Got a Real-World Weapon or Armor Question? Mk. V

[Dervag]

For that matter it's prevalent in US pilots. To many missions in to short a time and amphetamines is the only thing that'll keep you going. It works but.... I recall been told by a US commander (Colonel?) who, during the Iraq invasion, was put through directly to the pilot is a desperate effort to call him off before he took out a group of the commander's people. He managed at the last second but said it was scary how hard it was to get through to the pilot.This is not new. The RAF was popping them like candy during the Battle of Britain, with reason. It was important.

[Stephen_E]

This is not new. The RAF was popping them like candy during the Battle of Britain, with reason. It was important.

The German troops were doing it during the invasion of France.

They dropped the practice afterwards. There's always an "important" reason for doing it. And it works to a degree, but, and it's a big but, it comes with a cost that is seldom made clear to the user/subject.

Addiction, tendancy to uncontrolled violence, loss of judgement, wild mood swings. And this is armed people you're giving this stuff to. What's even dafter is that these days it's pretty much guaranteed to be illegal drugs in any western country, and shamefully when those side-effects, or should we say inevitable consequences, start kicking in don't expect any serious support from your organisation. Whether it's military pilots or undercover police, it's "see no evil, hear no evil" from the organisation that put them in the situation.

Stephen

[Storm Bringer]

two quick questions:

what would a DnD Half Plate armour look like? i can't think of a medieval style that would really fit the bill.

and what would real life Coat of plates armour be in DnD terms?

[Matthew]

what would a DnD Half Plate armour look like? I can't think of a medieval style that would really fit the bill.

It seems that half plate is supposed to correspond to late fifteenth century and sixteenth century armour types where only parts of the harness are worn. The term originates for D&D in the second edition "historical" supplement A Mighty Fortress, which also featured "three quarter plate".



and what would real life Coat of plates armour be in DnD terms?

Some sort of reinforced mail; banded or splinted armour would probably be suitable, though I think in AD&D you could have gotten away with "plate mail".

[Faleldir]

compared to other polearms and flails, what would be the stats for a footman's flail in 4e? I really like the idea of using Polearm Momentum and Dragging Flail together.

[Diamondeye]

I remember reading somewhere that the national hit-rate for police officers in the U.S. a few years back was somewhere around the neighborhood of 17%. Does anybody have any data on this? I didn't read this on the internet, but in a police publication. I could be way wrong on the percentage though.

That's probably about right. Stress severely degrades accuracy with handguns.

Part of the reason police officers empty their guns is accuracy, part is the unlikliness of a single hit, or even 2 or 3, incapacitating a target, and part is simply the fact that the act of pulling the trigger goes into a sort of "automatic" mode. It's not uncommon for a policeman to think he's fired only 4-5 shots and has actually fired 12 or more. The threat may have ended after shot 5 or 6 but the brain cannot cancel the "fire" commands already sent based on the now-neutralized threat fast enough.

This is what pisses me off so much about news stories where the want to go on about someone being shot X number of times by the cops. Stress behavior in combat has been studied almost ad nauseum, but the news still thinks implying that the cops just like shooting people over and over for fun makes a better story.

[Dervag]

To be fair, I doubt many people know about the research. The natural assumption is that if someone fires a bullet they probably meant to, and that if they fire fifteen bullets they probably meant to do that too.

[Stephen_E]

To be fair, I doubt many people know about the research. The natural assumption is that if someone fires a bullet they probably meant to, and that if they fire fifteen bullets they probably meant to do that too.


I generally don't raise much of an eyebrow unless it's something like emptying your weapon, reloading, and emptying it again in somebody, and hit with most of your shots. I know it can be a panic reaction, but I still have serious doubts at that point. At best I think the officier could do with a different, non-comabt, job.

The most "yeah, right!" I can think off was a Californan policeman, who according to the reports I saw emptied his weapon into the back of a handcuffed Samoan at least twice, hitting with about 15+ rounds. Sure he was a really big gut, but into the back of a handcuffed man?
The only think I was left hoping from that was that given I never saw a complete report of the incident it may've been incorrectly reported.


Stephen E

[Mike_G]

I generally don't raise much of an eyebrow unless it's something like emptying your weapon, reloading, and emptying it again in somebody, and hit with most of your shots. I know it can be a panic reaction, but I still have serious doubts at that point. At best I think the officier could do with a different, non-comabt, job.

The most "yeah, right!" I can think off was a Californan policeman, who according to the reports I saw emptied his weapon into the back of a handcuffed Samoan at least twice, hitting with about 15+ rounds. Sure he was a really big gut, but into the back of a handcuffed man?
The only think I was left hoping from that was that given I never saw a complete report of the incident it may've been incorrectly reported.


Stephen E

If I recall the incident, the cuffed prisoner had a very small concealed handgun, and fired it , striking the officer as the cop stood behind him.

Now, with the adrenaline rush of being shot, I'd understand the reluctance to stop pulling the trigger.

Here's the deal: if you decide to shoot somebody at all, you have crossed the Rubicon. One bullet or empty the magazine, it really is academic. You deliberately used lethal force on another human. Once you've decided you're ok with that, the best thing to do is make sure you do the job right.

My opinion, as a guy who learned to shoot people on the taxpayers' dime, is that you aim center mass, and pull the trigger until the guy is verifiably no longer a threat.

[Stephen_E]

If I recall the incident, the cuffed prisoner had a very small concealed handgun, and fired it , striking the officer as the cop stood behind him.

Could be. Never did see a full report.



My opinion, as a guy who learned to shoot people on the taxpayers' dime, is that you aim center mass, and pull the trigger until the guy is verifiably no longer a threat.

With all respect I thought you were military trained. Frame of reference for Police and Soldiers are completely different. Soldiers make lousy police, and police make lousy soldiers.
Note: Exsoldiers often make good police, and Expolice often make good soldiers.
So long as they can shift their frame of reference there's a lot of useful general skills transfer.

Stephen E

[Mike_G]

Could be. Never did see a full report.


I heard about one such incident. It sounds like the same one you mentioned.




With all respect I thought you were military trained. Frame of reference for Police and Soldiers are completely different. Soldiers make lousy police, and police make lousy soldiers.
Note: Exsoldiers often make good police, and Expolice often make good soldiers.
So long as they can shift their frame of reference there's a lot of useful general skills transfer.

Stephen E


I did some time in the Marines. I was never a cop, so I can't really say how the two relate. I understand that there are vast differences in scope of what one is allowed and expected to do between those jobs. One's index of suspicion for threats is probably higher while manning a roadblock in Baghdad than during a traffic stop or noise complaint in Boise, but once Bad Stuff starts, I think the old animal survival instinct kicks in.

Being shot at is being shot at, and adrenaline is adrenaline. And one's chances of surviving a gunfight in any environment are improved by some universal rules. "Hit first, hit hard, and keep on hitting" tends to work.

I suppose a perfect response in such a situation would be to take aim, demand surrender, and failing that, fire single, well placed shots, assessing the effect of each before firing again, until the target surrendered or was incapacitated.

I've never met anyone with enough icewater in his veins to pull that off.

[Norsesmithy]

Another reason why cops often fire so many rounds for each hit is that you can count on your groups quadrupling in size between firing when you are relaxed (average day on the range), and firing when your life depends on it.

And quite frankly, given how seldom the average officer uses his firearm and how little the average officer trains with his firearm, their groups can't really afford to quadruple in size.

I shoot a lot. Between my AR and my 1911, I probably average around 800 rounds a week (admittedly most of that is .22 LR out of their conversion kits, but those rounds count too). On a 7 meter pistol firing line, shooting at full speed, I can keep a magazine of defensive (+P) ammo on 4 inch circle. Part of that is practice, part is the fact that I have a very nice pistol.

So I can expect to hit as much as 8 inches away from my aim point in a real combat or defensive situation.

So I am pretty well assured that most of my shots will probably hit, but I shouldn't be shocked to find that I miss once or twice.

The local police are issued ammo for practice once a year. When they do their annual qualifying.

To qualify, they have to keep every shot in a human silhouette target. at 7 yards, NRA slowfire (IE one shot per second, no faster).

About half the department has to attempt this more than once to succeed.

I am told that this is pretty typical (a friend who is a cop in SoCal says that he has people in his department who think it is unfair that they even have to qualify at all, and a relative who is a cop in Ohio says that one time back when they still used revolvers, he found that one of the shlubs working with him hadn't emptied or reloaded his gun, and had walked around all year, and even drawn on a suspect, with a gun full of spent cartridges from the last time he had qualified).

Now going from slowfire to rapid fire, my groups go from being one ragged hole slightly larger than the diameter of the bullet (so lets call it half an inch) to about 4 inches. If they are having trouble keeping a magazine of slowfire on a target that is 23 inches by 45 inches, well, lets just say that they are lucky that the mechanics of the act prevent my scaling from applying to them...

But really, none of this is disparaging policemen, most cops will never fire their piece in anger. It is more important for them to be able to do other things, and they only have so much time available for training.

[Stephen_E]

But really, none of this is disparaging policemen, most cops will never fire their piece in anger. It is more important for them to be able to do other things, and they only have so much time available for training.

Yes, my understanding is that the useful general skill sets that crossover from soldier to police don't really include shooting.
General situational awareness, physical training types skills. Now they're useful. The truth is that polices aren't susposed to be shooting people (outside of SWAT type units). If they shoot someone things have gone badly wrong.

With police the large part of the job is about dealing with civilian citizens. Indeed one of the signs that your police are starting to fray at the edges is the tendancy to start thinking of everyone as criminals. Hair trigger reflexs are a really bad idea unless they come with a inbuilt safety. My understanding of soldiering is that working in a civilain rich envioriment is one of the serious "oh crap" active envioriments, unless you're doing specialty work - reconstruction, peacekeeping ect. It's really hard on combat reflexs and much tougher psychologically. I remember been on a forum with someone back from a tour in Iraq who'd had a young girl, 8-9, run up with a gift while on patrol. He swung the humvee mounted machinegun onto her and was about to pull the trigger before he stopped himself. He had a son her age back home. I don't think I need to emphasis how much and how many ways that is bad for a soldier.


Stephen E

[Yora]

Soldiers make very poor policemen. Their training is almost the opposite.

[Theodoric]

Soldiers make very poor policemen. Their training is almost the opposite.
Well, soldiers in alot of Nato countries are more and more trained for peacekeeping these days than actual warfare; and guerrilla warfare, with insurgents hiding amongst the general populace, is alot more closer to police activities than it is to say, WW1-style open warfare.

[Mike_G]

Yes, police work involves, (in theory) a lot more contact with civilians, rather than a battlefield environment. Good people skills, and the ability to diffuse a situation before it turns violent are more important that shooting Expert.

This discussion, however, is not about skills for police work, it's about shooting people. Something that both military and police train for, but which the military seems to take more seriously.

Yes, it's true most cops will never fire at a suspect. But it is irresponsible to carry a gun unless you are competent with it and comfortable using it. We test people to drive cars, because they are potentially dangerous, we should test people who want to carry guns. If you can't qualify with CPR, we don't let you work on the ambulance, despite the fact that using it is rare. If you can't remember to practice with, or clean your gun more than once a year, you maybe shouldn't be packing.

Nobody should have dangerous equipment on any job unless they know how to use it.

[Norsesmithy]

While I think that that is true in an ideal sense, I don't know if disarming half or better of our police force would be beneficial to the society as a whole.

Are we better off with the danger of wild fire from cops, but criminals who know that the police can shoot them if necessary, or would we be better off without having to worry as much about dangerous misses, but having a large number of police unable to fall back on a lethal option?

[Mike_G]

While I think that that is true in an ideal sense, I don't know if disarming half or better of our police force would be beneficial to the society as a whole.

Are we better off with the danger of wild fire from cops, but criminals who know that the police can shoot them if necessary, or would we be better off without having to worry as much about dangerous misses, but having a large number of police unable to fall back on a lethal option?


I think we should enforce the training to be competent with the dangerous weapon.

Should we let them high speed chase if they don't renew their drivers' licenses? Use pepper spray if they haven't had the training program? Give the Miranda rights based on what they remember from watching Law & Order?

There is plenty of competition for police jobs. If a guy doesn't want to qualify with his gear, he can go dig ditches and somebody who will do the training will be happy to step in and take the pay, bennies and pension.

[Dervag]

While I think that that is true in an ideal sense, I don't know if disarming half or better of our police force would be beneficial to the society as a whole.

Are we better off with the danger of wild fire from cops, but criminals who know that the police can shoot them if necessary, or would we be better off without having to worry as much about dangerous misses, but having a large number of police unable to fall back on a lethal option?For a long time, the British police used to be able to get away with carrying sticks; I'm not sure why the US is dramatically different.

[Diamondeye]

For a long time, the British police used to be able to get away with carrying sticks; I'm not sure why the US is dramatically different.

We have vastly different crime problems. A more detailed answer is treading on political discussions not permitted here.

As to the degree of training cops have with their weapons, it varies wildly, often within the same department. Some cops hate shooting and avoid it as much as possile. Others shoot regularly, hunt, or are in the Reserves or National Guard and get more practice. SWAT officers obviously practice far more than average.

[Raum]

For a long time, the British police used to be able to get away with carrying sticks; I'm not sure why the US is dramatically different.Different cultures. Seriously, it really comes down to what society (not an individual) is willing to put up with. In the US, we've made Billy the Kid, Jesse James, John Dillinger, and many others into folk heroes. Even people like Manson have followings.

US culture accepts and, to a degree, glorifies in charismatic criminals.

[Stephen_E]

.

Yes, it's true most cops will never fire at a suspect. But it is irresponsible to carry a gun unless you are competent with it and comfortable using it. We test people to drive cars, because they are potentially dangerous, we should test people who want to carry guns. If you can't qualify with CPR, we don't let you work on the ambulance, despite the fact that using it is rare. If you can't remember to practice with, or clean your gun more than once a year, you maybe shouldn't be packing.

Nobody should have dangerous equipment on any job unless they know how to use it.

Good point. But to be fair police do receive the training on how to use a gun safely, the trouble is that like any training, if you don't use it, it degrades. You will rarely lose it completely but it goes "rusty".

Now you could make a big thing about keeping gun training sharp, but then you run serious risks of the reverse problem, "have gun, must use it". As Raum noted ,US culture has a stong tendancy to turn gun users into folk heroes.

Given that Police shouldn't be using there guns often, I think you're better off with the risk of "rusty" gun skills rather than the risk of "have gun, will shoot".

Stephen E

[Raum]

I was addressing differences in cultures. :smallwink: When it comes to carrying, I agree with Mike G - anyone carrying a weapon should be trained and, preferably, tested. The one area he didn't explicitly state which I will is training should include when to use a weapon as well as how. Not just law either, ethics should be touched on. I think it's the ethics which get missed all too often.

[firechicago]

Different cultures. Seriously, it really comes down to what society (not an individual) is willing to put up with. In the US, we've made Billy the Kid, Jesse James, John Dillinger, and many others into folk heroes. Even people like Manson have followings.

US culture accepts and, to a degree, glorifies in charismatic criminals.

Unlike England, where Robin Hood is reviled as a brutal thug who attempted to overthrow the rightful king.

[AslanCross]

What would a chainmail neck covering be called that extends from the helmet down to the top of the shoulders?

I found my mom's old brass rubbings of the death masks(?) of some English Knights from Westminster Abbey and was wondering what that was called. He appears to be wearing some form of plate on his body, with hinged joints and a conical helmet with some of his forehead, his eyes, nose, mustache, and lips revealed and then below that the rest is that chainmail dealy.

If you mean this (http://images.google.com.ph/images?rlz=1C1GGLS_enPH342PH342&sourceid=chrome&q=Chain+coif&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=tl&tab=wi) it's called a coif.

[Stephen_E]

Unlike England, where Robin Hood is reviled as a brutal thug who attempted to overthrow the rightful king.

Robin Hood didn't use a gun.

I'd also note that the legends of Robin Hood generally portray him as supporting King Richard. So essentially he was portrayed as opposing corrupt authority but supporting good/rightful authority. Actually if you read the larger collection of older tales it gets even more complex, although still basicaly along this line.

And still no guns. :smallwink:

Stephen E

[Raum]

Unlike England, where Robin Hood is reviled as a brutal thug who attempted to overthrow the rightful king.Even if we accept Robin Hood as a valid example, how many can you name who lived in the last century? How about the last fifty years? In the US, 'glorification' of criminals is still happening today. Don't get me wrong, the majority disapprove. But there are significant segments of society who excuse various criminal acts for one reason or another.

I'm intentionally avoiding examples any more recent than Manson to prevent acrimonious political or religious debate but, if you watch the news closely, you'll still see it in varying degrees.

[Norsesmithy]

I don't think violent crime rates or shooting rates are really why England feels its acceptable to arm its police with clubs, but America feels the need for a Glock on every hip, America just isn't more dangerous or criminal than England (if you want my sources PM me, dragging them out into the open thread WILL cause it to degrade to political debate).

I think it is because in America, we feel that it is acceptable to just shoot criminals that resist violently, police or no police.

38 states have laws that force the police to issue you a Concealed Carry permit if you can take a short class and pay about a hundred dollars in fees (and some states, like Minnesota, will subsidise the fees if you are destitute).

Further, except for some unusual exceptions, NYC, LA, San Fran, Chicago, Detroit, and a few more, any citizen can keep and use a firearm to deter and kill burglars, without fear of facing charges for using lethal force.

You do not have that kind of right in the UK, and I think that the attitude that there are a whole lot more men that need killing than there are stereos that need stealing, or women raping, etc etc, is a big part of the reason why Americans would feel silly restricting their cops to a whistle, pepperspray, taser, and baton.

[Swordguy]

Let's see if I can tiptoe around this...

And yes, this is simplistic by design, so we don't get the thread locked. Please don't nitpick it.

The entire formation of America was rooted in rebelling against authority and "doing the right thing" at the point of a gun. Firearms were, and are, central to the American concept that authority should be mistrusted and removed with force if proven necessary. That self-same "do what's right and damn the consequences" has unfortunate effects when certain members of the culture consider "do what's right" to be a license to prey on the remainder of society. The two are inherently intertwined - as long as we teach that it was the right thing to do for the US to break away from Britain by force, it justifies any given member of society doing what's right for them by force (again, this is a simplistic argument meant to get the gist of what I mean across to you).

It's not so much that our culture glorifies criminals - it's that we glorify those people who stand up against authority (rightly or wrongly) and "fight the good fight", as it were. It's intrinsic to our culture.

Thusly, US police have pretty much always erred on the side of superior firepower (while beat cops didn't carry much firepower, they were quick to call in the military and their guns until about the turn of the century) because of this. Brit police haven't had to deal with that sort of culture...except when dealing with internal seperatist groups, and you'll note they sure as hell carried firearms then. It's not about rates of firearm ownership - Canada and Switzerland have similar rates per capita. It's about a culture that's fundamentally centered around resisting authority. We're ALWAYS going to have fairly high crime rates...and since we can't magically remove all firearms from society (no, really...we can't), a similarly-high proportion of crimes are going to be committed with a firearm.

[lsfreak]

The US has had from the get-go has had a very "protect it or lose it" attitude, which makes sense in the frontier-farmlands perspective where you had to be able to get and protect your land in order to actually keep it. To my knowledge, Europe never really even had such a situation and certainly not on such a scale. Another difference would be the value of one's property versus the well-being of the burglar; again I think this probably has roots in a frontier perspective where an attack on one's property most likely translated into an attack on one's physical well-being and was responded to as such.

EDIT: Also, what Swordguy said.

[firechicago]

Sorry that my original post was overly flip, but I was trying to make two serious points:

1) Yes some Americans idolize criminals. Some Brits idolize the IRA or the Skinheads. I'd tend to agree that it's more widespread in America but saying that Americans idolize violent criminality while Brits don't is a gross oversimplification.

2) When it comes to reasons why American police carry firearms and British police generally do not I think idolization of criminals is at best a tertiary cause. I'd look first at structural reasons (It's a lot easier to purchase and own a gun in America: My girlfriend hasn't handled a gun since she was 10, but she's licensed to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the state of Minnesota. Her church has to put up a sign outside specifically forbidding people to bring their firearms inside.) Then I'd look at more direct cultural issues. (Different ideas about the amount of violent force appropriate and necessary to police work, transplantation of Scottish and Irish border cultures where vigilantism was the primary mode of justice into the American frontier, historical antagonism between law enforcement and immigrant and minority groups.)

I'm just bugged by facile cultural arguments, because I feel like so often they boil down to "Those people are just different from us," which is unhelpful in terms of directing inquiry as well as having a nasty history of its own.

[alexi]

pet peeve here but you are seemingly confusing skinheads with neo-nazi's or the militant radical right (National Front ect.). The vast majority of skinheads are not racist militant murderous ect. the media however portrays skinheads as racist or uses the term skinhead to refer to a neo-nazi.

better examples would be Ronnie Biggs or the popularization of criminal behavior thru british hip-hop, Irving Welsh novels or Guy Ritchie movies.


Sorry that my original post was overly flip, but I was trying to make two serious points:

1) Yes some Americans idolize criminals. Some Brits idolize the IRA or the Skinheads. I'd tend to agree that it's more widespread in America but saying that Americans idolize violent criminality while Brits don't is a gross oversimplification.

2) When it comes to reasons why American police carry firearms and British police generally do not I think idolization of criminals is at best a tertiary cause. I'd look first at structural reasons (It's a lot easier to purchase and own a gun in America: My girlfriend hasn't handled a gun since she was 10, but she's licensed to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the state of Minnesota. Her church has to put up a sign outside specifically forbidding people to bring their firearms inside.) Then I'd look at more direct cultural issues. (Different ideas about the amount of violent force appropriate and necessary to police work, transplantation of Scottish and Irish border cultures where vigilantism was the primary mode of justice into the American frontier, historical antagonism between law enforcement and immigrant and minority groups.)

I'm just bugged by facile cultural arguments, because I feel like so often they boil down to "Those people are just different from us," which is unhelpful in terms of directing inquiry as well as having a nasty history of its own.

[Raum]

Sorry that my original post was overly flip, but I was trying to make two serious points:

1) Yes some Americans idolize criminals. Some Brits idolize the IRA or the Skinheads. I'd tend to agree that it's more widespread in America but saying that Americans idolize violent criminality while Brits don't is a gross oversimplification.Of course it's an oversimplification. Or, more inline with my intent, it's an abstraction which glosses over the many subcultures and societal forces leading to the situation. You could probably earn a doctorate going into the detail. :)


2) When it comes to reasons why American police carry firearms and British police generally do not I think idolization of criminals is at best a tertiary cause. I'd look first at structural reasons (It's a lot easier to purchase and own a gun in America: My girlfriend hasn't handled a gun since she was 10, but she's licensed to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in the state of Minnesota. Her church has to put up a sign outside specifically forbidding people to bring their firearms inside.) Then I'd look at more direct cultural issues. (Different ideas about the amount of violent force appropriate and necessary to police work, transplantation of Scottish and Irish border cultures where vigilantism was the primary mode of justice into the American frontier, historical antagonism between law enforcement and immigrant and minority groups.)Sigh, all this does is ignore causes and look at individual facets or affects. Why is it easier to legally own a gun? Because it's culturally acceptable. It's not acceptable just because there are more guns available...but looking into the 'why', even superficially, may be interesting. More importantly, it may promote some amount of mutual understanding.


I'm just bugged by facile cultural arguments, because I feel like so often they boil down to "Those people are just different from us," which is unhelpful in terms of directing inquiry as well as having a nasty history of its own.People, societies, and cultures do differ. Not understanding that - or expecting someone else to think the same as 'I' do - causes problems. After all, those differences are part of why individuals will make different decisions.

[Adlan]

Even if we accept Robin Hood as a valid example, how many can you name who lived in the last century? How about the last fifty years? In the US, 'glorification' of criminals is still happening today. Don't get me wrong, the majority disapprove. But there are significant segments of society who excuse various criminal acts for one reason or another.

I'm intentionally avoiding examples any more recent than Manson to prevent acrimonious political or religious debate but, if you watch the news closely, you'll still see it in varying degrees.

Ronnie Biggs, the great train robber. As someone mentioned earlier.


I feel the whole debate is edgeing political.

While not wanting to cross the line, I will note, that in the 1900's, Britain had the same sort of gun laws as the US did, Cultural differences have happened quite fast.


I think the reason behind the difference in the armarment of American and British Police officers is the time they were founded. The British Police Force was founded during a time when gun crime was very uncommon, and that heritage continued. The American Police was founded later, during a time when criminals generally had firearms, and police officers were armed with them to compete.

[J.Gellert]

I have a question on reach weapons.

Obviously, the pike, lance, and whip have noticeably longer reach and justify this attribute. But what about the glaive, the guisarme, and the ranseur? From what I see they are not really "reach" weapons in that... Neither are they all that long (10 feet is a long distance, longer if you "go metric" and translate 5ft to 2m squares) and they can actually be used against opponents pretty close to you (the naginata comes to mind, which is basically a glaive).

Would I be justified in removing the "reach" benefit of these weapons?

[Spiryt]

Most of these weapons are generally longer than 2 meters, so indeed they offered way more reach than longsword, long axe, falchion or whatever.

Then again, halberds from butt to the very point of top spike were also often way longer than 2 meters.

So it all really is about how you use it, and about the fact that D&D weapon system isn't realistic at all.

[Swordguy]

Most historical polearm lengths seem to average around 12-15 feet for polearms designed to be used en masse. Reach is probably appropriate for the weapons you list - though the issue is not with the type of weapon, but simply with the length of the shaft. That's something that can be easily changed - have a quarterstaff a stick a halbard head on it for when you're in a dungeon and have to combat close-range enemies, and then when you get out, stick it on the end of a 10' pole and get reach. Heck, there's historical examples of weapons that by all rights should get you TWO squares of reach.

The real issue with reach is the inability to attack adjacent enemies. With some weapons, that's appropriate (a lance, for example). With others, it's not (many polearms).

[J.Gellert]

However, a big sword could be over a meter long - and you are not holding a halberd one-handed from one end. The difference doesn't seem that big...

[Norsesmithy]

But a halberd like they used in formation fighting could have a shaft up to 3 meters long.

Many of the polearms that were used in proper battles were similarly fitted.

[Swordguy]

However, a big sword could be over a meter long - and you are not holding a halberd one-handed from one end. The difference doesn't seem that big...


You're comparing a sword that's going to have a total length between 1 (smallish longsword) and 1.75m-ish long (two-handed sword) with polearms that are in the area of 3.5-4.25 meters long. That is a fairly significant difference. Further, larger polearms tend to be used like a spear, or in large, downward strokes that are held fairly far down the shaft to maximize reach and force. Yes, they're slow, awkward blows, but there's going to be a bunch of them swinging or recovering at the same time.

Or, let's look at this another way. I'm standing in one place. With the two-handed sword on my wall, I can reach about 5-6 feet away from my body with the weapon. With an arming sword, I can reach about 4 feet away. With one of my longer halberds (12-foot shaft, 3 foot head), I can reach well over 10 feet and still maintain control of the weapon.

The idea behind D&D reach is that, for a Medium-size person, their arm's length reaches roughly to the edges of the square when they stand in the center. So, with either of my swords, I'll be able to reach into each "adjacent" box around me - my arm's length to hit the edges of "my" square, plus between 2.5 and 4 feet of blade length (sword depending). If I take my halberd (described above) and hold the bottom 3 feet of the shaft, then I've got 5 feet of shaft moving through the adjacent boxes around me, and then 2 more feet of shaft and 3 feet of head in which to strike a person two "boxes" away from me.

Thus, reach. Clear as mud?

[Adlan]

I don't really think a discussion about the rules assosiated with reach, or what weapons should have the rule are really what this thread is for.

[J.Gellert]

You're comparing a sword that's going to have a total length between 1 (smallish longsword) and 1.75m-ish long (two-handed sword) with polearms that are in the area of 3.5-4.25 meters long. That is a fairly significant difference. Further, larger polearms tend to be used like a spear, or in large, downward strokes that are held fairly far down the shaft to maximize reach and force. Yes, they're slow, awkward blows, but there's going to be a bunch of them swinging or recovering at the same time.

Or, let's look at this another way. I'm standing in one place. With the two-handed sword on my wall, I can reach about 5-6 feet away from my body with the weapon. With an arming sword, I can reach about 4 feet away. With one of my longer halberds (12-foot shaft, 3 foot head), I can reach well over 10 feet and still maintain control of the weapon.

The idea behind D&D reach is that, for a Medium-size person, their arm's length reaches roughly to the edges of the square when they stand in the center. So, with either of my swords, I'll be able to reach into each "adjacent" box around me - my arm's length to hit the edges of "my" square, plus between 2.5 and 4 feet of blade length (sword depending). If I take my halberd (described above) and hold the bottom 3 feet of the shaft, then I've got 5 feet of shaft moving through the adjacent boxes around me, and then 2 more feet of shaft and 3 feet of head in which to strike a person two "boxes" away from me.

Thus, reach. Clear as mud?

That does makes sense, actually, thanks for the clarification. But it wouldn't be too hard to use some of them against foes close by, as well, correct?

[Swordguy]

That does makes sense, actually, thanks for the clarification. But it wouldn't be too hard to use some of them against foes close by, as well, correct?

Choke up on the shaft.

[Fhaolan]

Choke up on the shaft.

Which is far easier to do for most 'reach' weapons in RL than the D&D rules indicate. Even really long weapons like pike can be used in short-range (the maneuver is called 'cheeking the pike', according to some manuals), but it's awkward and annoying, and requires a lot of room *behind* you to carry out.

[Matthew]

You get "short hafted" and "long hafted" pole arms. The short versions tend to be in the region of 6-9', whilst the longer ones run up to 12'+. Short hafted pole arms might be used in combination with longer pole arms in formations, as with mixed Swiss units of pike and halberd. There is really not a lot of functional difference between a short hafted pole axe (or halberd) and a Dane axe in terms of purpose (though, obviously, Dane axes are not much good for thrusting). An Anglo-Saxon spear and shield wall with Dane Axe wielding Huscarls has a very similar tactical application.

[Dervag]

Different cultures. Seriously, it really comes down to what society (not an individual) is willing to put up with. In the US, we've made Billy the Kid, Jesse James, John Dillinger, and many others into folk heroes. Even people like Manson have followings.

US culture accepts and, to a degree, glorifies in charismatic criminals.So why would that equate to police in Britain having once (not anymore) been able to enforce order with clubs where American police carried guns more or less from the beginning?

Also, I think you grossly overestimate how well liked even charismatic criminals are. People still get upset when someone is robbing or killing people, even if they write a ballad or a movie about him after he's safely dead. Compare to Australia that way...


The US has had from the get-go has had a very "protect it or lose it" attitude, which makes sense in the frontier-farmlands perspective where you had to be able to get and protect your land in order to actually keep it. To my knowledge, Europe never really even had such a situation and certainly not on such a scale.Well, there was the entire Middle Ages... but in that era most of the population didn't really own land to begin with, not least because they couldn't protect it.

I feel compelled to point out that when American frontier colonists felt that they were in danger of losing their land, they tended to organize rather than simply turning each individual house into a fortress. Not sure how relevant that is.


Another difference would be the value of one's property versus the well-being of the burglar; again I think this probably has roots in a frontier perspective where an attack on one's property most likely translated into an attack on one's physical well-being and was responded to as such.In Europe, that kind of response was quite common... but it was mostly the prerogative of the elite. Trying to rob a powerful man could get you messily dead until relatively recent historic times. Again, though, that seems not to have carried over into postmodern Europe.

[Avilan the Grey]

We have vastly different crime problems. A more detailed answer is treading on political discussions not permitted here.

As to the degree of training cops have with their weapons, it varies wildly, often within the same department. Some cops hate shooting and avoid it as much as possile. Others shoot regularly, hunt, or are in the Reserves or National Guard and get more practice. SWAT officers obviously practice far more than average.

AFAIK, the Norwegian police still carry sticks. Swedish police carry guns (with shredder rounds, to boot, to maximize stopping power). Still both our countries are much closer statistically to the UK than to the US. Different approaches, both work.

[Avilan the Grey]

Once I'm in the melee, I certainly would not want any fire support from my archer friends. Generally, archers are to be used before the melee starts.
If you have one or two Legolas-style over the top fantasy archers, they would probably fire some arrows when they get a clear shot. But under normal circumstances, that would be highly risky.

Not sure how it would work out, but IRL I think the idea was "fire until melee range, then either retreat, or engage", depending on the enemies equipment and skill. Most archers had enough weapons to fend for themselves if necessary, and in an unit like you describe it is highly unlikely that there would be any heavy armor involved, at least not on the side of the unit in question, so the archers were probably wielding sword without shield, or smaller weapons like hammers, short swords, daggers and a buckler for melee.

[Raum]

So why would that equate to police in Britain having once (not anymore) been able to enforce order with clubs where American police carried guns more or less from the beginning?It doesn't. I was speaking of US culture and society and only contrasting it with England to show a difference.

I suspect England's reliance on arming police with clubs can be traced to a few factors; a class system and its reserving select weapons / rights for the wealthy, geography - specifically the much smaller size and lack of a frontier since the middle ages, geopolitics - the British Empire's constant fear has been a unified Europe and external threats help reduce internal conflict, and cultural - a bar brawl or post game riot is far more common (and tolerated) than gang violence.


Also, I think you grossly overestimate how well liked even charismatic criminals are. People still get upset when someone is robbing or killing people, even if they write a ballad or a movie about him after he's safely dead. Compare to Australia that way...I'm not talking about "liking" a criminal - except possibly by a minority. However, the criminal activity is tolerated to a degree and often excused for varying reasons by significant segments of the population. Significant, not necessarily a majority. Accepted, tolerated, and even idolized by some. Not necessarily liked at all. :)

Take Bonnie and Clyde as one example - they evolved from petty thieves into nationally known bank robbers and murderers during the Great Depression. The pair were generally romanticized until the 1934 killings of two highway patrolmen. Wide spread poverty and blaming the government for the depression probably played a part in their being romanticized. They certainly didn't do anything remotely selfless or beneficial to others. Dillinger did, he burnt deeds as he robbed banks...during a time when many were losing family property. But, in spite of being simple criminals, Bonnie and Clyde were figures of romance even during their life times.

[valadil]

I've got a question about damascus steel. In book 2 of the Baroque Cycle, Neal Stephenson describes a ritualistic process for preparing wootz/damascus steel ore. At some other point he mentions that japan had really poor steel and that's why they went to such great lengths when forging their swords. All this jibed pretty well with what I've read in this thread, until the wootz was traded to the japanese as it had been for years.

The Baroque Cycle is mostly accurate historical fiction but it has its holes and Stephenson doesn't even claim it was well researched. Is there any historical basis for the japanese having access to Damascus steel? Was Stephenson ill informed? Or was this just a case of an author going "How omgaweseomsauce!!1!!one!! would it be if there was a katana made out of the best steel in the world omg?!"

[Crow]

"Damascus" steel is a term often used for the the process of folding the steel repeatedly to create a roughly homogenous piece of metal. This was especially common in cultures where access to decent ore was limited. It can be found in Japan, parts of the Middle East, and even Scandinavia, as well as other places.

Due to the uneven distribution of impurities in the final product (the steel), there would be weak points in the final crafted item. Folding the steel repeatedly would redistribute these impurities to give you steel of relatively even consistency.

[Norsesmithy]

An interesting question. I do know that once the Portugese opened trade with the Japanese that the Japanese bought huge quantities of both western constructed katana and raw steel, but I don't know of significant metals trade with any one but China before then.

Which would sound unlikely on the face of it, considering that the Indians exported significant quantities of wootz to a place so distant as Europe.

But, the trade from India to Europe was generally conducted on a fairly politically stable route that had lots of possible alternate routes that a trader could take if the local political climate was poor in any one stopover.

Whereas trade from India to Japan or India to China had to either cross the Himalayas, the dense jungles of SE Asia (where politics were tribal and fractious, and routes could be swallowed by wilderness in half a generation), or the strait of Malacca, a waterway that could pretty much be considered impassable after the Chinese retreated from naval trade protection, and before the Portuguese came on the scene.

I cannot really say whether or not Wootz ever dispersed East, A few articles dug up by google seem to mention its spread to China, BUT none of those articles source that claim.

I imagine that if significant quantities of Wootz ever made it to China, some would have made it to Japan, but I cannot find any evidence that it ever did.


"Damascus" steel is a term often used for the the process of folding the steel repeatedly to create a roughly homogenous piece of metal. This was especially common in cultures where access to decent ore was limited. It can be found in Japan, parts of the Middle East, and even Scandinavia, as well as other places.

Due to the uneven distribution of impurities in the final product (the steel), there would be weak points in the final crafted item. Folding the steel repeatedly would redistribute these impurities to give you steel of relatively even consistency.

Not quite. While the watered silk look of a proper damascene sword is caused by folding the steel, it is still differentiated from a mundane pattern welded blade by the physical properties of the steel itself.

Wootz is a steel crucible refined from a specific series of "tainted" ores that carried specific additives that made the steel better quality than most non-homogeneous blades, and increased the contrast between the layers, if it was layered.

It isn't magic steel, a proper homogenous blade is generally just as tough and durable, but compared to a standard non-homogeneous steel, it required far less work to get it to display the desired qualities.

[gabado]

Hello, I was wondering if someone could tell me the price for a Dsa sa58 osw american 7.62mm assault carbine. This is for a d20 modern campaign my friend is running.

Thanks.

[Norsesmithy]

That is the one that has the 13 inch barrel, right?

To buy one right now, as a civilian, in America, you need to file paperwork and wait 6 months for the ATF to run a background check and let you pay the government $200 for a tax stamp.

Then you can pay for the gun.

Recently one sold on Gunbroker for $2200.

Retail is 1810, or 1860 if you have a LLC or a class 3 SOT and can buy post 86 dealer samples and want a select fire version.

The reason why they are selling for more than retail is that the manufacturer has a large backlog of orders, so one ordered today, for retail, won't show up for quite a while.http://www.webarms.com/Gun%20Suppliers/DSA/sa58osw.jpg

BTW, a 13 inch .308 rifle is going to have a HUGE muzzle flash. In dry brush it may even start a fire.

[Crow]

Not quite. While the watered silk look of a proper damascene sword is caused by folding the steel, it is still differentiated from a mundane pattern welded blade by the physical properties of the steel itself.

Wootz is a steel crucible refined from a specific series of "tainted" ores that carried specific additives that made the steel better quality than most non-homogeneous blades, and increased the contrast between the layers, if it was layered.

It isn't magic steel, a proper homogenous blade is generally just as tough and durable, but compared to a standard non-homogeneous steel, it required far less work to get it to display the desired qualities.

Let me clear, I wasn't insisting that Japanese, Scandinavian, and Middle-Eastern steel were the same. I was referring to the the habit that people have nowadays of calling any pattern-welded or folded steel "damascus". Sure, they are different. But not that much different.

At it's base component, the people of those 3 cultures were doing pretty much the same thing, regardless of what it was called. While our boys in the middle east would in fact make choices of vanity in the construction of their blades, the base reason behind the folding was the same as the other mentioned cultures. Quality. After all, middle-eastern smiths were not the only ones to make choices of vanity in the construction of blades. There are examples of Scandinavian pattern-welded blades that make significant use of contrasting types of steel much like middle-eastern blades as well.

Regardless, with the smelting and refining processes we possess today, we have access to steel that is in most cases far superior to anything available in ages past, folded or pattern-welded, or not. In modern blades, pretty much any folded steel is a purely asthetic choice, especially with modern methods of heat-treatment.

[blackseven]

What is the plausibility of using a two handed sword (I'm avoiding the D&D term greatsword but that's what I mean) inverted (point down)? By this I mean primary hand on ricasso, secondary on the grip (at times), using the blade/point to primarily slash/stab at legs/lower area while alternating with smashing the pommel/guard/hilt into an opponent's face. Maybe even including higher up stabs by holding the sword almost horizontally like a spear.

I'm looking for this primarily when it might be too narrow to have room to "swing" the sword, like a hallway or something. The "sensible" thing to do might be to draw a shorter weapon, but I'm just looking for plausibility.

[Deadmeat.GW]

What is the plausibility of using a two handed sword (I'm avoiding the D&D term greatsword but that's what I mean) inverted (point down)? By this I mean primary hand on ricasso, secondary on the grip (at times), using the blade/point to primarily slash/stab at legs/lower area while alternating with smashing the pommel/guard/hilt into an opponent's face. Maybe even including higher up stabs by holding the sword almost horizontally like a spear.

I'm looking for this primarily when it might be too narrow to have room to "swing" the sword, like a hallway or something. The "sensible" thing to do might be to draw a shorter weapon, but I'm just looking for plausibility.

For better information on wielding a warsword or other hand-and-half or two-handed sword in close (for purpose of close quarter fighting or due to restricted space) see the Arma website, there must be a dozen links now in this forum.

They can given you pics and all for how to.

Edit: The following link might have some nice pix for how to. http://www.thearma.org/essays/Talhoffer/HT-Web.htm

[Dienekes]

What is the plausibility of using a two handed sword (I'm avoiding the D&D term greatsword but that's what I mean) inverted (point down)? By this I mean primary hand on ricasso, secondary on the grip (at times), using the blade/point to primarily slash/stab at legs/lower area while alternating with smashing the pommel/guard/hilt into an opponent's face. Maybe even including higher up stabs by holding the sword almost horizontally like a spear.

I'm looking for this primarily when it might be too narrow to have room to "swing" the sword, like a hallway or something. The "sensible" thing to do might be to draw a shorter weapon, but I'm just looking for plausibility.

As long as the two handed weapon swordsman is armored he can crush people with his blade. I saw the zweihander swordsman let his opponent get close (and hit him once or twice) and hew down on him from high vom tag position that completely bent his opponents sword and knocked him off his feet.

So yes, they can be useful in narrow situations, but it would be hampering.

[Fhaolan]

What is the plausibility of using a two handed sword (I'm avoiding the D&D term greatsword but that's what I mean) inverted (point down)? By this I mean primary hand on ricasso, secondary on the grip (at times), using the blade/point to primarily slash/stab at legs/lower area while alternating with smashing the pommel/guard/hilt into an opponent's face. Maybe even including higher up stabs by holding the sword almost horizontally like a spear.

I'm looking for this primarily when it might be too narrow to have room to "swing" the sword, like a hallway or something. The "sensible" thing to do might be to draw a shorter weapon, but I'm just looking for plausibility.

This is actually one of the standard guards with the zwiehander, slaughter-sword, and other 'really big' swords. So it's completely plausible as a stance.

Using the sword in that stance in a narrow space will still be limiting, of course.

[Swordguy]

What is the plausibility of using a two handed sword (I'm avoiding the D&D term greatsword but that's what I mean) inverted (point down)? By this I mean primary hand on ricasso, secondary on the grip (at times), using the blade/point to primarily slash/stab at legs/lower area while alternating with smashing the pommel/guard/hilt into an opponent's face. Maybe even including higher up stabs by holding the sword almost horizontally like a spear.

I'm looking for this primarily when it might be too narrow to have room to "swing" the sword, like a hallway or something. The "sensible" thing to do might be to draw a shorter weapon, but I'm just looking for plausibility.

Talhoffer plate 61 shows almost exactly what you're describing, except with a long sword instead of a zweihander (thus, no ricasso). There's absolutely no reason why doing the exact same thing with a zweihander wouldn't work - in fact, I've done so.

You move the tip of the weapon to the right and left (with the pommel staying about where it is, forming a triangle around your body) to intercept attacks. You're weak against an overhead attack, so when he preps for a downwards stroke, beat his time and thrust forward into his belly or groin. This position also offers a deceptively fast face-thrust. The downside is that you've essentially made your cutting weapon into a spear, so you limit yourself in technique, and a smart adversary will zone in and pin your midblade against your body - you have little strength to hold your weapon away from you in this ward - and get within belt-grabbing distance, maybe even pinning your weapon between your two bodies. There's all sorts of nasty wrestlings he can do to you from here - your best option is to simply drop the sword if he does so.

[Adlan]

I suspect England's reliance on arming police with clubs can be traced to a few factors; a class system and its reserving select weapons / rights for the wealthy, geography - specifically the much smaller size and lack of a frontier since the middle ages

The section I have highlighted is one things missing from English history. Weapons have been much less restricted historically in the UK, than in the rest of Europe. It is only recently that weapons control has featured strongly in British politics, mainly fear of a communist revolution in the 1920's.

[Matthew]

The section I have highlighted is one things missing from English history. Weapons have been much less restricted historically in the UK, than in the rest of Europe. It is only recently that weapons control has featured strongly in British politics, mainly fear of a communist revolution in the 1920's.

I believe that guns were quite tightly controlled for a while during the rise of parliament, and apparently the manufacturing and import of crossbows were quite carefully controlled in the twelfth century. I am not sure how that compares to Europe as a whole, but the typical legislation is the forbidding of war materials to be sold outside of the country during periods of endemic warfare (which, it should be noted, usually means that armaments are being traded out of the country on a fairly large scale). Charlemagne explicitly forbid the sale of Frankish swords, for instance.

[Adlan]

And these Laws are then Quashed. They don't last.

Hunting rights are restricted, I'll agree that this has a long history in the UK (and the rest of Europe as well). But even these attempts when they start encroaching on weapon ownership (during the tudor times is what comes to mind), they are repealed. And during that time the weapons were crossbows and handguns, not the common weapon of the people at the time (swords and Warbows).

The Stuart Monarchs had a fair amount of laws restricting arms, but they got quashed as well.
In the Glorious Revolution, the right for protestants to "keep and bear" arms was affirmed, and could not be removed by the monarchy.

[valadil]

Finally caught up reading this thread :-D Now I just gotta go read I-IV...

I have a question concerning reach. Does a higher margin of reach make a difference? I get what someone with, say, 50" of reach (between sword and arm length, not gonna bother distinguishing between the two of them (but feel free to explain the significance of either to me if it does matter)) is going to do against someone with 45". From the one semester of fencing I took (where my thrust was longer than some peoples' lunge - yay for being 6'4") I gathered that I was supposed to maintain a distance where I could poke them and they couldn't poke me. And my opponents tried to get to a distance where they could hit me, but all my thrusts would be awkward and clumsy. Anyway, using the numbers I mentioned before there's a 5" difference in reach. Would tactics change if that was a 15" difference?

I'm wondering this for hypothetical game design reasons. Can reach be reduced to less than, greater than, equal to, or does the margin actually matter?

-- edit--

Apologies if this post is babbly. I didn't get enough sleep last night. Blame DDO going free to play.

[Swordguy]

I have a question concerning reach.
...
Would tactics change if that was a 15" difference?

I'm wondering this for hypothetical game design reasons. Can reach be reduced to less than, greater than, equal to, or does the margin actually matter?


Swordplay is, like football and sex, a game of inches. Every inch matters. More is always better, except when it's not (ie, you've got a long weapon that's not dangerous along its entire length - like an axe - and someone zones past the "dangerous" part). Are you familiar with the concept of 'conservation of motion" as it applies to combat? Knowing, to the inch, your opponent's reach allows you to move as little as possible to avoid/deflect/parry their attack, which means your counter can be faster (since you didn't move as far, it doesn't have as far to recover and strike, thus, faster) and thus more likely to hit.

That said, designing a game that tracks reach to the inch may be too far along the line of "abstraction---simulation" to be really playable. I rather like Shadowrun's version: you have a given Reach value (fists: 0, knife: 1, short sword: 2, arming sword: 3, polearm: 4, longspear/pike: 5). The difference in reach values is applied as a bonus to the person with the longer Reach value. That's probably the best compromise between abstraction and simulation that I can think of offhand (and remembering that I can't recall Riddle of Steel's system for reach right now).

[Dervag]

That said, designing a game that tracks reach to the inch may be too far along the line of "abstraction---simulation" to be really playable. I rather like Shadowrun's version: you have a given Reach value (fists: 0, knife: 1, short sword: 2, arming sword: 3, polearm: 4, longspear/pike: 5). The difference in reach values is applied as a bonus to the person with the longer Reach value. That's probably the best compromise between abstraction and simulation that I can think of offhand (and remembering that I can't recall Riddle of Steel's system for reach right now).Any exceptions for "we're fighting in a dumpster" or "this has just become a wrestling match" in Shadowrun?

[valadil]

That said, designing a game that tracks reach to the inch may be too far along the line of "abstraction---simulation" to be really playable. I rather like Shadowrun's version: you have a given Reach value (fists: 0, knife: 1, short sword: 2, arming sword: 3, polearm: 4, longspear/pike: 5). The difference in reach values is applied as a bonus to the person with the longer Reach value. That's probably the best compromise between abstraction and simulation that I can think of offhand (and remembering that I can't recall Riddle of Steel's system for reach right now).

Shadowrun's version sounds awesome. I'm kinda pissed at my GMs now for never using it properly. Riddle of Steel is something I've been meaning to read for a while.

Does SR allow for getting inside someone's reach? It seems little odd to me that the longspear would always get +3 against a shortsword, even if the shortsword person was within a couple feet of the spear guy. Or is that what grappling/spare weapons are used for?

I hadn't thought of conservation of motion in this sense. Pretty much all I learned about it in fencing 101 was that you should just block enough to make someone miss you and that pushing their foil 18" away from you was a total was of your energy. Being an extremely lazy individual I picked up on this concept pretty quickly.

[Swordguy]

Any exceptions for "we're fighting in a dumpster" or "this has just become a wrestling match" in Shadowrun?

I'm pretty sure that there were - at least for the grappling part (if you're wresting, no Reach modifiers apply at all). The bit about weird environmental conditions is usually mentioned as something the GM is supposed to fiat - I'd have to check the book, though. I KNOW that I'd apply them regardless (no, you cannot use your longspear and get its Reach advantage in the phone booth! Pull out your knife or use your bare hands.).




I hadn't thought of conservation of motion in this sense. Pretty much all I learned about it in fencing 101 was that you should just block enough to make someone miss you and that pushing their foil 18" away from you was a total was of your energy. Being an extremely lazy individual I picked up on this concept pretty quickly.

Yup, that's the theory behind CoM. The further you move something one way, the longer it takes you to move it back into an attack position and make the attack. You want to move "just enough" (what "just enough" is, naturally, depends on the weapon, your physicality, the opponent's observed reaction speed, and a host of other factors).

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: This thread has reached (and exceeded) the 50 page limit. A new version has been created: here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6911271).