| Author |
Message |
|
Guy Bayes
Location: United States Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 64
|
 Posted: Wed 22 May, 2013 7:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I think I have played most major RPG's over the years, Ars Magica did a relatively decent job of a simple, semi realistic combat mechanics in a medieval setting. People died a lot.
Neal Stephenson's Clang group has also done some good hands on research going
If you assume a fight with no armor, a solid thrust or cut with a sword is not very survivable. You may not die immediately but your ability to fight is going to be very degraded and you are not going to be robbing the snake gods temple for the next six months at least assuming infection doesn't get you. I have also never seen a RPG that accurately modeled bleeding.
In general, you get hit with something like a gun or a sword, while it's true you are not necessarily going to drop dead instantly, you should not underestimate the degree to which you are going to be out of action, and quickly for a long long long time
There is a lot of opportunity for lesser wounders and slicers though in duels, most of the techniques take every opportunity to slice the blade in on an undefended hand or cheek.
It's also important that weapon and hand to hand combat always always go together. Weapon combat can very easily transition to hand to hand
As far as weapon vs weapon duels go, the single dominant factor should be skill and armor. Skill differential can make even lopsided weapon matchups go the more skilled opponent. If the skill levels are relatively equal the longer weapon has the advantage. If serious armor is in play the advantage a person with armor has over someone without cannot be overstated, there is a reason why they wore the stuff.
In battles, it's all about unit cohesion
|
|
   |
 |
|
A Kenneth
Location: Sydney Joined: 14 Mar 2011
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Wed 22 May, 2013 9:33 pm Post subject: Weapon Sizes and Weights |
|
|
I'm surprised no one has linked this yet to answer your weight/size of weapons questions...
http://www.myArmoury.com/reviews.html
Also, in the concepts for some of your characters, none of them really seems to need to use weapons, either specializing in unarmed combat, or magic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lafayette C Curtis
|
| Posted: Fri 24 May, 2013 8:56 pm Post subject: Re: Raymond Arnold |
|
|
| Morgan Jones wrote: | Surprisingly, DnD actually got most of it's weapon weights spot on (at least in 3.5 I've never given 4.0 a proper look). Even if it got almost everything else wrong.
A dagger can weigh up to 1lb
A shortsword weighs around 2lbs
A rapier usually weighed 1kg or 2.2lbs.
A longsword usually weighed about 4lbs. Although they could weigh more, especially if your definition of longsword covers larger two-handed swords as well.
The heaviest swords weighed about 8lbs. Those would be your two-handed monstrosities.
In fact, almost all weapons in the medieval ages weighed anywhere from 2-8lbs (or 1-4kg approx.). A lot of people forget that these weapons were intended to be used for extended periods of time in warfare, they needed to be light enough to use with ease. |
Um . . . not really. The D&D categories don't line up very well with the historical categories to begin with. For example, a D&D longsword is what most medieval people would have simply called a "sword," while in modern times it'd be known as an arming sword or at most a bastard sword. 4 lbs. for an arming sword (or even a lighter bastard) is very heavy unless it's meant to represent the combined weight of sword, scabbard, and suspension. The "bastard sword" category in D&D v3.5 weighs ten pounds (!) when the historical/real-world equivalent--namely, a longsword--would still normally go under four pounds except for the largest examples. The most ridiculous part is when the game treats the katana as a bastard sword, meaning that it weighs ten pounds as well!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tyler Jordan
|
| Posted: Sat 25 May, 2013 8:16 pm Post subject: Re: Raymond Arnold |
|
|
| Lafayette C Curtis wrote: |
Um . . . not really. The D&D categories don't line up very well with the historical categories to begin with. For example, a D&D longsword is what most medieval people would have simply called a "sword," while in modern times it'd be known as an arming sword or at most a bastard sword. 4 lbs. for an arming sword (or even a lighter bastard) is very heavy unless it's meant to represent the combined weight of sword, scabbard, and suspension. The "bastard sword" category in D&D v3.5 weighs ten pounds (!) when the historical/real-world equivalent--namely, a longsword--would still normally go under four pounds except for the largest examples. The most ridiculous part is when the game treats the katana as a bastard sword, meaning that it weighs ten pounds as well! |
D&D also uses things like hit points so...
I read it as a measurement of bulk, as it counts towards a character's encumbrance, and, well, weapons don't carry as easily as clothes, armor, or a good pack.
|
|
|
|
|
Christine Munro
Location: Oxford Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Posts: 39
|
| Posted: Sun 26 May, 2013 10:37 am Post subject: Re: Raymond Arnold |
|
|
| Tyler Jordan wrote: | | I read it as a measurement of bulk, as it counts towards a character's encumbrance, and, well, weapons don't carry as easily as clothes, armor, or a good pack. |
Yeah, I see the same thing an awful lot on computer RPG message boards, where the unspecified units of encumbrance are often referred to as "pounds" rather than what I imagine is their true meaning, which is the arbitrary value of "inconveniences": for example, a demonic sword covered in pointy bits and that tries to eat your soul is going to be more difficult to carry around than a nice, well-behaved, user-friendly steel sword: it certainly doesn't weigh 62 lbs, though it may feel like it by the time the unfortunate protagonist is done wrestling with its cantankerous and difficult nature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tyler Jordan
|
| Posted: Mon 27 May, 2013 8:28 pm Post subject: Re: Raymond Arnold |
|
|
| Christine H wrote: | | Tyler Jordan wrote: | | I read it as a measurement of bulk, as it counts towards a character's encumbrance, and, well, weapons don't carry as easily as clothes, armor, or a good pack. |
Yeah, I see the same thing an awful lot on computer RPG message boards, where the unspecified units of encumbrance are often referred to as "pounds" rather than what I imagine is their true meaning, which is the arbitrary value of "inconveniences": for example, a demonic sword covered in pointy bits and that tries to eat your soul is going to be more difficult to carry around than a nice, well-behaved, user-friendly steel sword: it certainly doesn't weigh 62 lbs, though it may feel like it by the time the unfortunate protagonist is done wrestling with its cantankerous and difficult nature. |
Exactly. It's justification after the fact, but I can live with that.
TESV: Skyrim goes one further and just uses generic nameless units for weight, which helps take a step towards handwaving the whole mess.
|
|
|
|
|
Christine Munro
Location: Oxford Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Posts: 39
|
| Posted: Tue 28 May, 2013 3:59 am Post subject: Re: Raymond Arnold |
|
|
| Tyler Jordan wrote: | | TESV: Skyrim goes one further and just uses generic nameless units for weight, which helps take a step towards handwaving the whole mess. |
It was the TES series I had in mind with the thing regarding "this sword uses up 62 indeterminate units of your carrying capacity"; people still keep referring to them as "pounds" and though it's probably a lost cause, I'll keep on attempting to offer an alternative explanation!
I did have one person who absolutely insisted that a real sword actually weighs in the order of 62 pounds because he'd picked one up and it "felt heavy". I informed him that I had a number of swords sitting right next to me and how much they actually weighed, which he dismissed with a comment along the lines of "but they're replicas, they're not real", whatever that means. Then again, there's actually been people who've demonstrated that it's physically impossible for something with the volume of a sword to weigh 62 pounds, but it seems those arguments also fall on deaf ears.
Er anyway, sorry for the tangent!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic