down, and then thrust into the guys face so hard that
he actually knocked him off his feet.
Drifter "Bob"
Michael Scott Brown <mbr...@rand.org> wrote in message news:c3g5u5$hl5
> Everyone combined things with grappling. It's fun to knock people
down.
> But grappling makes daggers work a whole lot better - if you're in close
> like that you can do naughty things like push your foe onto your weapon,
> which has an entirely different effect than the
> slash-the-forearm-and-wait-for-the-blood-loss-to-kick-in technique.
Again, I think you are thinking in terms of modern knife fighting with this.
A lot of medieval daggers didn't even have cutting edges at all, or had
minimal cutting edges, and were almost exclusively intended for thrusting.
In fact most of the dagger work I've seen represented in the fechtbuchs,
including the stuff we practied from Fiore at the Southern Knigths event
recently, was mostly based on Rondel daggers, of a type which were usually
edgeless or traingular "bladed" like some smallswords. With these weapons
there is no slash the forearm technique, it's all go for the kill.
You can see some examples here in this review of Flos Dueletorum
http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Pagoda/8187/Fiore.htm
Michael Scott Brown
> > "Once", being the operative term. You are much less likely to have
t
> > luxury of picking your targets with a dagger, as you are going to have
> > momentary openings at best. Consequently, it is absurd to suggest that
it
> > should be *easier* to get criticals (ie; hit vital areas) with a dagger
than
> > swords, which are rather a far sight easier to use to deadly effect.
All
> > hail leverage.
>
> If a dagger is close enough to attack at all, it can strike from a
distance
> from which it is very difficult to defend against it, especially for
someone
> armed with a longer weapon. You apparently have little practical
experience
> with this or you would not be making this statement.
This magical power you have of talking out your ass is amusing. You
are making some extraordinarily bad analytical mistakes! *If* the dagger
is close enough to attack successfully, then you can attack successfully.
That is what you just said! This is tautological, and it is *boring*. The
point is, you don't get close enough to attack *well* very often with a
dagger when you are confronting a swordsman, and so what you're going to
get is a high frequency of superficial injuries with the occasional serious
stabbing.
As I find myself compelled to repeat: this is something best
represented by *in*frequent but relatively severe criticals rather than the
extant rules, much less your own buggered suggestion.
> I have done this many times in sparring and I can easily rush an
> inexperienced sword-armed opponent with a dagger.
Congratulations on demonstrating that skill can make up for reach.
<applause>
Do let us know when you find someone who actually disagrees with that
concept.
You are once again speaking to irrelvancies.
> yes, and this is absolutely absurd. An excellent example of how
deficient
> the D&D combat system is. A dagger is about 100 times more likely to
cause
> a fatal injury than a tonfa.
D&D is about who gets banged up so badly they can't fight anymore - the
relative lethality of variations in injury is not so much abstracted as it
is completely ignored. This isn't a "deficiency" for a cinematic fantasy
game. People get knocked down and .. put down ... or they get rescued and
healed.
I haven't looked at a tonfa's stats, but they should be around a
d4/20x2 compared to other weapons. When swung they won't hit as hard as
baseball bats (a club equivalent), but they can still break (some) bones
and a "punch" with one (for lack of a better term) is a lethal quality
attack. Note that if you stat a dagger as d4/20x3 then you trivially
manage to ensure that "big" hits with daggers are potentially lethal to
full warrior types even as the best blow of a tonfa is not (though, just
between you, me, and the gatepost, I would *not* want a tonfa driven into
my solar pelexus; it's bad enough with fists!).
> The closer the weapon the harder it is to get in past the other weapons
> reach, but the more power and precision you can strike with. This was
why
> the Roman Gladius was so successful against the three foot swords of the
> Celts in the Classical era...
<ahem> SHIELDS <ahem> FORMATIONS <ahem>
A Celt will beat the living shit out of a Roman in an arena with just
their respective swords.
> > Injuries collected in
> > mutual-dagger fights are *usually* defensive wounds on the limbs, which
>
> Wrong, those are the injuries which stastically occur in knife attacks
and
> knife fights,...
We appear to be talking past each other. You appear to be describing a
mystical super-weapon that is just shy of a shortsword's length and is
*never* used to attack a limb, and calling it alone a "dagger". I find
this highly amusing, given that there is rather a lot more range to the
size and uses of daggers than this. We had a regular here named 'Seebach'
who, before he reformed and we all group hugged, was infamous for declaring
victory by redefining terms....
> > *IF* you act> nail someone with a dagger (ie; drive it through their
torso, don't skitter
> > off the ribs, and get some good organ damage), then of course this is a
> > serious injury, as is any such wound from any weapon.
>
> The point is you can strike with a little more discretion in this "sword
> versus dagger situation", partially because once you are inside the
swords
> or spears guard, they presumably don't have anything else to defend with.
And once you beat aside a sword with your own, they presumably don't
have anything else to defend with, either.
TAUTOLOGIES ARE BORING.
> It's funny, that in the history of dueling for example, here in New
Orleans,
> when the duel was meant to be to the first blood and not to the death,
> (first blood being the norm) cutting swords were selected over thrusting
> weapons precisely because it was beleived by the experienced duelists at
the
> time that they were less likely to cause fatal or maiming industry.
It's hardly funny at all. Medical science at the time could not deal
with the infection caused by piercing wounds, and thus taking one was a
*slow* death even when the attack did not deliver the stopping power to end
the fight on the spot. This sad reality is one of the factors that drove
the thrusting style use of the rapier to be favored over its original
broadsword-like employment - with a slashing attack, you could strike the
arm, disable your foe, and next year you would have to fight him all over
again once he had healed.
> > Meanwhile, back at the ranch, if you have a dagger and your foe has
> > bloody *stick* of about 5 feet in length, you'll not hurt him.
>
> Give me a 20" rondel dagger and you take a 5' broomstick and we'll see
how
> it turns out... idiot
<yawn> Yes, by all means, give yourself a near-shortsword and bravely
shorten a broom.
Ooh!
Tough!
Now, I must admit, that was a valiant effort at avoiding the point, but
I think I have to call shenanigans on you. But let's do make clear that by
*stick* I do not mean a long pencil, or a pair of yardsticks taped
together, or anything of balsa-wood ... but rather an implement heavy
enough to serve as a decent staff.
> > Compared to serious weapons, daggers *are* pitiful.
>
> That is an extremely idiotic statement, to put it mildly. You know, not
all
> Knights carried swords, not all carried lances, but all knights carried
daggers.
Unfortunately, the only person making an idiotic statement is you.
Your observation about the ubiquitous of daggers - which was not in any way
confined to knights alone - is utterly irrelevant to the point at hand!
Does their popularity say *anything* about their quality as a lethal weapon
compared to other serious fighting weapons? No, not a thing, and thus
raising this point as an argument in favor of your (indefensible) position
is an incorrect decision suggesting that you are not very intelligent at
all, for all that you appear to be broadly knowledgeable on this one topic.
Since you raised the issue of knights, you would do well to observe -and be
shamed by - the fact that knights did not make war with their daggers as a
first choice! Where is the cavalry charge of dagger-weilding crusaders?
Where is the massed infantry unit of dagger fighters?
Exactly.
The main weapons of the medieval warrior are the sword, the axe, the
mace, the spear (and all their awful permutations). The dagger is a weapon
of *last resort*, to be used in close-quarters fighting (however that
unfortunate circumstance might come to be), as well as to coup the fallen
(a dagger will do for helm's eyeslit better than a mace), and as a tool to
free oneself of inconvenient leather entanglements. They're light enough
to be essentially "free" when considering the weight of one's arms, and
therefore they are a no-brainer *backup* weapon.
But *none* of these issues suggest that the dagger is a weapon even
remotely as effective in combat as a sword, axe, or mace! When stacked
against the weapons that offer reach *and* mechanical advantage, the dagger
rates dead last.
> > And gunshot wounds are not particularly deadly unless precisely
placed!
> > They'd barely rate d4 damage in a D&D system.
> > Do you have a point?
>
> Again, you are displaying a rather amazing degree of ignorance. A .38
> pistol should do less damage than a Tonfa, or a short bow?
Bubba, the only ignorant slut in this conversation is you. A *martial
artist* (albeit, olympic quality) is more lethal than a .38 pistol. The
energy delivered by a roundhouse kick from a member of {a previous year's}
Korea's olympic TaeKwonDo team will do enough blunt trauma damage to have a
50% chance of killing a person on the spot. Yes. Fifty. Percent. Instant.
Death. This is rather a lot more effective than a gunshot. Surgery can
save a gunshot victim. Often. There's no coming back from that kind of
blunt trauma. Your organs are pulverized.
And arrows *are* more lethal than many handgun wounds!
Sounds to me like someone needs to do a little research on a concept
called "stopping power". It takes a goodly brace of bullets to put a
person down *unless they hit something critical*. This is not to suggest
that being shot isn't bad for you, of course - but there is a vast body of
experience demonstrating that people can take hits and keep on ticking;
there are plenty of places to put a bullet that simply hurt - and
adrenaline sometimes allows them to be completely ignored.
There is an equally vast body of experience indicating that some people
take hits and die on the spot - but that's true of any *weapon*, isn't it?
I mean, wouldn't it be *amazing* if it turned out that if you put a knife,
or a bullet, or a rock, or an exposed nail on a board, into someone brain,
it might kill them instantly? But that doesn't always happen when one
person tries to kill another with a weapon, is it?
The lethality of a weapon in D&D measures how much *stopping power* it
provides; how precisely it has to be aimed in order to do serious harm.
Guns are dangerous weapons in combat not because of the mighty damaging
power of the individual bullet, but because where there is one bullet,
there is a whole magazine more.
In D&D, a common person has 1d4 hit points, and a basic Warrior has
4-5, and a full Fighter has 10. You will be able to observe, I think, that
this means that light handguns are quite dangerous for commoners, and two
hits can take a basic fighting man down (but not always) - and in either
case, there is a chance the attack was aimed at something vital (whether
you do /x2 or /x3), at which point either sort of individual can be
instantly mortally injured.
d4 is just about right for the light gun. Knock up to d6 for the
higher caliber handbuns, raise the die one increment for machine pistol
versions (ie; 9mm: d6; .45: d8), and use a d10 for rifles and you're
golden. Spice the soup by playing with x2 & x3 settings for criticals and
you have a decent gun menagerie. .22s might be d4/x2 while more energetic
handguns might warrant d4/x3.
> > Remove your head from your ass, kid.
>
> Do you have any idea who you are talking to?
Someone who does not understand logic. Those who cannot master logic
will be treated like the intellectual children they are. <shrug>
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > In short, I know how things work. And why.
>
> In what manner, and with whom did you study "broadsword" and shield?
Are you having one of those attacks of nomenclatural idiocy again?
-Michael
Michael Scott Brown
> > However, without proper supervision and discipline, one can easily
learn >
> wrong lessons. Steel is sharp and dummy weapons are not - the mecha
> > what happens on the impact of the weapon are completely different.
>
> This is true, in a sense. In practice though it works a bit differently
> than you are saying. The padded weapons and wasters can effecitvely
> simulate the balance and weight of a steel sword, the only real advantage
of
> the (blunt) steel swords is that they bind more realistically.
> The sharps are used to learn proper cutting and edge placement, cutting
> things like 2x4s, cardboard tubes, plastic bottles and even sides of
beef.
We don't disagree on anything on this topic, I think. Precisely
because we don't want to fight a blood sport to train a man, we have to use
carefully calibrated approximations each of which falls short in some
respect. Taken as a *whole*, good training is accomplished. Yipping about
in the forest with a stick doesn't rate what I consider a controlled
learning environment.
> > fighting style to the dummy weapon. Kendo, for instance, uses a
lighter
> > implement to spar, and is optimized for quick "snaps" rather than
power; >
> kendo fighter using a sword would muff the first time his sword didn't
>
> Kendo, like the SCA, is a martial sport not a real martial art. The
problem
> is in the equipment, as you alluded, and the various special rules.
Yup. It's very important when exploring such things to keep a keen eye
on the difference between where the martial stops and the sport starts.
Kendo is a great way to learn some of the basic physical forms of the
japanese sword, but there is a profound lack of slashing in its practice!
-Michael