tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post981494696423081531..comments2024-03-29T04:24:58.321+08:00Comments on Monsters and Manuals: Swords and Arrows, and DragonslayingUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-17472285749392594702013-10-03T05:40:00.713+08:002013-10-03T05:40:00.713+08:00Good point about the weight of the ammo. Maybe arr...Good point about the weight of the ammo. Maybe arrows = 3 per cn, sling shot = 1 per cn? noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-17920835754726666762013-10-01T08:55:52.307+08:002013-10-01T08:55:52.307+08:00In the example of slings vs. bows, I'd say a b...In the example of slings vs. bows, I'd say a big advantage of bows is weight of ammo. I'd make 60 arrows equal the encumbrance of 15 stones or 30 bullets. <br /><br />Smooth stones of the right size for slinging aren't everywhere - some effort may be needed to find them. That means time, which means random encounter checks. Fired clay spheres are ok but cost money - removing the sling's supposed advantage. Improper stones would give an attack roll penalty because they veer off unexpectedly when slung. <br /><br />You can fit more bullets in a pouch because while they're the same weight, they're smaller so less encumbering. But bullets must be purchased or made, hence not freely available, and also while they may not break on impact they could easily be buried in an enemy or in the ground or tree and so they're just as difficult to recover as arrows are. <br /><br />Anyway, now the sling + ammo is actually heavier than the bow + ammo, which is balanced out by the sling being cheaper and more concealable. The sling also has an "infinite free ammo" feature but with an attack roll penalty - not the best option. <br /><br />If your initiative system allows for it, you could let bow-users hold a shot for a round or two, giving them a free shot at the start of a combat if they know it's coming (bashing through a door, ambush, etc). Crossbow users would be able to "hold a shot" for much longer - perhaps this, along with the extra range and maybe a +1 to hit, would balance out a longer reload time. <br /><br />Plus, sling with rough stone having -1 to hit would nicely balance a crossbow with +1 to hit. <br /><br />I've heard slings have similar, if not surpassing, range compared to bows. Crossbow of course have superior range. I think you could get away with having one range for thrown weapons, one for bows and slings, and one for crossbows. <br /><br />---<br /><br />Related to this, melee weapons can be balanced against each other by offering a throwing range, reach for pole weapons, offhand use for light weapons, choice of one- or two-handed use for medium weapons. The big problem I keep running into is that (6'-7') spears qualify for everything. They're a super weapon! I don't need everyone running around with slings and spears. And I want to limit the extra house rules, so ...<br /><br />You know. Work in progress. 1d30http://1d30.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-17628013384565233152013-09-19T06:27:15.269+08:002013-09-19T06:27:15.269+08:00Interesting post (and great blog!) but I think you...Interesting post (and great blog!) but I think you miss a few genuine advantages of swords.<br /><br />First, they give greater reach than most "hand weapons". An one-handed sword is (generally) significantly longer than a one-handed battleaxe or mace, and has a much longer offensive area - perhaps the best part of a metre or more versus a few inches. Most importantly, that cutting edge can be deployed with the flick of a wrist, which avoids the swordsman having to expose his arm to a counterstrike. A mace- or axe-wielder has no choice. "Don't strike by bending your elbow" is one of the basic principles of sabre fencing, for good reason. If you do, you expose your forearm to quick counter-attacks. And a sword's long cutting edge makes it a better bet than an axe or mace if the fight ends up in grappling. You can grab an axe-haft more easily than a sword's blade. <br /><br />Second, a sword is more versatile. It can cut and thrust, and the latter allows it to take full advantage of the reach advantage. A lunging swordsman could hope to run an axeman through while the latter was still "winding up". <br /><br />Third, a sword offers much greater protection to its wielder's hand, through quillons at the very least and a basket hilt at best, as well as through the fact that there's no harmless haft. If you are wielding a bludgeon or an axe against a swordsman, your fingers are at far greater risk than his. There's a (hyperbolic) example in one of Moorcock's Elric books, when Elric slides Stormbringer down the haft of an axe, sending fingers flying. But it underscores a real advantage.<br /><br />Plate armour (with gauntlets) negates most of this. But up until that stage, a swordsman has the edge (and the point). A shield also changes things; a swordsman and a mace-man are more evenly matched when they both have shields to parry with.<br /><br />How to reflect all this in a game? I think a swordsman should get an advantage over opponents armed with other hand weapons (or even spears), both offensively or defensively, so long as those opponents are without heavy armour or a shield. That advantage might be quite considerable (+2? I'm not familiar with D&D mechanics), allowing sword-armed young aristocrats to feel quite safe on nights out on the town, despite the streets being full of thugs and bravos with daggers and cudgels. Should the same young aristocrats stumble into a raiding party of heavily armoured goblin soldiers with shields (Tolkien's Uruk-hai, for example), that sense of security would evaporate all too quickly ...<br /><br />And there would be other implications. Swords would confer status *by dint of their mechanical virtues* in urban and other civilian settings. Can anyone carry one? Or just the high-born? Or do only the high-born generally carry them because they're expensive? Might adventures start off as bravos with cudgels who have to watch out for drunken aristos when "off duty"? Affording swords might be worth a few low-level adventures. And so on.JCnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-52242150921212206692013-09-19T02:49:08.624+08:002013-09-19T02:49:08.624+08:00True.True.Necropraxishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12716340801054739658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-90816123654650922622013-09-19T02:42:57.944+08:002013-09-19T02:42:57.944+08:00Well, because your 6th level fighter can kill shit...Well, because your 6th level fighter can kill shitloads of 1 HD orcs and slay trolls like a mighty hero. The power progression and change of dynamics is still there, but it just manifests itself slightly differently. noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-77595084366371694362013-09-19T02:35:46.195+08:002013-09-19T02:35:46.195+08:00noisms wrote: It's worth considering that alth...noisms wrote: <i>It's worth considering that although, say, a 6th level fighter would be doing 6d6 damage per round, that means 6 HD monsters would probably last about as long as a 1 HD orc lasts against a 1st level fighter, and vice versa. Combat would roughly stay about the level of dangerousness and speed as at 1st level over the course of a campaign.</i><br /><br />I wonder if this is not a bug rather than a feature though. It seems some degree in change of dynamics is important, otherwise why not just stay first level fighting 1 HD opponents forever? Though for sure it's not exactly the same thing, there are shades of the 3E escalating difficulty classes (to make up some numbers, first level characters making +1 checks against DC 11 compared to higher level characters making +5 checks against DC 15).Necropraxishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12716340801054739658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-76966356748245687282013-09-19T02:34:29.608+08:002013-09-19T02:34:29.608+08:00A lot of D&D rules are very profound the more ...A lot of D&D rules are very profound the more you think about them, and are open to lots of possibilities. I can't tell whether this is due to genuine profundity or just because we are nerds and nerds will discover profundity through obsession even where it isn't there in the first place.noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-42819948008434130412013-09-19T02:30:28.077+08:002013-09-19T02:30:28.077+08:00I realize this will be a matter of taste, but thes...I realize this will be a matter of taste, but these consumable resource dice don't feel the same as 4E encounter powers or surges to me because they don't enable things that otherwise wouldn't be accomplishable (such as some crazy whirlwind attack encounter power or the recovery of HP), but rather provide bonuses to things that can always be attempted. An attack +2d6 in bonus dice (for example) can still fail, while a later attack in the bottom of the ninth with 1 HP left and no bonus dice could come up a natural 20. So the ultimate impression does not seem as dissociated to me.<br /><br />This, to me, feels more like a system that represents fatigue and effort. I conceptualize HP the same way, actually, and so HP also don't feel dissociated to me.Necropraxishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12716340801054739658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-11007624431312365712013-09-19T02:13:59.247+08:002013-09-19T02:13:59.247+08:00Another issue worth bearing in mind is that fighte...Another issue worth bearing in mind is that fighters are still one-trick ponies in this system. Magic users and clerics are still interesting because they can do more interesting things. I don't think the lure of being able to cast spells is easily outweighed. noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-1234369377269083412013-09-19T02:12:03.116+08:002013-09-19T02:12:03.116+08:00I think it's definitely worth further thought ...I think it's definitely worth further thought and play testing. noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-2281642928467040622013-09-19T02:09:25.598+08:002013-09-19T02:09:25.598+08:00Yeah, I'm not sure I'm actually advocating...Yeah, I'm not sure I'm actually advocating this system -- I just said that it would be a superior way of adapting the Chainmail rules to D&D (which was the ostensible approach of Men and Magic but which, IMO, got botched in the process of integrating the two systems).<br /><br />I agree with noisms that the arbitrary "once per combat" 4E-style stuff sets a bad precedent for other dissociated mechanics to follow along. Of course, I'm of the opinion that Hit Points as originally devised are also a dissociated mechanic, so maybe that ship has already sailed.<br /><br />In any case, while I know that fetishizing "balance" is a bugbear of the OSR, Brendan's "fireball" example is a good way to remind ourselves of how screwed Magic Users would be under this proposed system without some additional boost to their abilities.<br /><br />On the other hand: one of the complaints about D&D is that Fighters become ineffectual relative to MUs as they both level up. This system makes no changes to Fighters at first level, but adds to their efficacy over time. It also gives non-fighters a weak boost over time (i.e. damage equal to Fighting Capacity). [I would note, as an aside, that in OD&D high-level non-Fighting Men could also engage multiple 1HD opponents in a round, per their Fighting Capacity -- I'd lobby to bring back this feature as well under the proposed system.]<br /><br />So maybe it actually balances things out? There are even some circumstances in which MUs' and Clerics' spell-using abilities are in fact enhanced by the new increased damage rules: because combat is generally sped up (fewer rounds of combat needed to deplete a monster's HP), spells with short durations are now more effective. E.g., Hold Person gives your guys a free attack on the target: when that attack can deal multiple dice of damage, the spell looks a lot more impressive.Picadorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01244353406711565712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-57920873356793520012013-09-19T01:51:53.003+08:002013-09-19T01:51:53.003+08:00I'm a big fan of two-handed weapons giving +1 ...I'm a big fan of two-handed weapons giving +1 to attack. That makes them more effective vs. heavy armor (verisimilitude) and mirrors the shield's -1 to AC (balance), making the "shield vs. two-handed weapon" choice one of straightforward defence vs. offence. In a game where bonuses to attack are few and far between (e.g. no Strength bonus, few magical weapons), that +1 is a big deal.<br /><br />As soon as we start talking about mapping HP damage to weapon size, we're back into the weird incoherence of the "one successful attack roll = one connecting blow / hit points = physical wound capacity" system we grew up with. Much better to give a bonus to attack, representing the various combat advantages bestowed by using a large weapon with two hands (e.g. superior reach, control, and armor piercing ability).Picadorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01244353406711565712noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-37784687223984275282013-09-18T23:33:51.589+08:002013-09-18T23:33:51.589+08:00That feels a bit 4th edition "surgey" to...That feels a bit 4th edition "surgey" to me, but I'd like to playtest this and other variations, for sure. <br /><br />It's worth considering that although, say, a 6th level fighter would be doing 6d6 damage per round, that means 6 HD monsters would probably last about as long as a 1 HD orc lasts against a 1st level fighter, and vice versa. Combat would roughly stay about the level of dangerousness and speed as at 1st level over the course of a campaign. noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-65355819443456641422013-09-18T23:06:20.417+08:002013-09-18T23:06:20.417+08:00This would still allow the sort of "beheading...This would still allow the sort of "beheading the dragon" stunts, but would require players to think before blowing their resources, and thus maintain combat tension.Necropraxishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12716340801054739658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-63130008682001718202013-09-18T23:05:01.870+08:002013-09-18T23:05:01.870+08:00A thought: as your post, but stick with 1d6 weapon...A thought: as your post, but stick with 1d6 weapon damage, and give fighters a number of bonus dice equal to their level which could be spent over the course of a given encounter (and would recover after taking a short rest). This would moderate the effect of a fighter-fireball per round (which, let's be honest, is probably too much if you want to not drift the game too much from basic assumptions). Dice could be spent to add to attack, defence, or damage on a round by round basis as desired, but would be consumed when used.Necropraxishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12716340801054739658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-46577626588398440762013-09-18T19:54:17.411+08:002013-09-18T19:54:17.411+08:00Interesting question, and one I think I'll e...Interesting question, and one I think I'll elaborate on in a blog post...noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-75877206138692658902013-09-18T16:59:04.686+08:002013-09-18T16:59:04.686+08:00Fair enough - my 'expertise' in this goes ...Fair enough - my 'expertise' in this goes about as far as looking at old suits of armour in castles and watching films, so I'm not going to argue with people who know more! That said though, it's kind of beside the point to me which particular weapon was more effective - the point being that some weapons were more effective than others, and hence combatants gravitated towards them (whether that was swords over spears or spears over swords!). As I understood your post, you want to give players incentives to make hard-nosed choices about weapons - and with that being the case, I'm struggling to understand why you don't just incentivise the weapons you want with higher damage, rather than a bunch of other considerations. Not a criticism of your approach, just a failure of comprehension on my part!Timnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-85194175610733981572013-09-18T15:02:39.871+08:002013-09-18T15:02:39.871+08:00I understand what you mean, but I think the mistak...I understand what you mean, but I think the mistake is in rationalising it. It's not that a dagger and a two-handed sword do the same amount of <i>damage</i>. It's that they reduce an opponent's hit points at the same rate on average. That means something different. <br /><br />I am persuaded there needs to be an exception for 2-handed weapons, though, to make the choice of forgoing a shield interesting. I'm not sure I like using d8 for damage. Especially if fighters are going to be doing x dice of damage per level: 2-handed weapons doing d8 damage would be monstrous in that system. noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-74566510068151683652013-09-18T14:58:15.090+08:002013-09-18T14:58:15.090+08:00I didn't think of that, but yes, it is a bit l...I didn't think of that, but yes, it is a bit like Rolemaster in that respect. The Rolemaster combat system is brilliant. noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-77511917744126186022013-09-18T14:57:06.434+08:002013-09-18T14:57:06.434+08:00I know, I was making a funny. I know, I was making a funny. noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-2103119105559036052013-09-18T14:39:32.528+08:002013-09-18T14:39:32.528+08:00It is a spam robot. Just delete it.It is a spam robot. Just delete it.jbeltmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02264520619277158883noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-51003310742643932122013-09-18T12:17:02.980+08:002013-09-18T12:17:02.980+08:00Magic swords are certainly an interesting point in...Magic swords are certainly an interesting point in this context. D&D places a special emphasis on them, especially when you incorporate rules for intelligent swords.<br /><br />Still, I don't know if that, or the other points here, change my mind on d6 damage for all weapons. Even with some of these specialty uses discussed, it's still hard for me to swallow that a dagger -- hell, make it a penknife -- deals out as much damage as a two-handed sword.<br /><br />The rationales of a dagger having more thrusts or swipe than a two-handed sword in a round, or that a knife landing in the right location can kill someone no matter its size, don't really matter to me. I think video game designers have this right: by giving each weapon advantages and disadvantages, you force the player to consider trade-offs, to focus on certain strengths and try to minimize weaknesses. I think some of the suggestions Noism listed work in this regard, but at the end of the day, players buy weapons to kill monsters. If it doubles as a can-opener, that's nice, but for every can it opens there's ten monsters to be dispatched.<br /><br />House rules attempt to get around this, but since one advantage of d6-for-all is simplicity, why then muddle things up to fix what's easily fixed? Is it really so difficult to just say, in exchange for foregoing a shield and the ability to haul out of the dungeon a little more gp, you get to roll a d8 for damage. Seems clean to me, gives players a straightforward calculation to make when equipping their player, and makes a basic amount of sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-65185929760057084902013-09-18T06:58:00.882+08:002013-09-18T06:58:00.882+08:00Swords are still awesome because magic swords are ...Swords are still awesome because magic swords are the magic weapon you're most likely going to find. How many Axes +2 are there compared to Swords +1, +3 vs. Magic-Users (or all the other permutations of magic sword ...)? So first level adventurers really shouldn't spend money on swords, but once they find a magic sword they should absolutely prefer that to all else, because it will do more damage and be more prestigious.<br /><br />Plus, magic swords preserve the Fighting-Man's combat superiority, because only he can use it in conjunction with plate armor and a shield (Thieves can maybe use magic swords ... but without shields and plate and with d4 hit dice they get hacked up pretty quickly in the front, as I've been forced to admit over and over again with my own characters).<br /><br />Thus, magic swords allow you to have your cake and eat it too with a universal d6 damage game where swords are still badass.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-42793950468197792432013-09-18T06:53:51.747+08:002013-09-18T06:53:51.747+08:00Reading about this reminds me a lot of MERP/Rolema...Reading about this reminds me a lot of MERP/Rolemaster, where your "Weapon Skill" was essentially a pool that you could distribute into multiple attacks or a single ridiculously strong one (once your skill got high, that is) and IIRC, damage was weapon-independent, what weapon type did influence was what kind of critical you caused.Thomas M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13248298143309606444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-15457455479761832682013-09-18T06:42:38.491+08:002013-09-18T06:42:38.491+08:00Heh, old school hack deals with this quite well.
...Heh, old school hack deals with this quite well.<br /><br />I would agree with you on this Noism, and keep it relatively simple.<br /><br />Swords can be used to impress, bows can be used as bow drill to help start fires, etc, it all comes down to role playing.Matthew Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06954050440829792514noreply@blogger.com