alternative weapon system

[idksocrates]

I've always noticed in movies that even if someone is trained very well with a weapon, be it their hands, knives, polearms, they tend to do well against certain types of weapons and badly against others.

For instance, even the best unarmed fighters are at a disadvatage when an opponent has any type of weapon. I don't want to penalize unarmed strike too much, however, because it would discourage monks.

I am taking some influence from video games such as Fire Emblem and Soul CaliburII, where there are weapon triangles that grant advatages and disadvatages.

First, I would give every type of melee weapon a range: Short, Medium, Long. Virtually all light weapons would be short, most one handed weapons Medium, and many two handed weapons Long. Reach weapons would be given a special category called Reach.

I'm thinking that people can choose to go into either Short, Medium, or Long fighting stance, but takes a penalty for using a weapon that is not of that stance, maybe -2 for every category away (so if a fighter is using short stance, he would be fine using a Kukri, but take a -2 for using a Longsword, or a -4 for using a Spear).
If when two people are engaged in melee, they gain bonuses to attack if fighting someone who has an inferior stance, and the person with an inferior stance takes a penalty. Short beats Long, Long beats Medium, Medium beats short. I'm thinking a +2 bonus on attack rolls if they have an advantage in stance, and a -2 on attack rolls if at a disadvatage. So a fighter using a Shortsword in short stance would get a +2 bonus against a Warrior with a Halbred in Long stance. Likewise, the Warrior is taking a -2 penalty on attack rolls to hit the fighter.

Comments would be most appreciative.

[squishycube]

Well, this is interesting. But could you elaborate a bit more? You didn't explain how reach weapons work and also, why wouldn't a Fighter always choose the fighting stance that is to his advantage, or must you take Stances as feats (And if thats the case, do you get 1 stance feat for free at 1st level?)

It looks promising but we (I?) need more detail.

[idksocrates]

detail... yes...

stances are automatic. any character can choose to switch stances as a free action at the beginning of their turn. A fighter with a Spear is obviously going to favor using his Long stance, as it won't give him a penalty, and it will greatly favor him when fighting most opponents with one-handed weapons, with no bonuses or penalties when fighting another Long stanced opponent. but if he gets into melee with a short stanced opponent, he will be taking a penalty to hit, and the short stanced opponent will have a bonus to hit. the fighter has a difficult choice - fighting as is at a disadvantage, switching to Medium stance and taking a -2 penalty to attack for misusing his weapon (but opponent doesn't get bonus to hit), or pulling out a better suited weapon.

Reach weapons work as they do in standard rules, you have no special advantages or disadvantages when fighting something more than 5 feet away, and you can't attack something withing 5 feet.

Some specific feats might be in order. Maybe one feat can make a Halbred (normally a Long weapon) also be used as a Medium weapon with no penalty. Maybe more feats will increase the benefit you get for having an advantage in combat, or increase the penalties your opponent gets for being at a disadvantage.

[Chris the Pontifex]

hmm interesting, how would this work with two weapon fighting?

[blackfox]

This is an interesting idea, especially because I was thinking of tinkering with the weapopns rules myself, but more like as in http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=gaming;action=display;num=1129057630 ;start=30

Your new feats should probably be weapon-specific, because this is the kind of thing that requires specialized training, (excepting maybe polearms in general or all types of knifelike weapons) and they should only go one way (as in Long stance to Medium, Medium to Long, Medium to short, etc.) And the feats probably shouldn't allow a short-range weapon to take no penalty to attack long range, and vice versa.

edit@ ChristhePontifex: hehe. Good thinking. Skill level would have to be taking into account with this, maybe higher-level characters can attack with different ranges for each weapon, but not lower level characters?

[Thomas]

Wait, your example lost me.

Why would a halberd in "Long stance" be at a disadvantage against a shortsword? The point of a longer weapon is that you can hold off your opponent, denying them the chance to strike at you successfully. If they DO close in, you are screwed, but that would require them to force you to change your stance.

Edit: Also, you could always just move back. Fighters don't stand still and let their opponent take the advantage; you could deny your opponent to approach to Short range, and if you have a Long weapon - like a spear - you can stop the advance by presenting the point to them (so they'd have to run into it). Unless, of course, they manage to beat aside your weapon (but it's not like you won't try to prevent this).

Also, several weapons and styles would work well in many stances. For example, with the bastard sword, you could hold it by the hilt and swing it wide and far away, or you could take it by the blade (half-sword) and use it closer up (Medium?), or you could grasp it further up the blade and press the edge into your opponent (Short, or practically grappling).

You'd have to give Long weapons AoOs against opponents who want to close in with Short weapons, that, if successful, hold the opponent back and prevent them from attacking (or force them to attack at a penalty) -- or some similar mechanic.

Overall, it's altogether too complicated for D&D.

And the thing is, if you're looking for realism, you are way off. You don't pick a distance and attack from there, in a fight; you move constantly, trying to maneuver for a better position, and most attacks include stepping into proper range (very notably the lunge in fencing, where you can cover several feet in a single step, extending your range hugely).

The fighting system in D&D is an abstract, not a simulation. For simulation-style combat, try something like RuneQuest (longer weapons can hold off shorter weapons, longer weapons strike first, locational wounds and hit points, etc.).

[MaN]

While I understand the general idea of what you are trying to do, one detail seems very odd to me. Why would someone wielding a dagger have an advantage over someone wielding a spear? Being able to strike your opponent without allowing them to strike you is the guaranteed formula for victory. That is the reason for armor and fortifications.
You say that an unarmed person is at a definite disadvantage. Why? Reach? That is the reason the person with the shortest weapon (or threat range in game terms) is always at a disadvantage. The exception to this would come when the weapon became so long it would be to clumsy to bring it to bear quick enough for your opponent to go around it.

[SkullspliTTer]

There was a game system that actually made rules for this sort of thing called The Riddle of Steel. I read through the book once, but never had a chance to play it. It looked a bit complicated, but also extremely realistic. You might want to at least look into it for some ideas.

Here's the link: www.theriddleofsteel.net

[Bierhoff]

Frankly, d&d rules as they are don't support realistic fighting, but you are working in the right direction for building a more realistic system. As I martial artist with a bit of experience with medieval weapons I thought I'd add my two cents (or more).

1) I noticed one person comment that a fighter with a long weapon, such as a halbard, could more back to keep a short weapon in range. This is exactly what a long weapon needs to do. However, since it's easier to run forward than backwards (particlarly in armour) a long weapon should still be at a disadvantage. Simply put, a novice with a sword and shield should be able to kill an experienced harbaldier 9 times out of 10 in one on one combat. Long (reach) weapons have a very small kill zone, which is easy to pass through (they are all clumbsy weapons). Once passed the kill zone one simply needs to keep ones sheild on the opponent's shaft to prevent an attack and hack like heck. Reach weapons are intended for use from behind a defencive position. So a harbald behind two shield and swords, or hand axes, etc. is very formidable, but on it's own it's just asking for a whupping.
-so what's the lesson from this rant? movement directions are not all equal. The aplication of this principle will have an impact on strategy.

2) It was commented early on that unarmed combat may need some rejigging. I agree. Punching and kicking a man with a sword is just plain unintellegent. Once in close on an opponent (less than a foot from torso to torso) an unarned fighter is in their zone and should have the advantage. A trained martial artist fighting an armed opponent should look alot more like they are doing Jujitsu than karata or wushu (the style of Kung Fu they typically use in movies). It would involve the artist evading the attacks and then moving on the hand with the weapon. Grabbing the wrist would probably be the perfered opening for low levels (once the artist has something like called shots they might try some kicks). The first objective would be to disarm the opponent. From there one may choice to try and break the wrist (by twisting it, which no armour can protect against), throw the opponent, or simply grapple them to the ground (or a combination of the above). Once the opponent is on the ground their joints can be dislocated through their armour (including those in the spine). As the artist advances he/she may be able to break an opponent more while it is still standing.
-lesson: unarmed fighting should be geared more to attacks such as grappling, tripping, and disarming than to strikes (at least until a monk has ki strikes which can penetrate armour. aka bend armour in on the wearer).

[Thomas]

You assume that the opponent makes no real attempts to counter (or does not know how to counter) the attacks of the guy with the shorter weapon.


And if the monks can speak to birds, not age, fall any distance without taking damage, and jump thirty feet in the air... I think they can kick the ass of an armored and armed fighter, too.

Now, maybe if you remove all the special abilities...

But, again, one would be better off trying another game (like RuneQuest, or GURPS) for simulation combat.

[MaN]

Simply put, a novice with a sword and shield should be able to kill an experienced harbaldier 9 times out of 10 in one on one combat. Long (reach) weapons have a very small kill zone, which is easy to pass through (they are all clumbsy weapons). Once passed the kill zone one simply needs to keep ones sheild on the opponent's shaft to prevent an attack and hack like heck. Reach weapons are intended for use from behind a defencive position. So a harbald behind two shield and swords, or hand axes, etc. is very formidable, but on it's own it's just asking for a whupping.
In any competition a novice will get a whupping from an experienced opponent, period.
I don't know where your breaking point is between medium and long weapons as applies to this thread. Halberds and spears are in no way clumsy or slow. Spears can be used one-handed with a shield as well.

[idksocrates]

Sorry, I should have explained the logic right away.
(and the system isn't supposed to be perfect, just a simple variant to apply to a simple system, it is assumed that everyone is ducking and weaving)

In Long stance, you are trying to keep your opponent at a distance. This is best when used with long distance weapons like Spear and Halbred.

In short stance, you are rushing you opponent, trying to stay as close to the opponent as possible, best utilized with a light weapon like dagger or short sword.

In medium stance, you are about midway with your opponent. This is most effective with midranged weapons like longswords or Heavy maces.

Now, the reasoning by the Triangle (and not necessarily always true, but once again simplified for the mere purpose of simplicity), is that it is easier to close in on a Long stance opponent when in short stance (as was said earlier). Long stance works most effectively against medium ranged opponents because since they are not rushing, distancing them is easier. Medium beats short because that range doesn't suffer from the close combat, and there is no close point at which their weapons become ineffective (such as the case with spears or halbreds), putting the short ranged into a disadvantage, as the medium can hold them back easier.

Bierhoff, you hit my thinking on unarmed strike right on the head. However, because the monk is used so much in Dnd, I would just leave the monk's fist as a Short range weapon. Severe rejigging of the way unarmed combat works might put the Monk into a disadantage, and might better serve in a new roleplaying system altogether (as said).

The person with two weapon fighting still has one stance only. If in short stance with two short swords, no problem. If in short stance with a short sword and a Lonsword, the longsword takes a penalty to hit for being used in short stance.
Higher levels allowing multiple stances for different weapons is a good idea :)

some exotic weapons, like the bastard sword, might start with two ranges on them (long and medium).
I can also see a double weapon having medium distance when used with two weapon fighting, but long when only used as one sided weapon. (this would make the quarterstaff a very valuable weapon).