[Bram Verbeek]

vitality points could be used for that. Problem with rpg is also that you need to factor in range to make weapons work, and you have the problem that you work on a turn based system, a guy with a longsword is going to attack you when he can, and before you can strike him, but in turn based, the guy with the dagger could step in quickly to attack him back. You could also look at ars magica and frankenstein a set of rules between 4th and 5th edition, 4th edition is available for free download

[William Carew]

[Piotr K.]

I remember once reading a short essay about the subject of putting realistic combat in role-playing games. There is one thing in particular which appealed to me: That skill with a particular weapon alone is not only factor in combat. For example, someone who trained only with a sword suddenly is forced to rely on a spear. In most RPGs that makes him pretty helpless since he doesn't have right skills. In reality, he's not - his training, even though done with a completely different weapon, gives him a kind of general combat experience; he will be able to read enemy movements, judge the distance properly, keep the footwork. Of course he probably won't beat an enemy who was trained in polearm fighting, but he should outplay anyone with less combat experience(While in RPGs in most cases a commoner would have an equal chance against him).
Well, I can't tell you if it's true, I am barely quoting the author of the essay, but it seems logical enough to me.

As for the hit points, there is a very simple trick which will both get rid of them and enhance the combat experience: Rename them. Look at it this way - what happens when you lose hit points? Well, in most systems - nothing. Whether you have 100 or 1, your combat abilities remain the same. It's only when you get down to 0, you're in trouble. So now let's take the "hit points" and rename them to "advantage points". Now it all makes sense: When two people fight, one will eventually land an accurate blow(When the opponent's "advantage points" reach 0) and the combat will be pretty much over. The "transparent armors" work in this system since they will represent that it's harder to successfully hit an armoured opponent by reducting the "advantage damage" dealt. Even the weapon damage transfers more or less well: a dagger with 1d4 "advantage damage" is obviously disadvantaged against a long sword with 1d8 "advantage damage" and the sword is disadvantaged against the polearms. Of course ranged weapons can't have "advantage" - they either hit or not, and if they do they either pierce the armour or not.

[Allen Andrews]

[James R.Fox]

Raymond-don'r forgrt thr girls!The weaponmasters-(modern,) at Association of Renniassance Martial Arts (and ite U.S. army) say that women make very efficient fighters properly trained. That is they wear breast protection and remember to use their one advantage, their muscle mass is below the average guys center of gravity. ARMA says they do train women as sword masters if they( A) have at least 6 mo martial arts training ( the U.S. army requires a year mandatory class from all female recruits) and (B) wear the International Olympic Comittiee's required breast protection for female boxers and martial artists.Of course a real female soldier of the period who didn't wear a jack or doublet of defense,and carry a rapier plus dagger was out of her mind. Read the Conquest of Mexico by Bernal Diaz de Castillo. One of Cortez's most famous soldiers was a woman of hidalgo birth,Maria de Estrada,who accompanied her brother and convinced the Aztecs she was the incarnation of their death goddess, the was-god's sister.She, like most Spanish soldiers wore a padded cotton coat or doublet three fingers thick ( I am paraphrasing Bernal's description of what the Spaniards went to because of the heat and humidity. That plus a helmet and gorget or bishops cope is what all but the cavalry used.) For weapons she carried a very light lance and a rapier.(and was probably built likes a fireplug) But Bernal was emphatic she could march and fight with the guys and he was there, Remember though they were facing weapons of wood and glass (obsidian) designed to cut a enemy up and exhaust him for capture and sacrifice. Finally,remember a dagger under the right-hand short ribs from behind Will take out Conan. I am not against fantasy, I am against fantasy that doesn't work internally.Read vol I to XVIII of Marion Zimmer Bradley's Sword and Sorceress series of short stories All swords and sorcery are handed by women and most is Very believsble. No valiant woman battleing the bad guy face to face with a 10 lb broadsword.although she might do the knife under the ribs from behind trick.or better yet, use a bow and shoot the sucker full of holes.There, now my gf won't stick a knife under MY short ribs. Pax Vobiscum

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

While a dagger can kill with little force, it can't inflict same kinds of wounds as a swords or polearm. Even a thrust to the face or heart could leave your foe with enough time for one or more attacks. A sword, on the other hand, can potentially force an instant stop by cutting deeply into the brain or severing the spine. Removing a limb would also likely end the fight. In this sense, swords and polearms deal more damage.

This relates to main complaint with the Riddle of Steel. In that system, even minor wounds significantly hinder a combatant. In reality, people commonly fight on despite horrific trauma. As Silver wrote, thrusts to many places fail to incapacitate quickly if at all.

[Martin Wallgren]

[Brian Robson]

I've always liked the old Runequest system for realism - being based more on deflecting, dodging and armour for defence than hit-points. A system where one hit on an unarmoured area can incapacitate you regardless of your experience.

Basically more experience = better skills at attacking/defending, not more HP's.

Chance to hit was purely skill-based. Damage was purely weapon-based (+str which didn't really change much). Armour reduced damage dramatically (eg. mail stopped 7 pts of dmg slash dmg (half that for impact), where the average arm only had 3 HP's.. iirc). So a heavy hit of 8 on a 1d8 sword would only cause 1dmg to the arm - but if unarmoured, you are talking dismemberment (happens when losing double the limb hp's in one hit) if you follow.

They also had stuff for the length of the weapon. Pretty simplistic but its the only game I've seen that takes it into account. Basically the longer weapon gives you a better chance of striking first.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I really don't like the DnD system. Armour should reduce damage, not make you harder to hit (If anything it should make you easier to hit as you cannot dodge as quick). Hits should be rare, having to get past the persons defensive skills, but debilitating (if unarmoured). Armour should be effective - letting you survive and ignore many hits. Possibly weapons could have different armour penetration and damage stats. eg. a broadhead arrow will do more damage to flesh than a bodkin but a bodkin will have more chance of penetrating armour....

Anyhoo... Good luck with it!

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Martin Wallgren]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Martin Wallgren]

[Raymond Arnold]

The videos were interesting, though it did seem to me that in a "real" duel things should have been moving faster and more intensely. Unfortunately, it's probably hard to capture a "real" duel for youtube.

A few brief points about my system so far, and yet another question:

1. Hit points are determined at character creation by your Fortitude score. They only increase if your Fortitude increases, which is fairly rare.

2. Armor does function as damage reduction instead of making it harder to hit. However, I've recently been thinking about this. Obviously DR makes more sense, since it's what armor actually does. But I'd think part of a fighter's skill would be finding weak points in the armor. To be fully realistic, armor might have a "cover" bonus that is added to a character's defense score. Say your normal defense is 20. Your armor provides a 10 cover bonus. If an opponent rolls higher than 20 but lower than 30, their damage is reduced. If they roll higher than 30, they hit a weak spot and deal normal damage.

3. The system is entirely skill based. There is no XP or levels, only improving individual skills as you use them. Originally, I had each weapon type (dagger, sword, two handed sword, mace, two handed mace, etc) as a different skill, and had some kind of system where having a lot of sword would give you a bonus on related weapons.

Eventually we decided there were too many skills and needed to trim it down. Mostly because there were a lot of weapons that seemed like they should be wielded similarly, and other weapons that might sound similar but in fact weren't. (Do you wield a rapier more like a sword or like a spear or something else entirely?)

What we've been using since then is the following set of weapon skills.

Light (Slashing, Piercing, Bludgeoning or Unarmed)
Medium (Slashing, Piercing, or Bludgeoning)
Heavy (Slashing, Piercing, or Bludgeoning)

So that's still 10 different skills that can potentially interrelate. My question is a) is that a realistic division in the first place and b) could I trim in down even more and still be realistic? (i.e. would Light Melee, Medium Melee and Heavy Melee suffice? Maybe include unarmed and pole-arms as seperate classes?) I was thinking perhaps I could unify most of the melee skills but give player specialization abilities that provided the "individual weapon skill" flavor.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

[Raymond Arnold]

[quote="Benjamin H. Abbott"]

[Sam N.]

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

Di Grassi wrote the following: Neither happelie is it thought ſhoulier or gentlemanlike, not to know how to ſtrike or defend, but onely with wepons framed to that end: for which cauſe, it may wel be ſaid, that the ſoldier differeth from other men, not becauſe he is more ſkilful in handling the ſword or iavelyn, but for that he is expert in everie occaſion to know the beſt advantage & with iudgement both to defend himſelf with anie thing whatſoever, and therewithal ſafelie to offend the enimie: In which & no other thing conſiſteth true ſkirmiſhing.

Similarly, George Silver said masters should be skillful with all weapons. Musashi warned against focusing too much on any one weapon. I'm not sure how to explain it, but I'd be wary of any system that encourages warriors to specialize.

[James R.Fox]

Remember these masters were preparing their students of a lifestyle involving, in those days constant wars, dueling, and general armed assault at random intervals.If you couldn't go with what you had you were dead, period Why else do all those fighting manuals emphasise Wrestling as the basic skill of a knight? Check out all the manuals translated and published by ARMA on their site (Association of renniassace Martial Arts) Check out the general contemporary statements of how heavily armed and brutal life was in the Germanies,even for the lower classes.If you couldn't at least wrestle him down and put your belt knife in his eye, you were in trouble.England wasen't Quite as bad, but it was close. Read "The duel of Peachy the Shoomaker" on the ARMA site. Peachy, and every one of his apprentices was armed. And, of course, anybody who has read the history of France knows about the battles (literally) of the french kings to put down the constant wars,duels and random mayhem. In short it's a case of real life vs RPG, and how close to real life in that day do you want to make it.

[Raymond Arnold]

I see what you mean, but I think this is something that makes more sense for individual DMs to enforce by creating the right situations. If you never lose your sword or find yourself having to subdue someone in a social situation, then it's never going to matter whether you can use your concealed daggers or unarmed skills or whatever. In real life, a sword won't always be available or ideal, and its not the player's fault if the DM fails to create a realistic set of circumstances.

The main exemption is the "knowing how to use a weapon helps you defend against it." I can see creating a set of feats that give you a bonus against opponents wielding certain weapons, and those feats would require you to have already gotten mastery with that weapon.

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

I suspect it's even more complicated than that. I doubt you could become a master of the sword and then fail completely when you picked up a polearm. Especially after understanding the basics of various weapons, I bet your overall martial skill would increase, not just your ability to handle a single arm. The principles of the art remain the same across weapons.