Topic: Attack Charts a False sense of Protection.

[GrumpyOldFart]

There is: cost.

Wearing heavy armor also isn't appropriate in every circumstance. May attract the concern of the town guard, etc.

True and true, however, hardly the only considerations. If you tend to face archers a lot, full plate armor is a good thing, but against attack forms that rely on exact control of the shot (like rapiers) or attack forms where to be hit at all is to be severely injured or killed (like trebuchets), it's a death trap. Try using a rapier yourself while wearing pauldrons and vambraces and chances are your opponent will show you every single spot where the armor doesn't quite cover, while you'll never be fast or accurate enough to hit him at all. Try martial arts in metal leg armor and you'll never get in range of your opponent unless he chooses to let you. You'll always and forever be fighting on the other guy's terms.

[Cory Magel]

Wearing heavy armor also isn't appropriate in every circumstance. May attract the concern of the town guard, etc.

This is how it works in my setting.  If you are wearing anything heavier than chain mail you are assumed to either be in the military (cavalry, knight, etc) or a Church Knight.  While that doesn't sound so bad there are times when the players do not want to either explain themselves or draw attention in the first place.

[Hurin]

- Charts go to 175

Yaay!

- Severity of criticals go higher than E (where F = E + A with same roll, etc)

My preference would be separate rolls, given that you can swing a sword many more times than once in a round, but that is a minor quibble, easily houseruled.

- No more getting hit more often while wearing armor (i.e. the built-in quickness penalty)

I didn't really mind the higher ATs taking hits a bit earlier on the tables, so long as they took crits later. But I'm fine with the new way too.

- Charts more compressed - hopefully getting 4 to a page. (1 row for each number just was too granular, it's just not needed)

I am assuming you meant to say, '4 to a line' rather than '4 to a page'? Anyhoo, good stuff! Can't wait to see the new rules.

[Hurin]

There is: cost.

Wearing heavy armor also isn't appropriate in every circumstance. May attract the concern of the town guard, etc.

True and true, however, hardly the only considerations. If you tend to face archers a lot, full plate armor is a good thing, but against attack forms that rely on exact control of the shot (like rapiers) or attack forms where to be hit at all is to be severely injured or killed (like trebuchets), it's a death trap. Try using a rapier yourself while wearing pauldrons and vambraces and chances are your opponent will show you every single spot where the armor doesn't quite cover, while you'll never be fast or accurate enough to hit him at all. Try martial arts in metal leg armor and you'll never get in range of your opponent unless he chooses to let you. You'll always and forever be fighting on the other guy's terms.

Still, you can't deny that rapiers were not often used in military conflicts; they were mostly a civilian/dueling weapon. And pretty much everyone who could afford armor wore it. I suspect it is because in mass-combat, there's nowhere to retreat to, especially if you're standing in the front rank. Footwork is not quite so important as teamwork and armor and brute strength. Lightly armored or unarmored troops did exist, but fought in more open formations and often with missile weapons rather than melee weapons as their primary weapon. When armored troops met unarmored troops head-on, the armored troops seemed to have a significant advantage. Even nobles trained in dueling and using rapiers put on heavy armor when they went into battle.

[Cory Magel]

Rapiers and heavy armor just don't really overlap in history... but we're playing RPGs that mash all that stuff together.  It's a different animal at that point.  This is most the reason why you likely will never see FULLY realistic results from various armors and weapons, because ones that didn't coexist in real life do in RPGs and must, therefore, be balanced against each other.

[vroomfogle]

I tried the charts to 200, but it was just too spread out - either crits max out vs all AT making armor matter little if someone maxed out the chart, or crits start too high at the higher AT's making armor rather uber.   175 works well, and is consistent with Absolute Success on other maneuvers.

I meant 4 to a page, that is 4 charts on every page if layout can make it work.  My experience is that most RMers don't have strong preferences on the verbosity of the attack tables (with many voicing preference for 'the game that must be named' attack tables...4 to a page).   It's the critical tables that need to be verbose, pared down versions have never been well received.

So now higher severity criticals are more rare and all crits less than E have been toned down in effect (E is the same).  So now crit severity has much more impact then in the beta, and legacy RM.  An 'A' is not as big of a deal, but getting an 'E' is almost always rather serious.   In my last few games the players have not gotten an E.  Mostly A-C, with a couple Ds.   

This allows armor to have more of an impact, but also allow weapon choice to make a bigger difference.  Also, the advantage of shock bolt/lightning bolt isn't that they have reversed tables (which has been talked about ad nauseum here) bur rather that armor has far less effect then against conventional weapons.

[GrumpyOldFart]

Still, you can't deny that rapiers were not often used in military conflicts; they were mostly a civilian/dueling weapon. And pretty much everyone who could afford armor wore it. I suspect it is because in mass-combat, there's nowhere to retreat to, especially if you're standing in the front rank. Footwork is not quite so important as teamwork and armor and brute strength. Lightly armored or unarmored troops did exist, but fought in more open formations and often with missile weapons rather than melee weapons as their primary weapon. When armored troops met unarmored troops head-on, the armored troops seemed to have a significant advantage. Even nobles trained in dueling and using rapiers put on heavy armor when they went into battle.

But how many adventuring parties are part of a military company? Few, I would think. Heavy armor is often good for formed troops, but much less so for less formal settings, and a positive hazard for, say, someone who spends a lot of time crossing water.

[Hurin]

I tried the charts to 200, but it was just too spread out - either crits max out vs all AT making armor matter little if someone maxed out the chart, or crits start too high at the higher AT's making armor rather uber.   175 works well, and is consistent with Absolute Success on other maneuvers.

I meant 4 to a page, that is 4 charts on every page if layout can make it work.  My experience is that most RMers don't have strong preferences on the verbosity of the attack tables (with many voicing preference for 'the game that must be named' attack tables...4 to a page).   It's the critical tables that need to be verbose, pared down versions have never been well received.

So now higher severity criticals are more rare and all crits less than E have been toned down in effect (E is the same).  So now crit severity has much more impact then in the beta, and legacy RM.  An 'A' is not as big of a deal, but getting an 'E' is almost always rather serious.   In my last few games the players have not gotten an E.  Mostly A-C, with a couple Ds.   

This allows armor to have more of an impact, but also allow weapon choice to make a bigger difference.  Also, the advantage of shock bolt/lightning bolt isn't that they have reversed tables (which has been talked about ad nauseum here) bur rather that armor has far less effect then against conventional weapons.

Interesting. I can't quite wrap my mind around how it would be possible to get 4 charts on a page when before we only had 1? I will be eager to see the final result.

[Hurin]

But how many adventuring parties are part of a military company? Few, I would think. Heavy armor is often good for formed troops, but much less so for less formal settings, and a positive hazard for, say, someone who spends a lot of time crossing water.

Granted. But there are downsides to the rapier even outside of a set-piece battle too. I doubt it would be easy to parry a broadsword or axe, much less a two-handed sword, with a rapier. And if I had a shield and spear, and my opponent had only a rapier, I would count myself pretty confident.

[GrumpyOldFart]

I doubt it would be easy to parry a broadsword or axe, much less a two-handed sword, with a rapier.

It isn't. But if a guy wearing a padded doublet and using a rapier is facing a guy in full plate using a broadsword, the guy with the rapier can go backwards faster than the guy with the broadsword can go forward. The way a rapier fighter deals with a situation like that is to tip slash him at the wrists, elbows, etc, all the spots where there are little gaps in the armor. This is done from the outside edge of the rapier fighter's range, and possibly completely out of the broadsword fighter's range, depending on comparative weapon lengths etc. The rapier fighter with barely any armor can afford to do a 20 minute battle, the guy in plate is going to be exhausted by then.... especially if he's been taking minor blood loss all that time from tip slashes. Once he's too exhausted to keep his defense up, what kind of armor he's wearing doesn't really matter much anymore, he's meat on the table.

And if I had a shield and spear, and my opponent had only a rapier, I would count myself pretty confident.

I wouldn't. Anything heavier than a buckler is too slow to block the rapier effectively, so if he gets past the spearpoint once, I'm an unarmed man.... and a spear used one handed doesn't change direction very quickly either, and is pretty easy to parry.

[markc]

 But the light armor guy may have serious trouble in a big battle with attacks coming from all directions, possibly all at once. So armor like weapons was dependent on situations, IMHO.
MDC

[Cory Magel]

Parrying with a rapier isn't about BLOCKING a blow, it's about redirecting it.  The broadsword wouldn't be too bad, the two-hander would be tougher and the axe would likely pose a bigger problem than the other two.  Granted, it wouldn't be as easy as against another rapier, but you might be surprised.  You also might be surprised how hard a time a spear user could have... it's a long thrusting weapon and one not as quickly maneuvered as the rapier, so it would probably be at a disadvantage.

Still, we're talking about weapons that didn't come into play against each other in real life, but do in an RPG and both must be still be viable.

[Warl]

My suggestion is, that though you may have removed the quickness penalty, the manuever penalty should remain ALONG with a Reduction in Movement Rate. As Far as I am aware, this wasn't properly accounted for in previous versions. Yes your quickness was reduced, which if the GM acounted for it against your movement rate, would slow you down, But it wouldn't reduce you below a 0 quickness.... which wouldn't reflect how FUll plate would slow your movement regardless of how quick or not quick you were.

[Warl]

I doubt it would be easy to parry a broadsword or axe, much less a two-handed sword, with a rapier.

It isn't. But if a guy wearing a padded doublet and using a rapier is facing a guy in full plate using a broadsword, the guy with the rapier can go backwards faster than the guy with the broadsword can go forward. The way a rapier fighter deals with a situation like that is to tip slash him at the wrists, elbows, etc, all the spots where there are little gaps in the armor. This is done from the outside edge of the rapier fighter's range, and possibly completely out of the broadsword fighter's range, depending on comparative weapon lengths etc. The rapier fighter with barely any armor can afford to do a 20 minute battle, the guy in plate is going to be exhausted by then.... especially if he's been taking minor blood loss all that time from tip slashes. Once he's too exhausted to keep his defense up, what kind of armor he's wearing doesn't really matter much anymore, he's meat on the table.

And if I had a shield and spear, and my opponent had only a rapier, I would count myself pretty confident.

I wouldn't. Anything heavier than a buckler is too slow to block the rapier effectively, so if he gets past the spearpoint once, I'm an unarmed man.... and a spear used one handed doesn't change direction very quickly either, and is pretty easy to parry.

I don't really think you are speaking from experience here, GOF, just conjecture. You would be surprised at how well you can keep a Shield between yourself and your opponents weapon.  Now if the Rapier user was using some "feint" skill and the Shield holder wasn't real experienced...then sure... But all things being equal... you are giving more to the rapier than Exists in reality.

And a Spear with an experienced user can be quite versatile and Maneuverable...It doesn't have to parry with the Tip, nor does it only have to be struck with using the tip. A Spear used in one on one combat is Used Much differently than in a Phalanx rank. Don't confuse the two.

I was Much pleased with it's representation in movies like Troy, The 300, and Gladiator.
As Far as Many RPGs have gone, Many have given the Spear the "Shaft", as it were, in favor of the Long sword, when in reality the Spear Had Remained the #1 weapon used in Melee Combat For as Long as Man has Hunted and waged War on one another.

[markc]

Warl,
 Is there any way the spear can be modeled better in RM? Or do you think it would take a weapon style like in RMSS Martial Arts Companion to make it work better?
MDC

[GrumpyOldFart]

I don't really think you are speaking from experience here, GOF, just conjecture. You would be surprised at how well you can keep a Shield between yourself and your opponents weapon.  Now if the Rapier user was using some "feint" skill and the Shield holder wasn't real experienced...then sure... But all things being equal... you are giving more to the rapier than Exists in reality.

I'm speaking from SCA experience, not live steel experience, which I'll grant does change things. A shield tends to have a lot of mass for its size, and once you get past shoulder-to-waist size, shield defense involves moving the person behind the shield as much as moving the shield in front of the person. Inertia is not your friend when it comes to shields. It's simple physics. If a person tries to work a 10 lb. shield as actively as his opponent works a 2 lb. rapier, he's going to wear his arm out quickly.

As for the spear, you can parry and strike with more than the tip, but: 1) one handed, it's medium slow (that inertia thing again), and 2) while you can put a lump on my head with the shaft of a spear, you can't knock me down or out with it, not one handed. So once I'm closer to you than the end of your own spear, if I'm willing to take a thump to the head you are DONE. Yes, in a combat to the death I'll take a bell ringing in trade for putting four inches with the point into your chest. I have a headache, but you aren't getting up anymore.

Parrying with a rapier isn't about BLOCKING a blow, it's about redirecting it.  The broadsword wouldn't be too bad, the two-hander would be tougher and the axe would likely pose a bigger problem than the other two.

Exactly. See the final fight scene between Tim Roth and Liam Neeson in Rob Roy as a good example. It's one of the only movie fight scenes I've ever seen that had all the SCA rapier fighters I knew saying, "Yeah that, that's how it's done!" True, Roth's sword isn't an actual rapier, but it's light enough compared to Neeson's basket-hilt claymore that if he'd tried a direct block, he'd be holding a broken blade.

A Spear used in one on one combat is Used Much differently than in a Phalanx rank. Don't confuse the two.

Yes, but most of its effectiveness relies on being able to use both hands on it. If you have a shield in the off hand, that isn't one of your options.

[Cory Magel]

Agree with pretty much everything GOF says about spears.  One handed and shield you'd have to be damn good to be as effective.  I'd rather use a two handed spear with no shield if fighting someone with a rapier.  I'd want something to protect my hands though.

I've only seen one fighter in the SCA that was really good with a spear, but GOF's point about the shaft blows you would take from it are quite valid too.  You'd be using the shaft to keep your opponent at bay and blocking blows (assuming you didn't think they were going to break your spear), but you'd only really be truly afraid of the spears point - and the spear fighter fought in a realistic manner.  Not picking anyone but my experience with SCA heavy fighters is most do not really fight in a realistic manner (SCA combat rules being the main reason), so I would stop short of using examples from the SCA involving them (the heavy fighters).  The light fighters fight in a more realistic manner however.

[Warl]

the Same can be said of a Rapier.
To be effective against a Fully armored opponent, you would need to be very skilled... It all goes both ways.

I have seen, In the SCA, Fully armored and shield wielding guys trounce Light armored light weapon guys... it took Patients... letting the Light sword wielder come to them but it doesn't take to many hits to take them out.

On the Other side of it. The Light weapon wielder, Trying to dance in and out of the Fully armored fighters Attacks, only wore themselves down trying to find a good opening. And any blows they did land weren't telling blows... Knowing where the "Open spots" are on the armor is one thing. Scoring a Hit in them is a Completely different story.

What I am saying is, with skill, all things being equal, It should still be a toss up between who gets the better opening or Good hit in first.

[yammahoper]

I do not think it would be a toss up.  A well trained soldier in mail against a light armed and no armor wearing foe is going to eat him for lunch, primarily because the no armor rapier wielding schmuck is more on the Heavy Armor wearing guys turf than his.

Armor and the weapons to defeat armor are developed to meet the needs of the age.  The rapier is light and small exactly because striking an unarmed foe is easier.  Un armored, a heavy weapon becomes a disadvantage when you foes is lighter and faster.  The heavy armor knight will crush our poor rapier wielding schmuck just as a single modern soldier with an assault rifle will crush them both...and 20 of their friends.

The tables in RM do express this, to a degree.  I have always felt the designers did not want to make a weapon near 100% ineffective against any AT.  Still, the rapier against plate is simply awful even in RM attack table.  Fact is, if you have nothing but a knife or rapier and find yourself staring down a heavily armored and armed foe, run or surrender...

...or fast talk (duping roll Ex. Hard).

[GrumpyOldFart]

What I am saying is, with skill, all things being equal, It should still be a toss up between who gets the better opening or Good hit in first.

What I'm saying is given roughly equal skill, the guy who dies will be the guy who gets tired first... which favors the light fighter. Granted, it's not certain, it's just a favorable condition.