Looking for medieval weaponry users in the playground!

[AttilaTheGeek]

I'm working on a new subsystem for 3.X, and one of my main goals is to make weapons feel different in combat. For example, a rapier fights completely differently from a greatsword, but they both work the same way in combat. I want to mechanically express that difference, and I also want to capture the "flow" of combat- that is, the motion of your blade and your opponents' blades in the deadly dance that is melee combat. To that end, I've devised a new system of stances, actions, and blocks in which the movement of your body through different stances and positions corresponds to literal movement through a mathematical graph. More info under the cut.

First and foremost, this melee combat fix involves a change to AC. Player characters and monsters now add their Base Attack Bonus to AC. This represents how combat training allows you to deflect and dodge blows, and it shows how an expert fighter can still be defensively powerful even without magical gear. It also helps curb rocket tag at high levels. AC without BAB is now referred to as unblocked AC, and it is used for attacks that slip beneath or around your guard.

I've fenced (epeé) for several years, so I was able to put together this ruleset and a mathematical graph for free-hand piercing weapons. Spoilered for size: http://i44.tinypic.com/2uqgcjd.png

A melee combatant's potential actions are determined by their style. Styles correspond to weapon groups, and some styles include two-handed slashing (e.g, a greatsword), free-hand slashing (e.g, a shortsword), reach piercing (e.g, a spear), or free-hand piercing (e.g, a rapier). The graph shown here is for free-hand piercing weapons, but each style has its own graph.

A melee combatant is always in a stance. Stances are represented by the circles on the graph: the four basic stances in the free-hand piercing style are "en garde", "parry", "extended", and "lunge", and you change between stances with actions. Some feats teach additional stances. The parry stance is surrounded by a dashed line, which shows that it is a transitionary stance. A transitionary stance must be left as soon as it is entered.

Every turn, a melee combatant can use one or more actions. Designer's Note: I'm not sure if "action" is too confusing. I'm also considering "motion", "maneuver", or "move". If you have ideas, let me know. Actions are represented by the arrows on the graph. In the same way that you cast a spell, manifest a power, or initiate a maneuver, you execute an action to use it.

There are four types of actions: shift, block, riposte, and attack.

Shift actions are the most basic type of action. A shift action simply changes you from one stance to another with no additional effects.
Block actions are executed in response to an incoming attack. When you block an incoming attack, make an opposed attack roll. If your attack roll matches or exceeds the attacker's, you block the attack successfully and take no damage.
Riposte actions are also executed in response to an incoming an attack. When you riposte, make an attack roll against the unblocked AC of the opponent attacking you. If it hits, deal damage as normal.
Attack actions are basic attacks. Some attack actions have additional effects, but the only attack action shown here does not.


One swift action of time is equivalent to one combat action, so you can spend a swift action to gain one combat action. Each shift, block, riposte, or attack action takes one combat action to execute, except for actions drawn with a dashed line, which take no combat actions to execute. For example, the advantage of staying in an extended stance with a one-handed piercing weapon is that ripostes take no combat actions, but you cannot block from an extended stance (because no block actions begin in extended stance).

You lose all remaining combat actions at the end of your turn. As a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, (Designer's Note: attacks of opportunity are getting changed too) you can spend any number of combat actions on shifting or attacking. If you do, then at the end of your turn you gain combat actions equal to the number of iterative attacks you would be able to make on a full attack. The number of combat actions you gain this way can be improved through feats.

You gain combat actions at the end of your turn to emphasize reacting to attacks; you have as many combat actions as you want to block and/or riposte, but can only attack with the actions you have left.

I'm looking for feedback on this early alpha build, especially with making the wording clearer, but I'm also looking for help constructing combat graphs for other weapons. If you know how to fight with a greatsword, shortsword, daggers, axes, whatever, then please take a minute to jot down a rough idea for me of the different basic stances and how you move between them in combat.

[Cealocanth]

This system shows some promise. I like how there is a distinct difference between blocking and countering your opponent's moves. I also like how combat is based on your opponent's movements, rather than your own. It very well reflects the dance that is fencing, as little as I have experienced it.

I am currently training in basic short sword and shield combat, but I have had years of experience fighting with a glaive or short spear. I can try to lend what I know to help you with this.

Glaive fighting is similar to fencing in a way. You have your offensive and defensive stances, which depend on which leg you place forward among other things. You also have a close combat stance, used for dire situations when your enemies are within short sword range. Actions would include parrying and thrusting in your long range stances, and slashing and blocking in your short range stances. A block is not as good as a parry at blocking thrusts, and a parry is not as good at blocking a slash and often will involve including a dodge or simply backing away into a more advantageous position. A counter can be done by performing a parry and then moving inward to catch your enemy while his blade is out of the way, but slashing is very slow and ineffective at countering anything.

To make glaive different from your fencing list, I suggest you implement a system into selective targeting of areas, with bonuses to damage and penalties to accuracy based on where you are targeting. Then again, a similar system could be used with fencing, and for that matter, short sword as well.

[BizzaroStormy]

This seems like something that would be fun but could easily get over-complicated, especially in the case of a combatant that is anything besides a medium humanoid. If this ere simply man-on-man single combat, it would be easy, but in a fantasy setting, such things are rarely so.

For example, you don't simply block/riposte/parry when a giant swings half a tree at you; you either dodge it or end up on your back. What about fighting a thri-kreen? a tentacled beast? or for that matter any other multi-appendaged abomination?

In general, it seems like this would benefit the defender only against the attackers first strike, then it would favor the attacker heavily.

[AttilaTheGeek]

This system shows some promise. I like how there is a distinct difference between blocking and countering your opponent's moves. I also like how combat is based on your opponent's movements, rather than your own. It very well reflects the dance that is fencing, as little as I have experienced it.

:smallbiggrin: Thank you!


I am currently training in basic short sword and shield combat, but I have had years of experience fighting with a glaive or short spear. I can try to lend what I know to help you with this.

Glaive fighting is similar to fencing in a way. You have your offensive and defensive stances, which depend on which leg you place forward among other things. You also have a close combat stance, used for dire situations when your enemies are within short sword range. Actions would include parrying and thrusting in your long range stances, and slashing and blocking in your short range stances. A block is not as good as a parry at blocking thrusts, and a parry is not as good at blocking a slash and often will involve including a dodge or simply backing away into a more advantageous position. A counter can be done by performing a parry and then moving inward to catch your enemy while his blade is out of the way, but slashing is very slow and ineffective at countering anything.

Hmm, so I'm seeing three stances: offensive, defensive, and close stance for actual melee range. In offensive, attacking (with a slash) just leads back to offensive stance, but can you also attack with the piercing tip from defensive stance by throwing your weight forward and ending in offensive?

What is the difference between a block and a parry?

From what stances can you execute a counter?

Do you use the term "riposte" for counterattack, or is "riposte" exclusive to fencing? If so, I'll change all mention of "riposte" to "counter".


To make glaive different from your fencing list, I suggest you implement a system into selective targeting of areas, with bonuses to damage and penalties to accuracy based on where you are targeting. Then again, a similar system could be used with fencing, and for that matter, short sword as well.

I thought about it, but then you'd have to simulate (to take an example from fencing) eight different parries that have almost negligible differences between them. That's a little too much detail, and combat would just get bogged down.

[Spanish_Paladin]

I have some experience with two-handed sword, spanish rapier (espada ropera) and japanese katana. I´ll be glad to help you with my humble experience. :smallsmile:

[Jay R]

I've been fencing and playing RPGs since the 1970s, and fighting with longswords, spears, glaives, etc. since the 1980s, and I've tried to do this.

My experience is that the actions and thoughts in a single rapier and dagger bout are far more complicated than anyone would want to simulate.

The purpose of a simulation is to make the situation simpler, for purposes of analysis. As the professor in my Mathematical Modeling class said, "If we wanted to observe reality, we would observe reality."

When building a model of an action, you have to decide what aspects you are trying to model, and which aspects you want to simplify out of existence.

Here's the first one: you are trying to simulate a continuous reality with a discrete model. In the real world, a one-inch difference in where my hand is, a five degree difference in the orientation of the sword, or a 1/10 second difference in timing, can mean the difference between a perfect parry and being hit. Obviously, you don't want the gamer to pick the exact hand position and sword angle for every tenth second, so those difference you will abstract away.

OK, you've already lost some of the flavor of a real fight. And it's a necessary choice. But before you do it again, accidentally, decide what flavor you are actually trying to keep, and design around those.

I guess what I'm getting at in my typical long-winded way is this: Don't begin by analyzing every action and decision. Begin by deciding which choices the player will make, and how often. Then build the simplest system that includes those decisions. That's how we did it when I was a modeling analyst for a telecom company. Otherwise it is very easy to continually improve your model until it's worthless.

Did you ever see the original Chivalry and Sorcery? It was the most detailed, accurate, beautiful, carefully-planned, lush, and unplayable combat system I've ever seen.

[Erloas]

Edit: for reference I'm using my 14 years of SCA heavy combat for my point of view.

Hmm, so I'm seeing three stances: offensive, defensive, and close stance for actual melee range. In offensive, attacking (with a slash) just leads back to offensive stance, but can you also attack with the piercing tip from defensive stance by throwing your weight forward and ending in offensive?

What is the difference between a block and a parry?

From what stances can you execute a counter?

Do you use the term "riposte" for counterattack, or is "riposte" exclusive to fencing? If so, I'll change all mention of "riposte" to "counter".
I don't use the term riposte when fighting but I know what it is. Counter might be a better term for general use but riposte definitely has more character to it.

A stance where you can't be offensive and defensive at the same time is not a stance that any real fighter would use. Now there are definitely stances which favor one over the other, so I would say that for most stances the actions you can do from them don't change but the difficulty of doing them does. I also wouldn't consider "lunge" a stance, it is footwork associated with an attack but it is essentially just part of the attack itself, you would never "rest" in that position and the "rest" moments between shots are what I would consider your stance.

From a game design standpoint there is simply no reason to ever use "block" instead of riposte, not only is the riposte easier to hit with, it deals damage too and is used in the same situation. What isn't clear in the wording of the riposte if that negates the opponents attack of if you both take damage. A true counter is when you block or parry your opponents shot and hit them with one of your own nearly simultaneously. As such I would require a successful block, parry, or dodge before the riposte can occur and put a few modifiers with it.

I would also make a true distinction between blocking with a shield (or other primary defensive item) and blocking/parrying with your primary weapon. Blocking with a shield doesn't affect your offensive ability nearly as much as blocking with your weapon. I have specifically been moving my sword back lately and not using it to defend not only to force myself to be more active with my shield but also to free my sword up for throwing shots.

There are also a lot of ways for a shield to be used offensively but not in the "hitting them with it" way. A good shield hook or shield press will move their defenses in such a way as to open up shots with your sword that otherwise wouldn't be present or would easily be blocked.

The primary shots with a 1 handed (slashing) sword would be the onside and offside snap, the onside and offside body, onside and offside leg, the onside wrap (head, body, and leg), and the slot shot. They all have different difficulties in throwing the shot, how exposed they leave you, and how easy they are to defend. An onside body is really easy to throw and doesn't open you up much at all but almost impossible to not have blocked if they are using a shield. The offside leg is pretty hard to block but it leaves you very exposed and is very difficult to throw as an "opening" shot.

I would think the best way to handle the complexity of combat is to build a combo system. Say you have 5 action points to build a combo, you use 1 point to throw an onside snap, 2 points to throw the harder to throw but harder to block offside body then finish with 1 point each onside head and offside head.

You would have some system to build these combos before combat and figure out how they would resolve and then use them. You might have modifiers like the offside body and offside leg take a penalty if you throw them as a first shot, finishing a combo with a wrap or offside body might leave you with less defense then finishing with a snap, might be a bonus to defense if you finish with hold or recover action. You might be able to start your combo with a block and call in a counter combo and can only use it (or get the bonus from the block part of it) if your opponent ends with an attack or maybe just a few specific types of attacks. You could add a feint move, adds nothing to damage and uses an action but increases the likelihood of the next part of the combo hitting (so either use it to make a hard to hit shot more likely to hit or make a high percentage shot an almost guarantee)

Your offensive and defensive bonuses and penalties would combine for the entire combo so if you go very offensive you might be leaving yourself very open for the returning hit, or you can build more balanced combos or more defensive combos.

Of course after a while your players will find the combos they like best and use them a lot, but that is going to be true of any system.

With action point combos you can also use it to make some weapons faster then others by using less points, you might get 5 attacks in a combo with a short sword but only 1-2 in a combo with a 2-handed axe.
You could have certain weapons (or characters) abilities like "quick tempo" that makes it so each combo can only be 3 action points instead of 5 (moves too fast to allow longer combos to develop for either side) which might limit the larger weapons in what they can do for attacks and not let a player always use their most favorite combos.

With a slightly longer ranged weapon (I would put 3 ranges, 1 handed weapon, 2 handed weapon, and pole weapon) that would use some points to move into or out of range of the other weapon types. A pole weapon doesn't work at very close ranges but they can hit farther then a 1-handed weapon can even reach to. A pole weapon might have parts of their combo being to change range or only works when the opponent goes from far range to close range. Certain pole weapons (but not all) might have the ability to stop their opponents combo when part of that involves moving in.

With any semi-realistic situations though you will get into points where one weapon clearly has the advantage over another. A short range weapon will almost always win if they can get into and stay at close range of a pole weapon, but the pole weapon will always win if they can keep the short range weapon out of range. The 2-handed weapons fall in between the two, a lunge will reach the range of a pole weapon without necessarily moving up in the process but it would come at a loss in both offensive and defensive abilities.


I'm not sure how much of that can actually be done in a system and keep it playable, but the theory sounds like it could work for a realistic feel to the theme.

[Remmirath]

I have the most experience in longsword* (primarily German, some Italian), sword and shield, knife and unarmed. I know a smattering about rapier, sabre, polearms, and flexible weapons, but I think I'll leave those things to the people who know more about them here. How I come by it is stage combat with a very strong focus on historical accuracy (we learn the weapons the historical way first, then apply them for stage). I've done a decent amount of sparring connected with that. I've only been doing it for three years, though I've been interested in fighting and weaponry longer than that.

*Longsword here meaning the D&D equivalent of a greatsword.



First and foremost, this melee combat fix involves a change to AC. Player characters and monsters now add their Base Attack Bonus to AC. This represents how combat training allows you to deflect and dodge blows, and it shows how an expert fighter can still be defensively powerful even without magical gear. It also helps curb rocket tag at high levels. AC without BAB is now referred to as unblocked AC, and it is used for attacks that slip beneath or around your guard.

I think this is pretty good, but keep in mind that this will make it much harder to hit anyone. This can be a good thing, since in a real fight you won't be landing all that many blows before it's over (the slog-fest nature of higher level combat gets to become a large problem in 3E). I'd do something to up the general lethality of hits as well, though I'm guessing you just haven't got to that part yet.

Personally I believe it makes sense to change armour bonuses, both from equipment and natural armour, into being more akin to damage reduction. The bonuses and minuses against varying types of armour for different weapons that 1E had were also a good thing.


A melee combatant is always in a stance. Stances are represented by the circles on the graph: the four basic stances in the free-hand piercing style are "en garde", "parry", "extended", and "lunge", and you change between stances with actions. Some feats teach additional stances. The parry stance is surrounded by a dashed line, which shows that it is a transitionary stance. A transitionary stance must be left as soon as it is entered.

That could work. In most of the weapons I know best, that could equate well to moving through guards. Not sure how well it would work with knife or unarmed, though, as neither one has much in the way of guards (and grappling or groundfighting would be a different beast altogether by terms of this sytem).


Every turn, a melee combatant can use one or more actions. Designer's Note: I'm not sure if "action" is too confusing. I'm also considering "motion", "maneuver", or "move". If you have ideas, let me know. Actions are represented by the arrows on the graph. In the same way that you cast a spell, manifest a power, or initiate a maneuver, you execute an action to use it.

That sounds fine, although I'd be careful to differentiate combat from spellcasting and power manifesting -- it always annoys me in games if playing a fighter feels like playing a spellcaster who casts combat maneuvers instead of spells. I think action works well enough.


There are four types of actions: shift, block, riposte, and attack.

Shift actions are the most basic type of action. A shift action simply changes you from one stance to another with no additional effects.
Block actions are executed in response to an incoming attack. When you block an incoming attack, make an opposed attack roll. If your attack roll matches or exceeds the attacker's, you block the attack successfully and take no damage.
Riposte actions are also executed in response to an incoming an attack. When you riposte, make an attack roll against the unblocked AC of the opponent attacking you. If it hits, deal damage as normal.
Attack actions are basic attacks. Some attack actions have additional effects, but the only attack action shown here does not.


With D&D's round structure, I'm not sure how well the block and riposte actions would work. I suppose you have to declare ahead of time that you're going to block a certain opponent and then wait for it to happen?

I'd also change riposte to counter-attack or simply counter for this, as a term that is used more widely by different weapon styles.


One swift action of time is equivalent to one combat action, so you can spend a swift action to gain one combat action. Each shift, block, riposte, or attack action takes one combat action to execute, except for actions drawn with a dashed line, which take no combat actions to execute. For example, the advantage of staying in an extended stance with a one-handed piercing weapon is that ripostes take no combat actions, but you cannot block from an extended stance (because no block actions begin in extended stance).

Sounds good on the stances.


You lose all remaining combat actions at the end of your turn. As a standard action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity, (Designer's Note: attacks of opportunity are getting changed too) you can spend any number of combat actions on shifting or attacking. If you do, then at the end of your turn you gain combat actions equal to the number of iterative attacks you would be able to make on a full attack. The number of combat actions you gain this way can be improved through feats.

You gain combat actions at the end of your turn to emphasize reacting to attacks; you have as many combat actions as you want to block and/or riposte, but can only attack with the actions you have left.

This part I'm not sure about. I'll have to think about it more. There's something about it I'm not really liking, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is right now. Having a certain number of combat actions and spending them isn't the problem, but I'm a little unsure of what you mean with spending the rest of the them at the end of the turn and then gaining a bunch. Do the ones you gain carry over to the new turn?

I think I'd recommend having some static (although potentially increased through feats and such) number of combat actions per round that scales with base attack bonus (since I assume you'd be implementing this for all classes and not just fighters, that gives fighters and other full progression classes another advantage).

Quick and dubious graph for German longsword:
http://familylees.net/morgan/lsg.gif
- Shifting would apply to shifting between the guards, or stances here. The arrows from the individual stances show what would make sense to have be their no-cost action, although all of the attacks can be done from any of them.
- There are no pure blocks here; all are counters. Really shield is the place you're going to see pure blocks the most. They're not advantageous if you've only one weapon.
- Cuts and thrusts are the attacks.
- The different counters are versus different kinds of incoming strikes, shown in the parantheses.
- Winding is floating in between counters and attacks, because it's a reactive secondary attack, basically (if you miss with the counter or attack, slide the blade around to the other side and try again, that sort of thing). Not sure how that fits into the system you've got going.

Forgot to translate the names, sorry; probably should've wrote them in English to begin with, but did that in a bit of a hurry. Pflug = Plow; Ochs = Ox; vom Tag = (from the) Roof; Alber = Fool; Oberhau = overcut; Mittelhau = middle cut; Unterhau = undercut; Zornhau = Strike of Wrath; Zwerchau = cross strike; Scheitelhau = parting strike; Krumphau = crooked strike; Schielhau = squinting strike.

Not sure I quite got the kind of graph you were looking for, but hopefully it helps at least somewhat. I made an attempt at fitting things into the kinds of actions you had outlined.



I would also make a true distinction between blocking with a shield (or other primary defensive item) and blocking/parrying with your primary weapon. Blocking with a shield doesn't affect your offensive ability nearly as much as blocking with your weapon. I have specifically been moving my sword back lately and not using it to defend not only to force myself to be more active with my shield but also to free my sword up for throwing shots.

There are also a lot of ways for a shield to be used offensively but not in the "hitting them with it" way. A good shield hook or shield press will move their defenses in such a way as to open up shots with your sword that otherwise wouldn't be present or would easily be blocked.

All excellent points that I agree with concerning shieldwork. Should perhaps apply to some extent to other weapons you hold in your offhand (dagger in rapier and dagger, knife in tomahawk and knife, so forth).


The primary shots with a 1 handed (slashing) sword would be the onside and offside snap, the onside and offside body, onside and offside leg, the onside wrap (head, body, and leg), and the slot shot. They all have different difficulties in throwing the shot, how exposed they leave you, and how easy they are to defend. An onside body is really easy to throw and doesn't open you up much at all but almost impossible to not have blocked if they are using a shield. The offside leg is pretty hard to block but it leaves you very exposed and is very difficult to throw as an "opening" shot.

This is fairly different from the cut and thrust systems I usually use, but it makes sense. Note that if you want to get into right-handed and left-handed characters, this changes things up a good bit with shields especially (saying this as a left-hander, so that kind of thing tends to be on my mind a bit).


Of course after a while your players will find the combos they like best and use them a lot, but that is going to be true of any system.

And probably true of the characters themselves, from my observations.


With any semi-realistic situations though you will get into points where one weapon clearly has the advantage over another. A short range weapon will almost always win if they can get into and stay at close range of a pole weapon, but the pole weapon will always win if they can keep the short range weapon out of range. The 2-handed weapons fall in between the two, a lunge will reach the range of a pole weapon without necessarily moving up in the process but it would come at a loss in both offensive and defensive abilities.

Yeah, you probably want to find some way to get range in there -- which, if you really want to go for it, should also take into account the size of the character in question. For longswords (D&D greatswords) half-swording should be an option to change range up a bit.

[AttilaTheGeek]

Woah, lots of feedback. I'll try to address it all, but it's spoilered for length.

Remmirath:
I think this is pretty good, but keep in mind that this will make it much harder to hit anyone. This can be a good thing, since in a real fight you won't be landing all that many blows before it's over (the slog-fest nature of higher level combat gets to become a large problem in 3E). I'd do something to up the general lethality of hits as well, though I'm guessing you just haven't got to that part yet.

I'm considering it. On the one hand, blows are already pretty deadly and rocket tag isn't fun. On the other hand, it only takes one hit with an actual greatsword and you're down.


Personally I believe it makes sense to change armour bonuses, both from equipment and natural armour, into being more akin to damage reduction. The bonuses and minuses against varying types of armour for different weapons that 1E had were also a good thing.

I really like DeepBlueDiver's armor fix (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=290667), and I'd recommend using it whether or not you use any of my homebrew.


That [stances] could work. In most of the weapons I know best, that could equate well to moving through guards. Not sure how well it would work with knife or unarmed, though, as neither one has much in the way of guards (and grappling or groundfighting would be a different beast altogether by terms of this sytem).

Augh, grappling. I don't even want to think about that. I see knife fighting and unarmed combat as particularly simple graphs, that's all.


That sounds fine, although I'd be careful to differentiate combat from spellcasting and power manifesting -- it always annoys me in games if playing a fighter feels like playing a spellcaster who casts combat maneuvers instead of spells. I think action works well enough.

Of course. Part of the reason why I wanted to make this fix was to make melee classes (including, but not limited to, the fighter) more fun in combat without using the Tome of Battle. I included mention of casting and manifesting simply to help define the term "execute".


With D&D's round structure, I'm not sure how well the block and riposte actions would work. I suppose you have to declare ahead of time that you're going to block a certain opponent and then wait for it to happen?

Let me explain it like this: In normal combat, you get a standard, swift, and move action at the beginning of each turn. Actions you don't use disappear at the end of your turn, unless you ready them.

In this system, you gain combat actions at the end of your turn. That way, you always have actions that you can block or riposte counterattack with, and you can only attack with the actions you have left.


I'd also change riposte to counter-attack or simply counter for this, as a term that is used more widely by different weapon styles.

Will do.


This part [combat actions] I'm not sure about. I'll have to think about it more. There's something about it I'm not really liking, but I can't quite put my finger on what it is right now. Having a certain number of combat actions and spending them isn't the problem, but I'm a little unsure of what you mean with spending the rest of the them at the end of the turn and then gaining a bunch. Do the ones you gain carry over to the new turn?

I think I'd recommend having some static (although potentially increased through feats and such) number of combat actions per round that scales with base attack bonus (since I assume you'd be implementing this for all classes and not just fighters, that gives fighters and other full progression classes another advantage).

I plan to have two feats: Weapon Group Focus, which gives you an extra one combat action each turn with weapons of a certain group, and Weapon Expertise, which gives you an extra one combat action each turn per iterative attack from BAB. They overlap instead of stacking, but that's still three per turn for a Fighter 1 (1 from BAB, one from feat, one from swift action).


Quick and dubious graph for German longsword:
http://familylees.net/morgan/lsg.gif
- Shifting would apply to shifting between the guards, or stances here. The arrows from the individual stances show what would make sense to have be their no-cost action, although all of the attacks can be done from any of them.
- There are no pure blocks here; all are counters. Really shield is the place you're going to see pure blocks the most. They're not advantageous if you've only one weapon.
- Cuts and thrusts are the attacks.
- The different counters are versus different kinds of incoming strikes, shown in the parantheses.
- Winding is floating in between counters and attacks, because it's a reactive secondary attack, basically (if you miss with the counter or attack, slide the blade around to the other side and try again, that sort of thing). Not sure how that fits into the system you've got going.

Forgot to translate the names, sorry; probably should've wrote them in English to begin with, but did that in a bit of a hurry. Pflug = Plow; Ochs = Ox; vom Tag = (from the) Roof; Alber = Fool; Oberhau = overcut; Mittelhau = middle cut; Unterhau = undercut; Zornhau = Strike of Wrath; Zwerchau = cross strike; Scheitelhau = parting strike; Krumphau = crooked strike; Schielhau = squinting strike.

Not sure I quite got the kind of graph you were looking for, but hopefully it helps at least somewhat. I made an attempt at fitting things into the kinds of actions you had outlined.

I've decided not to make a mechanical distinction between cuts and thrusts, otherwise it just gets too complicated. In the same vein, I want blocking to just be "blocking" as opposed to "I block his high strike with my right-side block".

Erloas:
I don't use the term riposte when fighting but I know what it is. Counter might be a better term for general use but riposte definitely has more character to it.

I think I'll use "counter", just because I'm already introducing enough new terminology.


A stance where you can't be offensive and defensive at the same time is not a stance that any real fighter would use. Now there are definitely stances which favor one over the other, so I would say that for most stances the actions you can do from them don't change but the difficulty of doing them does.

I'm aiming for a very specific level of detail here: enough that two to four key "stances" (game term) can be expressed for each weapon style, even if there is only one main stance (actual term). For example, in fencing, there is one and only one en garde position. However, only having one stance is boring, so I included "extended" as its own stance. A fencer wouldn't actually fence an entire bout with their arm straight out, but I wanted to give the extended stance a mechanical benefit in the form of action-free ripostes counters. It's realistic because someone walking right into your blade lets you counterattack with zero effort, but to block from an extended stance you have to retract your blade back into en garde.


I also wouldn't consider "lunge" a stance, it is footwork associated with an attack but it is essentially just part of the attack itself, you would never "rest" in that position and the "rest" moments between shots are what I would consider your stance.

I wanted that to capture the moment when you're in a lunge, before you advance or recover. I chose to include it as a separate stance because lunging is not one fluid action, and it does not lead smoothly from the extend back into en garde. Instead, it is two distinct actions, lunging and recovering, so I wanted it to take up two combat actions.


From a game design standpoint there is simply no reason to ever use "block" instead of riposte, not only is the riposte easier to hit with, it deals damage too and is used in the same situation. What isn't clear in the wording of the riposte if that negates the opponents attack of if you both take damage. A true counter is when you block or parry your opponents shot and hit them with one of your own nearly simultaneously. As such I would require a successful block, parry, or dodge before the riposte can occur and put a few modifiers with it.

That was unclear on my part; riposting does not save you any damage. However, I should add that if you attempt to block and fail, then the attack can target your unblocked AC instead of regular AC.


I would also make a true distinction between blocking with a shield (or other primary defensive item) and blocking/parrying with your primary weapon. Blocking with a shield doesn't affect your offensive ability nearly as much as blocking with your weapon. I have specifically been moving my sword back lately and not using it to defend not only to force myself to be more active with my shield but also to free my sword up for throwing shots.

There are also a lot of ways for a shield to be used offensively but not in the "hitting them with it" way. A good shield hook or shield press will move their defenses in such a way as to open up shots with your sword that otherwise wouldn't be present or would easily be blocked.

These are good points. I've never held an actual shield, so what would you suggest? I'm thinking of having a damage reduction cap on blocking - that is, instead of absorbing all damage, blocking absorbs a large amount of damage and any extra damage that would go through is dealt anyway. I don't want to type it twice, so see my response to BizzaroStormy's comment.


The primary shots with a 1 handed (slashing) sword would be the onside and offside snap, the onside and offside body, onside and offside leg, the onside wrap (head, body, and leg), and the slot shot. They all have different difficulties in throwing the shot, how exposed they leave you, and how easy they are to defend. An onside body is really easy to throw and doesn't open you up much at all but almost impossible to not have blocked if they are using a shield. The offside leg is pretty hard to block but it leaves you very exposed and is very difficult to throw as an "opening" shot.

I've received feedback (like this) that the system so far is too simple and that it should be made more realistic. However, I've also been told (by Jay R, for example) that it's far too complex. Taking both of those into consideration, I don't want to make it any more or less complicated than it currently is.


I would think the best way to handle the complexity of combat is to build a combo system...

I really like the idea, but I want this to focus more on movement through space than time-based combos. A spatial rather than temporal focus, if you will. However, if you wrote that up into a (sub)system, I'd play it.


Jay R:
I've been fencing and playing RPGs since the 1970s, and fighting with longswords, spears, glaives, etc. since the 1980s, and I've tried to do this.

Jay R, I feel like your name at the beginning of a post really means "Warning: the following post is made with extreme thought and incredible knowledge."


My experience is that the actions and thoughts in a single rapier and dagger bout are far more complicated than anyone would want to simulate.

Right. That's why I wanted to, for example, collapse all the different parries into one.


The purpose of a simulation is to make the situation simpler, for purposes of analysis. As the professor in my Mathematical Modeling class said, "If we wanted to observe reality, we would observe reality."

When building a model of an action, you have to decide what aspects you are trying to model, and which aspects you want to simplify out of existence.

Here's the first one: you are trying to simulate a continuous reality with a discrete model. In the real world, a one-inch difference in where my hand is, a five degree difference in the orientation of the sword, or a 1/10 second difference in timing, can mean the difference between a perfect parry and being hit. Obviously, you don't want the gamer to pick the exact hand position and sword angle for every tenth second, so those difference you will abstract away.

OK, you've already lost some of the flavor of a real fight. And it's a necessary choice. But before you do it again, accidentally, decide what flavor you are actually trying to keep, and design around those.

I guess what I'm getting at in my typical long-winded way is this: Don't begin by analyzing every action and decision. Begin by deciding which choices the player will make, and how often. Then build the simplest system that includes those decisions. That's how we did it when I was a modeling analyst for a telecom company. Otherwise it is very easy to continually improve your model until it's worthless.

That makes a lot of sense. Let me start here: I want players to choose, on a regular basis, whether to be aggressive or defensive, and to what extent to do so. I also want them to choose a weapon, and I want that choice to affect meaningfully how they fight, and not just in terms of numbers.


Did you ever see the original Chivalry and Sorcery? It was the most detailed, accurate, beautiful, carefully-planned, lush, and unplayable combat system I've ever seen.

I did not, but I get what you mean.

BizzaroStormy:
This seems like something that would be fun but could easily get over-complicated, especially in the case of a combatant that is anything besides a medium humanoid. If this ere simply man-on-man single combat, it would be easy, but in a fantasy setting, such things are rarely so.

I think all monsters and NPCs without class levels should have the same, very simple graph: one stance, with three arrows labeled "attack", "parry", and "counter" leading back to itself. That way, they can execute all the same actions without having to worry about stances or when they can do what.


For example, you don't simply block/riposte/parry when a giant swings half a tree at you; you either dodge it or end up on your back.

I'm thinking about having blocking reduce damage by a large number, instead of negating it entirely. I'm considering "weapon weight times strength modifier". So, for example, since a greatsword weighs four times as much as a rapier, blocking with a greatsword would reduce damage by four times as much. The minimum damage that gets through is 0, so you can block many weak attacks with a rapier, but either way that flying tree is going to hurt. It just might hurt a little less if you can brace yourself for it by putting your sword between it and you.


In general, it seems like this would benefit the defender only against the attackers first strike, then it would favor the attacker heavily.

What makes you say that?

[Jay R]

That makes a lot of sense. Let me start here: I want players to choose, on a regular basis, whether to be aggressive or defensive, and to what extent to do so. I also want them to choose a weapon, and I want that choice to affect meaningfully how they fight, and not just in terms of numbers.

OK, then write down the available choices:
Each weapon, and each offensive/defensive attitude. Then determine how each weapon is different.

And what is a different weapon? I carry rapiers with blade lengths of 30", 35", 40", 42", and 43". And if I could afford it, I'd have a 38" and 45". The difference between the 30" and 35" is huge. The difference between the 42" and 43" is less so - but it's real.

I currently carry 4 different daggers, and they all fight (somewhat) differently. Length and weight of a mace make a difference. I once owned (really) three glaives, and they all fought differently. You have a lot of decisions to make about what aspects of a weapon matter, and which ones don't.

Frankly, I gave up the idea of a detailed, accurate fighting system long ago. It would be a huge amount of work to determine all the weapons' abilities, and then most of it would be ignored when people learned the system well enough to choose the most effective.

But if you want to do it, start by deciding which real differences you're willing to ignore (like different styles of dagger), and why. That will help you abstract why the differences between rapier and longsword matter.

One more hint: if players are usually choosing weapons that few people chose in the period, that's an indication that the system is incorrect. If spiked chains and darts were as effective as D&D makes them appear, why weren't they used most of the time in period?

[HandofShadows]

Did you ever see the original Chivalry and Sorcery? It was the most detailed, accurate, beautiful, carefully-planned, lush, and unplayable combat system I've ever seen.

LOL. I recall heaving abotu a PnP game for a modern aircraft combat and it was supposed to be so detailed that flying an actual plane in combat was easier (and more fun).

Lots of people here that know more about weapon that I do, but I do have a bit of advice. Ignore reality if you have to. If you want a good game imitating reality is not the way to do it. You can be inspired by the real thing and take things from the real world, but don't try to copy it. In this case trying to capture the "feel" seems to be most important.

[Jay R]

Ignore reality if you have to. If you want a good game imitating reality is not the way to do it. You can be inspired by the real thing and take things from the real world, but don't try to copy it. In this case trying to capture the "feel" seems to be most important.

Ignore reality only if there is some advantage to doing so. In the original development for GURPS, Steve Jackson did something that really impressed me. Other game designers worked out weapon weights by deciding what would be good game-balancing decisions. By contrast, Steve brought in a bunch of weapons and weighed them.

[Erloas]

I guess a lot of this would also depend how much you want to change the system as a whole.
I don't think a 3.X based game is going to be the way to go to make a new combat system work, you pretty much have to make the entire system from the ground up to work in whichever way you want. There is no way to make an even semi-realistic system for melee combat and have it work with D&D style magic. Ranged weapons would also need to be reworked almost completely too.

The whole concept of AC is already way too abstracted to use it and keep some form of realism. Armor does nothing to keep you from getting hit, it is entirely damage reduction. The way 3.x does it combines not only how hard you are to hit but the chance that the hit would then hurt you but doesn't make the distinction between a non-damage hit and an actual miss.

A block with a shield is a block of all damage (damage itself being an abstract concept as well that doesn't really fit in with a realistic system). The thing with real weapons is that they are fairly lethal and any system that wants to treat them even kind of realistically also has to treat them lethally.
Armor is actually fairly binary, it is either good enough to stop a shot or it isn't and you are either mostly fine or mostly dead on one side or the other.

You can look at what people can do in Battle of the Nations and see that with those high levels of armor you can really pound on someone to little effect. Really the types of weapons that were developed to counter that armor aren't being used because there would be no way to protect the person underneath. Granted also that modern armor like that used in BOTN is made with high carbon and stainless steel and is often tempered in ways armor couldn't have been hundreds of years ago. So old armor would have a much higher chance of failure then what you see there, but it gives some ideas at least.

Really to do a decent system you would then have to limit it to a fairly narrow period of time when the weapons and armor were matched. Although most people when they think of knights think of a fairly specific and short period of time right around the Renaissance. There was about 1000 years before that where the weapon and armor advances weren't quite so pronounced. In most of that time it was padded armor, coat of plates and maille for the most part with fully enclosed helmets being relatively rare.


The short version of that is do you want to create a combat system that is complex (and hopefully interesting and fun) and then build a world system around that to fit it or do you want to modify 3.X combat? I don't think it is possible to do the latter and keep it realistic or fun. There is just no way to balance the complexities of combat and have it be worth while when someone else can simply cast fireball and do the same thing faster and easier.

[Partysan]

I have some knowledge in German long sword, I've also dabbled in staff and several unarmed styles.

Let me start out by saying that while your system shows promise, I don't think D&D provides a good base for it. If you want to use it nonetheless not only do you need to switch Armor to DR, you'll also have to do something about HP and several other mechanics that are often intrinsic to the system.

In my opinion a good melee system will make it hard to score a hit, since there are risks to be taken, defences to be employed and all of that gets tactical. Thus, the individual hits need to matter a great deal, which is why taking off 10 HP of 100 is a bad representation and will make the combat go on for far too long. Also, injuries need to impose penalties. All of these aren't present in D&D.

On to the specifics. Differentiating between weapons is most important at the points at which the differences correspond to the mechanical choices. If swinging and thrusting are distinct actions in your game (as they are in GURPS) then it makes sense to have weapons statted out in terms of how well they perform in both. If all that changes is the damage type (like in vanilla D&D) it doesn't matter all that much.
Many weapon stats correspond to each other. Weapon speed will be determined by weapon weight, weapon balance and weapon grip, but the grip (as in the way the weapon is held) does not make for a good RPG stat in its specifics. Balance as well won't be useful in abstraction beyond distinguishing balanced/unbalanced which make a good difference in how a weapon is used. Weight will determine both the striking and the blocking power of a weapon to a certain degree, but both user strength as well as balance and grip will play into this as well, also a heavy weapon will be more taxing to use. All these differences need to be boiled down into as few stats as possible. And there are lots more, reach being the most important.

Starting out by abstracting from single weapons will easily lead you into a trap when different weapons fight each other, especially cross epoch. I would find it almost impossible to hit someone wielding a shield with a rapier. In fact, a shield makes any single weapon user cry, even those that can actually beat one. Historically it would be very rare for someone without a shield fight someone with a shield in single combat, which is why this is not considered in the design of many weapons, just like some weapons are not designed for use against armor. It is also rather impossible to parry a warhammer with a rapier. D&D however is a melting pot of epochs and weapon styles, many of which would be useless but still work somehow due to the extreme level of abstraction employed by the system.

About the Counter/Riposte thing: Counter is a more general term to me. To give you an example:
the "Abnehmen vom Hangetort" technique is a counter to a high blow in longsword fencing. It is however not a single action but two, a high block combined with an offensive sidestep and a realignment combined with a downward strike from the thusly gained advantageous position. In game terms this does still encompass two actions, however it is considered a single technique.
In contrast, something like a "Zwerchhau" is a single strike that parries an attack and hits the opponent at the same time. It's also a counter to a high blow, but a much more advanced technique that only takes up a single action.
Thus, a "counter action" is somewhat hard to define. Same with Riposte. Does it only work as a reactive attack or does it have a defensive purpose as well? If it does nothing to prevent a hit, it's only going to be used by heavily armored fighters.


...I'm just rambling senselessly. I'll come back to post when I've written something more coherent and constructive.

[Tyndmyr]

I use a longbow. If facing off against a single opponent with a melee weapon(say, in a larp scenario), there tends to be a distance sufficiently far that the opponent feels they can reliably dodge or block, yet is too close for another arrow to be reloaded, so a kind of standoff can ensue, as neither wants to move too soon.

This is less of an issue with real weaponry, as real arrows move a lot faster, extending this distance out. Could still exist against opponents with shields, etc(the bane of archers), but unarmored targets sort of die horribly against bows IRL.

If they have front liners to cover for them, archers steadily inflict a heavy toll on their targets, though. Long range, indirect fire is a lot less accurate, so less of a toll, but direct fire with a shield wall to keep them off your back? Frigging amazing.

For the same reason, archery was pretty useful even in ship combat. Everyone forgets that the vikings used archers, for instance. It wasn't all axes and shields.

[thubby]

For example, you don't simply block/riposte/parry when a giant swings half a tree at you; you either dodge it or end up on your back. What about fighting a thri-kreen? a tentacled beast? or for that matter any other multi-appendaged abomination?


this manner of thinking does not fit dnd style reality and only serves to unjustly hamstring marshal characters.

the resident wizard can warp reality by speaking and wiggling his hands. the resident fighter can already halt the advance of creatures orders of magnitude larger than himself.
to suppose that in such a world skill and strength could be used to truly duel a giant is far less incredible than any of a billion things even a modestly leveled character can do.

personally, i think the OP's idea is interesting, but overly complicated. giving weapons traits that scale with base attack, or (in the case of the rapier specifically) adding some other feature that allows for more attacks would open up more options for the long list of attack-equivalent actions available to many characters

[Dsurion]

I would strongly recommend you look up Riddle of Steel (http://www.driftwoodpublishing.com/whatis/).

If you're still interested in using 3.x, I would further recommend you take a look at Codex Martialis (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=75133).

The author of the Codex is on GitP as Galloglaich, and his site can be found here (http://www.codexmartialis.com/viewforum.php?f=15).

[warty goblin]

This seems like something that would be fun but could easily get over-complicated, especially in the case of a combatant that is anything besides a medium humanoid. If this ere simply man-on-man single combat, it would be easy, but in a fantasy setting, such things are rarely so.

That depends enormously on the fantasy. Classic Sword & Sorcery type fantasy is very much rooted in man on man combat; there aren't even as a rule large numbers of non-human but humanoid monsters. It's really only a trait of a relatively small subset of fairly modern fantasy to have ten bazillion different sorts of anatomically improbable intelligent races around every street corner. In the fantasy I've read, such settings are very much in the minority, particularly if you exclude fantasies based on D&D.


For example, you don't simply block/riposte/parry when a giant swings half a tree at you; you either dodge it or end up on your back. What about fighting a thri-kreen? a tentacled beast? or for that matter any other multi-appendaged abomination?
So you need a rule for dodging. This is something you need anyway. Taking a step back is a perfectly valid, and quite effective defensive action even in human vs. human combat.

(And let's face it, if you're stupid enough to fight a giant straight on without some extreme skills, getting spattered halfway across a football field is a well earned fate.)

Plus, if you have rules for duel wielding blades, you have rules for quad-wielding blades. And duel wielding is really not as awesome as its made out most of the time anyway. The most dangerous guy on the field isn't the one with a sword in each hand, it's the one with a nasty polearm, or sword and shield.

Tentacle beasts are easy; you use the existing rules for defense, and add the possibility of lopping off the tentacle.




In general, it seems like this would benefit the defender only against the attackers first strike, then it would favor the attacker heavily.
Which is how it should be. If a person lacks the skill to regain control of the fight after the first exchange of blows, they should suffer.

[Cealocanth]

[snipped due to length. I forgot about this thread for a bit there, sorry.]
Hmm, so I'm seeing three stances: offensive, defensive, and close stance for actual melee range. In offensive, attacking (with a slash) just leads back to offensive stance, but can you also attack with the piercing tip from defensive stance by throwing your weight forward and ending in offensive?

What is the difference between a block and a parry?

From what stances can you execute a counter?

Do you use the term "riposte" for counterattack, or is "riposte" exclusive to fencing?

Slashes and the like can be performed from defensive stance but tend to be extremely off balance in offensive stance. Thrusts tend to be off balance and slow in defensive stance, but work well in offensive. In general, throwing yourself at your opponent when they are armed with a polearm is a bad idea, so to compensate for this I would rule that using a slash in offensive, or a thrust in defensive, would merit some kind of opportunity attack.

A block is performed using the haft of the weapon itself, while a parry is performed with the blade. Blocks are used to stop slashing attacks, whether that be with another glaive or a sword, while parries are quick movements that throw your opponent off balance slightly and gently nudge their thrust out of the way to encourage them to miss. In other words, parries are useless against slashing attacks by any weapon, and blocks are useless against thrusting attacks of any weapon.

And yes, "riposte" is exclusive to fencing. In both sword based and polearm based western styles I have encountered, they use either "counterattack", "counter", "counterpunch", or "cheap shot".

Edit: One last thing, because I realize this is unclear. The distinction between the two stances is that offensive is longer range and more accurate, but has less damage than defensive. Offensive is also very bad at taking limbs for obvious reasons.

[Gavinfoxx]

I would strongly recommend you look up Riddle of Steel (http://www.driftwoodpublishing.com/whatis/).

If you're still interested in using 3.x, I would further recommend you take a look at Codex Martialis (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=75133).

The author of the Codex is on GitP as Galloglaich, and his site can be found here (http://www.codexmartialis.com/viewforum.php?f=15).

This. All of this. Don't reinvent the wheel!