Wolfpack Six

Hello all,

Apologies in advance if this question has been asked before.  Was just wondering if there is a RAW provision for fighting with two weapons at the same time -- i.e., one weapon in each hand.  Could be a sword and a dagger, two swords, an axe and a dagger, or whatever.

If there is such a rule, what is the reference?

If not, and if you've allowed it in your game, how have you handled it?

Thanks,

WP6

39 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Except that brawling doesn't use a weapon skill.

Right.  I wasn't saying that you'd resolve the combat as a brawl for the PK using a broken weapon.  He'd use whatever skill would be used based on what the weapon would be ruled as the equivalent of.  (Awkward sentence, I know...)

39 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

That would depend on how and where it breaks. Even a minor break might ruin a blade for combat. Anyone who ever used a cracked aluminium bat should understand that. Maybe you got a poor quality dagger, maybe the weapon broke at the hilt and now you have no safe way to hold it, maybe it works but hurts whenever the blade hits something, maybe it shattered into a hundred pieces. It's something of a case by case thing. Maybe the Gm could use a 1d20 roll to see how good/bad the weapon is or how much remains?

Maybe.  Just spit-balling here.

39 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

With most polearms the character is probably left with some sort of spear, or at least a pole or club. Most other hafted weapons would leave the character with a broken stick. Again it comes down to the weapon, the location of the break and severity. Many long speaks had points on either end, and so could leave a character with a longspear or two short ones. But there is no guarantee the weapon would break cleanly. 

Sure.  At the end of the day, a separate rule might not be worth the effort.  Still, I like to "What if?" things...

1 hour ago, Voord 99 said:

I can see a possible reason to err on the side of “not that much better than no weapon at all. “ “Breaks non-swords on a tie” is the main mechanical thing that pushes towards swords as the default hand-to-hand combat weapon.  Weaken that, and other weapons look more attractive.

Yeah, the whole thing with swords not breaking is really their "superpower", so to speak.

Semi-related question: Do Great Swords break (normal) Swords on a tie?

1 hour ago, Voord 99 said:

I’m looking at maces in the early period when other knights are wearing chain, and thinking, “Well, when I get a tie vs a sword, I’ll have a problem.  But I’ll still be able to fight, and think of all the many other times when I’ll get +1d6 damage.”  In particular, if a Cymric knight can use their spear with Spear Expertise after it’s broken, saying “Now it’s a shorter spear” - even if you did the equivalent of treating it as a dagger (-1d6 damage), I think you might see a fair number of Cymric knights deciding that it was an acceptable price to pay for being able to raise two skills for the price of one and just getting Spear Expertise as high as possible.

Well, if you're using a mace versus a sword, and the sword breaks the mace, you're left at best with a "headless mace" which, to me, would be a club (less effective mace).  At that point, would it be better to keep fighting with it, to fight unarmed, or to go for another weapon?  Maybe throw it like a rock while you're going for another weapon?  I suppose it would be situationally dependent.

Interesting point about Spear Expertise.  Even if a broken spear were to be treated as a dagger, the dagger is still less effective than a sword in terms of damage.

1 hour ago, Voord 99 said:

That might or might not matter, depending on one’s preferences.    To me personally it would, because swords are the default melee weapon in the literature.  (Spear Expertise bothers me even as it is.)  So I’d say that one might want to rule, whether or not this is realistic, that a broken weapon is no longer properly balanced for being a weapon (or defective in other respects - my non-expert sense would be that a broken sword would not be much good to a skilled dagger fighter, because you can’t stab with it effectively).   So it’d be a completely new weapon skill - if a knight wants to be “The Knight Who Can Fight with a Broken Axe,” then they need to train that up as a personal speciality. 

I don't disagree with your reasoning; just not sure I'd adopt the same approach.  Anyhow, I thank you for your thoughts on the matter.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

I think by RAW a broken weapon counts as nothing, it's broken! So by RAW most weapons that get broken are useless in combat, at least until they can be repaired. 

That said I could see a GM interpreting some broken weapons to be inferior forms on the same or smaller weapons. For instance a broken greatspear might count as an inferior spear with a reduction to skill and/or damage. A broken sword might count as a sword or dagger. A broken anything might count as an inferior club, etc. 

I think that if a GM does that though, he will need to make sure that the broken weapon is inferior in some way to a real version of the weapon. 

 

BTW, did this come up in play or is you interest only academic?

Thanks.  Right now, it's more of an academic interest for a personal project that I've rejuvenated recently, and the question of what broken weapons are in game terms came up.

One of my notes had broken weapons counting as "casual weapons", as in the brawling rules (in that case, a broken weapon would be the equivalent of a dagger); but I don't remember if that's something I just made up or if it was something I saw somewhere else.  So I wanted to see if there was an official ruling on broken weapons.

I can't imagine, say, a sword that's blade is broken in half being completely useless in combat: you've still got half a sword to use... which is basically a dagger.

Hello all,

Quick question (I think)...  What does a broken weapon count as, RAW?  Is there a rule?  Or is it the GM's call?

Thanks,

WP6

Thank you, kindly!

...Where does one find the rules for the Prince Valiant story-telling game?

On 2/21/2020 at 11:57 PM, Atgxtg said:

It's is unrealistic, and it is a bit unrealistic in context too. I think Greg wanted to make sword a bit better than the other weapons. It's only with the crtical = 20 rule shwere it becomes overpowerwing. Back in KAP1, when it was a bit more vauge, we used to assume the die rolls had to be a natural tie. 

Just as an aside, aside from Greg Stafford's desire to just use the sword breaking other weapons mechanic as his way of giving them their own distinct advantage, it seems predicated on the notion that only swords were all-metal and, therefore, not prone to breakage and "harder" on other weapons.  The thing is that there were all-metal maces (probably even more devastating to other weapons if they clashed); and even weapons with wooden handles would have metal strips along their length to protect them from breakage.  So, to me breakage is, to use a video game term, "OP" (overpowered).

Quote

 

Awhile back I did up a version of Harn's Weapon Quality rules. In that game when weapons might break you roll against the Weapon Quality of the lower quality weapon to see if it breaks, and if it doesn't you check for the higher quality weapon. Swords tend to have a higher WQ and so break less. It works, is nice, but adds another layer of complexity that players migth not like. I can post it if anyone is interested.

I like weapon quality rules in principle, but in practice they do seem to go towards the extreme end of complexity.  Still, I enjoy the creative process that goes into coming up with ideas even if I don't use them; so feel free to post your rules.  I for one would read them.

Quote

Something like reach rules would be more realistic, but would add to complexity. I'll look over the Close Combat rules from RuneQuest (Pendragon's parent system) and see if it could help. 

RQ6 has weapon reach rules.  They seem pretty simple and appear to be analogous to using the Evade tactic, in KAP5.x, as you suggested.

Quote

Frankly, if you wanted to keep it simple and didn't mind changing the combat rules, just give an advantage modifier to the spearman. Say +2/-2 normally, or possibly +5/-5 if the opponent doesn't have a shield. But that will shift the balance of power towards the spear.

Well, I'm not too concerned about shifting the balance of power towards the spear, again in principle, if it makes sense (to me).  Also, I think the balance of power is only temporary -- i.e., only as long as the spearman keeps the swordsman at bay.  Once the swordsman is within spear-length, that balance shifts in the other direction because the length is no longer an advantage.

Quote

Maybethe best way to mirror that would be to adapt the Evasion rules (page 145) and say that the closing character has to win to get in close instead of to escape, but negate the bonus to the spearman's roll if he can't or won't backpedal.

Been thinking about this for a while.  As I mentioned above, it seems like a viable option.  I like it because it's a rule you can adapt and apply to a different situation and not have to make up something from scratch.

The other thing I've been thinking about in the whole spear reach advantage thing is that its only an advantage as long as the foe is intimidated/concerned about the damage a spearpoint could do.  Against a fully armored knight with a shield, I don't know that a lone spearman would provide that kind of intimidation factor.  The knight might be just as inclined to try to accept the possibility of damage (esp. being soaked up by/mitigated by his armor) and just charge in.

Which is why I thought maybe the boar spear mechanic could be adaptable.  Or maybe an Impale rule, like in RQ3.  Knight decides he's not going to evade the spearpoint but just charge.  If he takes a certain amount of/too much damage, he gets stuck on the end of a spear.  I mean, that ought to be the result of a failed charge past a spearpoint, and charging past the spearpoint ought to be an option, even if it might be a foolish one, depending on the situation.

Quote

Yes, but the fighting defenviely bit throws the odds towards the swordsman. If I were the spearman I wouldn't want to "bonus". 

Well, the +10 bonus to the swordsman definitely improves his odds.  But then he's not trying to hit his opponent, but get past his opponents spear so he can hit his opponent in the next attack.  That's why I suggested it.  Using a spear against a foe who is worried about getting impaled buys time.  If a swordsman has to spend a round deflecting the spearpoint -- even with a +10 that the spearman doesnt get -- I don't know that, that's such a bad thing.

Quote

Yes I think it's better not to force the tactic, since fighting defensively helps the "wrong" side. Using the Evasion rule to maneuver instead both sounds closer to what you want (the spearman is actually trying to prevent the closing), and favors the spearman more (he gets a +5/-5 advantage).

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I kind of like it.  Need to think about it a little more.

Quote

Oh, I get what you are trying to model. I'm just saying that your proposed solution doesn't help the spearman. Plus, as Morien pointed out earlier, it does open  a can of worms. Greatspear vs spear, for instance.  

Well, Great Spears ("pikes") were way longer than ordinary spears.  So, I can see someone making the argument that the same sort of dynamic should apply in that kind of situation.

Quote

I still think it's a bad thing to do , since if it works right, it will lead to  be a lot of situations where it will be used against your players and ultimately kill more of them, but my concern here is just in terms of what will achieve the effect you desire.

I know.  The effect I'm going for is to give a spearman a temporary/initial advantage against an opponent armed with a significantly shorter weapon.  How to do that is the question...

Quote

Yes, except the boarspear mechanic is designed to hold a skewered boar at bay, not beat the boar in the intial clash.. I think even if you tried it knights would just take the hit, and rely upon thier armor. 

Again, the more I think about it, the more I think that there will probably be more than a few knights who just say the hell with it and just charge, spearpoints be damned.  So, another aspect is to make the spearpoint an effective deterrent: something that all but the best armed, best armored, most highly-trained and experienced knights would hesitate to challenge without hesitation.

8 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Alright, but that is the key snag, as far as the game mechanics go. By RAW a swordsman fighting defenaviely has a greater chance of breaking the opponent's weapon. I don't like that, but it is how it works by RAW.

I get that.  And I get that breaking an opponent's weapon is really the signature "power" of the sword, RAW; but, honestly, it seems unrealistic to me... and even in this case, I mean even in the context of Arthurian fiction.  I haven't re-read the source material in quite some time, but I just don't remember swords breaking other weapons as much of a "thing" at all.

Like I said, I'll address it separately, probably in a different thread.  This one has gone totally off the rails as it is!

8 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

THat isn't much of an advantage for the spearman though. Unless the spearman is very good his chance of a crtical is the same as his chance of a fumble, and most hits won't do much against an opponent with good armor and a shield. 

Maybe not.  But even if the spearman doesn't do much, if any, damage against a more heavily armed swordsman, he will at least have fended him off for another round.  This would possibly allow for another opponent to engage the swordsman, too.

8 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Plus if the opponent is well armored he could just run up with his shield in front and take the hit. Warriors in good armor  actually did that against a single spearman

Sure.  That could happen.  Depending on the situation, it might be a reasonable risk to take.  I'm not trying to dictate specific tactics.  I'm more interested in modeling the weapons with perhaps a bit more realism.  I think if you do that, the tactics will flow as a logical consequence.

8 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Well the way you have it stated, that the opponent must close and  the requirment to fight defensively eliminated the option. 

What I'm trying to say is, say you have two opponents, A and B.  A is armed with a sword (Sw) and B is armed with a spear (Sp).  They are both fighting on foot and I am trying to come up with a simple scheme to reflect the reach advantage a spearman would have, initially.

B (Sp), exploiting his reach, is trying to keep his opponent at bay.  Maybe B (Sp) is just trying to keep poking A (Sw) and take him out of the fight before A can close and hit B with his sword.  Maybe B is trying to keep A at bay so a comrade can engage him as well.  Maybe there's another reason.

In game terms, I envision B is attacking normally (not fighting defensively).  A, being kept at spear's length, needs to get past the spear point before he can strike B with his sword.  So, in game terms I'm saying maybe A fights defensively, with a success meaning that the spear is deflected out of the way and, next turn, A can actually try to hit B with his sword (attack normally); failure meaning that the spear is still keeping A at length, and A has to keep fighting defensively until he succeeds.

So, in order for the combatant A to close, he must fight defensively first, win one round, at which point he can actually close and do damage to B.

8 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I think that the fighting defenatively thing should be optional for the swordman. Maybe he just can't do damage on the first turn or something would be better. 

Perhaps it should be optional if the swordsman is concerned about taking so much damage that he wouldn't be able to hit his opponent.  In other words, don't force the defensive fighting: if the swordsman is willing to accept the risk of damage, then that's okay, too.

Still, even if a swordsman were willing to accept the risk, he could end up impaled anyhow and unable to damage his opponent.

8 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Or maybe just have Spears trump DEX in determining the order of damage. So the spearman does damage before the opponent. 

The second one (Spears trump DEX in order of damage) is intriguing.  The point I am trying to make about the reach advantage of spears is that, using that advantage, the spearman could theoretically neutralize a sword-wielding opponent before that opponent got within range to do damage.  It's similar, on a much smaller scale, to how missile troops can damage shock (hand-to-hand/melee) troops before they can do damage.

And I understand the genre favors the sword-wielding knights.  That, to me, is not an over-riding concern at this point.

8 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

In previous editions of Pendragon, a character who fought defensively did normal (not double) damage on a critical success. This was dropped because a character with 20+ skill might opt to fight defensively all the time, and end up being better offensively due to the increased chance of criticals. Fore example if two characters have a 20 skill then either has a 50% chance of winning a given round of combat. If one fought defensively, it would be a 30 vs a 20, ans the odds would shift to something like 55%/22.5% chance of either doing damage, greatly shifting the odds in favor of the guy fighting defensively. Combine that with inspriation or the hieght bonus and some players could be automatically getting a crit. 

8 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Oh I get that. It's just that the way the game mechanics work, I don't think the rule change would actually benefit the spearman. The bonus his opponent gets from fighting defensively reduces the chance of the spearman winning, ensures the benefits of a shield for when the spearman does win (16-20 points of armor will make most hits bounce), and increases the chances of ties slightly (problematic against swords). 

Unless the spearman has a very high skill or does a lot of damage, this actually helps his opponent.

The thought just occurred to me: the kind of thing I'm talking about is the potential for a sword-armed combatant to be impaled/stopped at the end of a spear.  There's already a mechanic in place for this sort of thing: the Boar Spear mechanic.

So maybe you have a scenario where: A (Sw) attacks B (Sp).  To get past the spearpoint he can either (1) fight defensively and try to knock the spear aside, or (2) accept the risk of damage and try to close regardless.

If (1) is successful, A attacks normally next turn.  If (1) is unsuccessful, A has the same options.

If (2) is successful, A strikes and does damage normally.  If (2) is unsuccessful, A could potentially be impaled like a boar on a boar spear.

38 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I don't think that really helps the spearman, according to the game mechanics. Let's say you got a spearman and a swordsman both with skill 15. 

By RAW it's a even fight, with a slight edge tot he swordsman due to the breakage rules.

I would like to address breakage separately, but okay for the sake or argument.

38 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Now if you force the swordmsn to fight defensively and close, it becomes 15 vs 25. This reduces the chances of the spearman scoring a win from 37.5% to 25% , slightly increases the chances of his spear getting broken on a tie, and eliminates the chances of the swordsman fumbling. All it all, I think it hurts the spearman more than it helps him. 

Well, the key point here is to model, simply, the effect of the spear's reach versus someone wielding a significantly shorter weapon.  As in the Lindbeige videos you offered as an example previously.

I am thinking that by forcing a sword-armed knight to fight defensively againt a spear armed opponent, the effect is that even if the knight wins the round, he cannot yet do damage.  While if the spearman wins, he can.  Even if the spearman has less of a chance of succes, if he hits, he really hits.  If the swordsman "hits", he has to win again next round in order to do damage.

38 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

The ability to fight defensively while closing shifts things too much for the swordsman. Besides if he is trying to close, he's not exactly being defensive. 

Conceptually, I'm okay if the swordsman actually had a better chance in this instance, because he is holding back, calculating, waiting for the oportunity to deflect the spearhead and then rush in for the kill.  Fighting defensively, in this case, is a temporary defensive technique with an overall offensive purpose.  The swordsman is still trying to close, he's just trying to avoid running himself through in the process.

38 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

And why couldn't some crazy berserk just run up the spear to attack the spearman? It was done. 

Sure, that could happen.  If the berserk is willing to risk the damage, I don't see an issue at face value.

38 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

What if instead you just gave spearmen the old version of fighting defenativey as as option? That is the spearman could do damage on a critical when they fought defensively? Then the math would shift in favor of the spearman.

I'm not familiar with that rule, but I have to say that I like it in principle.

Realise that I'm not suggesting that the spearman should be fighting defensively in this scenario: he's still trying his best to hit normally.  Just the swordsman till he wins a round.

9 hours ago, Morien said:

I am really much more into the idea of spears removing the -5 penalty against horsemen, like other long poleweapons (Great Spear, Halberd) do. This seems much cleaner to me. Being able to give an opponent -5 to skill by your weapon choice seems like a huge advantage, making a skill 10 spearman equal (in skill) to a skill 15 knight.

I can see the logic behind this idea: it is a bonus consistent with the bonus afforded a Great Spear.

What this solution doesnt address is dismounted combat between an opponent with, say, a sword and one with a spear.  This is why I suggested fighting defensively vs. a spearman until you win a round, then close in with the sword.

6 hours ago, Morien said:

The game system is like the physics engine of the game world. It determines the results of the PK and NPK actions. Both PKs and NPKs play with the same rules, even though some of the NPCs might have special abilities (e.g. Merlin) that the PKs don't have access to. But yes, if there is a new weapon or armor or horse on the market for the PKs to buy, then the suitably wealthy NPKs would be able to buy it too. And the mounted vs. unmounted bonus applies both ways, whether it is a PK on horseback fighting against a man on the ground or vice versa.

Well said.

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

No it isn't. Look at the "What is an RPG section that is ususally part of the first chapter of an RPG. Look at the designer's notes. Look at how the games are structured, how chargen is done, etc. etc.

Yes, it is your opinion.  You refuse to acknowledge that fact, but it remains a fact.  The authors of RPGs decide what RPGs are, according to their own tastes.  There is no objective definition of an RPG other than perhaps to say that they are games in which you play the role of fictitious characters.

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

No, this isn't about the proposed change, but the reasons why to make a change and the consequences of those changes. A GM should understand that the game is created and run to entertain the players, not to compete with them. 

Your arrogance and condescension are only outmatched by your stubborn adherence to what you think is true.  "A GM should..."  According to whom?  You?

Not that I disagree with the notion that games should be enjoyable, but dude, get over yourself.

And again, I don't think I've ever said that the GM is or should be competing with the players.  The NPCs?  Yes.  The GM?  No.

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Your whole argument is that making a game more realistic and more fair to the NPCs is intrinsically better, even though that is not neccearily the case. RPGs are centered around the player characters, and biased towards them. 

Again, in your opinion.  RPGs are indeed focused on the players: they are the real actors on the stage.  But biased towards them?  Assuming that you are talking about the rules, no the rules shouldn't be biased towards the players.  Or the NPCs, for that matter.  They should be fair to both sides.

And again, that is my opinion.

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Again it's not the change that is the problem, but your underlying misconcentions that this is some sort of contest to be won or lost, and that it is a fair contest. 

Games are contests: there is no misconception there.  Will my character die if he attacks this dragon?  Will he be successful in wooing the damsel?  Those are contests.  There are even contests within the games themselves.  Jousts, tournaments, etc.  It is ludicrous to assert that games are not contests.

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

As far as I can tell your goal seems to be just to up the bar and make things tougher for your players because you can, because making it tougher somehow makes it better automatically, as if we should all know that to be true.

Go back to Page 1.  My goal was simply to determine whether or not there was a difference between great maces and morningstars.  Then the conversation shifted towards spears, and I gave my opinion on how the rules for them could be changed to make them more realistic in terms of reach.

Yes, I do think that things that are tougher on the characters will, generally speaking, make for a more satisfying game... should the characters win/survive/thrive.  I think that it isn't too hard to grasp that something earned has more value than something simply given, or earned more easily.

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I've asked you to point out some examples of games adventures that are not biased towards the players, and you haven't even attempted to do so.

I could point out plenty, but it would serve no purpose.  Your incessant condescension aside, you've demonstrated that you are determined to hold your opinion regardless.  Moreover, I'm not really trying to convince you of anything.  Was I supposed to be trying?  If so, I was not aware.  I've simply made my point; you don't agree; end of story.

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Instead you adopt a condescending and mocking tone with references to juice boxes and coloring books. That was uncalled for. I attacked your beliefs and assumptions, I didn't attack you.

I most wholeheartedly agree that condescension is uncalled for.  So, start with yourself.  You've been repeatedly going on and on about being careful about changing rules, as if the thought hadn't crossed the minds of anyone else reading this thread... while at the same time you're neck-deep in a thread that you started about changing the rules for bows and crossbows.

You know, you really should consider the impact of the changes you're considering when tinkering with bow and crossbow rules.  Please be sure that you don't cause any unintended consequences.  Or ripple effects.  Et cetera.  Ad nauseam infinitum.

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

If you want to convince someone else of something that you have to put together information that supports your view. If you don't wan't to convince someone, then you can just agree to disagree, but you shouldn't take smug pot shots about juice boxes. 

Let me try this again: I am not trying to convince you of anything.  (Well, other than the fact that I'm not trying to convince you of anything, which I am going to stop doing after this response.)

Your entire objection to giving spears a reach advantage, or any advantage at all, apparently boils down to, "But that will make it harder on the player knights."

I don't care.  Maybe it will, maybe it won't.  I guess I'll find out when I playtest the change.

And here's the best part: you don't have to use anything I've suggested.  I think I only made the one suggestion -- i.e., to have a combatant fighting a spear-wielding opponent fight defensively until he wins a round, then fight normally.  You don't have to understand the logic behind it, agree with it, like it, use it, or even pay any attention to it.

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I find most of your core gaming beliefs to be unsound and unjustified.

Well, from what I can ascertain of your own core gaming beliefs, I at least find them to be unsound, though I'm sure you think they're justified from your own point of view.

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Player really don't earn most of their success in most, if not all RPGs, as the games are stacked in thier favor. The advice of how to write an adventure that comes with most RPGs points stuff like that out. 

Well, maybe in the games you play, everyone gets a participation trophy along with the juice box.  In the games I play, the players earn their successes... and failures.

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Not it's not just my opion. It's a core foundation upon which RPGs are designed.

Yes, it is your opinion.  And you seem to think that everyone should share it.

Look, you're free to believe what you want about the purpose of RPGs.  And if some, perhaps many, people agree with you, that's fine.  It's your opinion.  I'm good with that.

But you are insisting upon one view of what you think RPGs are or ought to be, and then you seem to be trying to pass off your personal view as "the core foundation".  That is a load of nonsense.

All this broo-ha-hah over a possible tweak in spears that you don't have to use if you choose not to.  You seem terribly afraid of something in this world of make-believe.

So, if it gets your nose so out of joint, just keep things as they are.  Dont tweak anything.  Put your knights in a plastic bubble and give them juice boxes and coloring books.

Me, I'll probably keep tinkering.

Cheers!

7 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

No it isn't. A competuion has winners and losers. It's a contest. An RPG is not a contest is a cooperative form of group entertainment. The goal is to tell a story, enterain each other, and have fun. It not about if the PCs beat the NPCs or not.

That is your opinion.  For me and those with whom I play, an RPG is also a contest, and the story emerges from the actions and interactions of the players while they're engaged in it.

Quote

You can't make it fair.

Sure you can.

Quote

How can you keep trying if you don't survive?

You, as the player, try again.

Quote

It sounds more like an obstacle course than a RPG.

Sure, you can look at it that way if you choose.

Quote

But, generally speaking, the odds aren't against the PCs most of the time in an adventure.

It depends on how you write the adventure, but I'd say in general they are.

Quote

That is a game mechanic applied to PCs and NPCs. The PCs get to go to London and try to draw the Sword from the stone. They get to roll and everything. And the contest is not "fair". The PKs fail because they are not Arthur. 

That is a story element that I think anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence and appreciation of Arthuriana can accept.

But you know, that raises some interesting possibilities.  Maybe the characters, for some reason, can draw the sword from the stone?  Could they also be sons of Uther?  Maybe the PCs bum-rush Arthur right after he draws the sword and make off with it?  Could some other mysterious force be at work?  What if Arthur had to fight not only to establish his realm, but to claim Excalibur from someone else?

With a little imagination, that could be a lot of fun to see play out.

Quote

No it isn't. The NPCs are obstacles that serve a purpose-namely they are obstacles. That is their function. They aren't there to contest anything

NPCs are, or can be, more than just obstacles, though of course they also serve that function.

And, of course some NPCs exist to contest the PCs.  That should be self-evident.

Quote

Consequences don't really apply to NPCs, they are not real. 

The characters arent real, either.  At the end of the day, this is all make-believe.

Maybe you dont have NPCs suffer consequences.  That to me seems far less interesting than giving a reasonable boost to spears.

Quote

If a PC dies the player grabs a character sheet and goes to work writing up anew character.

Right!

Quote

An RPG isn't like Risk  or monopoly or Yahtzee. The game, such as it is, is about story and role playing. The dice are there as randomizers to keep an air on uncertainty. But it isn't the primary focus of the game.

That is your opinion.

Quote

A GM needs to try to be  fair and unbiased when dealing with the players.

In your opinion.  In mine, a GM simply needs to implement the rules fairly, across the board.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Okay, but why? Have the NPCs been complaining? 

Why strike a fair balance between PCs and NPCs?

You strike a fair balance so that there is a sense of realism and risk.  The door swings both ways.  If I can hit an NPC with my Great Axe and have it do a certain amount of damage to him, I should expect the same potential result if he hits me.  If I can mitigate potential damage done to me by using the best armor I can afford, I should expect the NPCs I face to try to do the same thing.  If an NPC charges at me on horseback and I use a spear to brace against the charge, I should expect the same tactic to be used against me if I try the same thing.

Without that sense of realism, that sense of risk, the game will come across as obviously rigged in favor of the players.  While you seem concerned about players losing interest playing in a more potentially lethal environment, I would be more concerned about them getting bored because they never really face the same consequences that "the other side" faces.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Remember an RPG is for the benefit of the players. It's not any sort of fair competition between the PCs and the NPCs, it's rigged from the start in favor in the PCs.

Of course the game is a competition.  It might not be a competition between the PCs and all NPCs, but it is definitely a competition between PCs and some NPCs.

Whether or not you decide to make it fair is your call.

My own philosophy is that the players benefit most by presenting them with a challenging, rewarding experience.  Not everyone survives; not everyone is a winner.  If you fail, back to the drawing board.  Try again.  Keep trying until, when you do win, you'll know you beat the odds and earned it.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

The NPCs do not need fair representation. Since the GM gets to create the NPCs they can have pretty much anything the GM wants to give them anyway. Sometimes they even have things the players can't get. 

For instance Arthur can draw the sword from the stone, but the PCs cannot.

I'm not taking about what you give NPCs.  I'm talking about the effects of the game's mechanics being applied equally to both the PCs and the NPCs.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

NPCs serve story and plot functions. RPGs are not any sort of fair contest between the GM and the players. It's not a wargame. 

Well, that certainly is a leap of logic.  Not once did I suggest that the game is a contest between the GM and the PCs.  It is, however, a contest between the PCs and some of the NPCs they'll encounter.  Sure, the GM controls the NPCs, but that's where the fairness kicks in and becomes important.  If a consequence applies to the PCs, especially a negative one, then it should apply to the NPCs.  Otherwise, there's really no game: it's just a foregone conclusion and the PCs don't really exercise any agency: they're just actors in a story that you've already written.  In which case, you might as well go read a book.

IMHO.

18 minutes ago, fulk said:

So, I've been away from KAP for a while, but I tried to read through most of this thread as it interested me.  A couple of thoughts/points.

(1) KAP is a genre game so a lot of the design choices are based on the genre, not reality (Greg and I used to email a lot re Book of Castles and other topics, including weapons).  In KAP, the Sword is the best weapon because it is emblematic of knights. The whole thing with it breaking maces etc, is meant to give it an Arthurian advantage. Greg said it was a conscious design choice (I was arguing at the time that I thought the whole sword-breaks-mace type rule was unrealistic).  Obviously YPMV and you can easily ignore the sword-breaks-mace and similar rules, which are not really realistic. Nevertheless, knights in the sources fight either with lance on horseback or sword.  Basic spears are for peasants...in the genre.

Yep.  I totally get that it's a genre game, and I understand the design intent to give swords the "spotlight", so to speak.  I don't have any issue with that.  If you (the rhetorical "you") want to play the game "pure" — that is, without changing any of the rules in order to preserve the genre as Greg Stafford modeled it, not that it should matter to anyone, but I'm fine with it.

For my part, I like to tinker and work towards modeling more realism in the game, in fact in most games I play.  I know we're talking about a game with wizards and faeries and dragons, but I do think that a bit more realism is achievable.  And I don't think that it will necessarily wreck the game or its genre, but of course it would depend on what is changed, how drastically, and on a lot of other things.

In this thread, I don't think I was suggesting that knights necessarily must fight with spears, though I also recognize that of the weapons skills clearly listed as "Knightly", "Spear" is one of them, along with "Dagger", "Lance", and "Sword".  In fact, no other weapons skills are.  If the game is supposed to be modeling the Arthurian genre, and "Spear" is a knightly skill, well you can do the math.

Anyhow, if a knight choses to fight with a spear, both historically and in the context of the game, I wouldn't see anything wrong with it.  YPMV.

(As an aside, since I am tinkering, I do think swords breaking other weapons as often as they do, RAW, makes little sense and I do intend to change it.  And obviously I think spears deserve some kind of reach advantage.  Morien had some good ideas.  (Prost, Morien!)  Gonna have to go back and re-read this whole thing again...)

18 minutes ago, fulk said:

(2)  I think of KAP combat mechanics as quite simple. 

Well, I definitely agree that the KAP combat mechanics are simple.  The simplicity of the system is, I think, one of its key strengths.

18 minutes ago, fulk said:

(3) In these various arguments, I think it is always worth recognizing the original poster's intent.  I don't think more realistic combat rules are relevant for KAP, but if that is what you want, I can be interested in how to implement it.

Well, what I started out doing was trying to find out why Great Maces as weapons modeled in the game would be an attractive option, and also see if there is an official summary of the weapons published anywhere.  And then, one thing led to another and here we are!

18 minutes ago, fulk said:

If you want more complicated combat, I think it would be quite easy to use a Chaosium/BRP cousin. I've toyed with the idea.

Not necessarily more complicated.  Just perhaps a bit more nuanced and realistic.

18 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Why does it have to be implemented across the board? Typically it wasn't. The rich and powerful usually get the good stuff before everyone else. GMing ins't about striking a fail balance between the PCs and the NPCs. 

I think this question should be addressed...  When I say that something should be implemented across the board, what I mean is that if a PC can use a weapon and all its advantages or disadvantages, then NPCs should have those same advantages or disadvantages.  It's not necessarily a rich vs. poor thing.

So, I do see one aspect of GMing as striking a fair balance between the PCs and the NPCs.

18 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

But adding realism isn't necessarily an improvement.

Well, I think it is, again as long as it doesnt slow things down by making things too complex.

Quote

Why? Increasing the potential of killing to NPCs isn't an issue. You don't have to worry if the NPCs will bother to show up for the next game session. The players on the other hand, you have to make an effort to keep. RPGs aren't about being fair. IF GMs ran things "fair" the player characters would die off a lot faster, considering the sort of things they do. RPgs are intensitcally "unfair" but, unfair in the players favor in order to keep the game interesting.

I haven't had any issue with players showing up for the next game session, at least not because of rules being too realistic.

Quote

Yes, but that means that there is nothing wrong with a knigth using one, not that it is a weapon exclusive to knights. Spears were the most common weapon on the battlefield until the introduction of firearms.

It's not a contest between the NPCs and the PCs. It's a game where the players get to play knights. If half the PCs and NPCs kill each other off every game session that is not "fair",  that's trouble for the GM.

If half the PCs get killed off for doing something that gets them killed when they should've known better, then we'll just spend more time on character generation.

Quote

I'm not asking you to change how you run or to not consider rule changes. What I am asking to to do is think about the effects of those rule changes and if they will actually improve the gaming experience or not.

I get the impression that you think that I don't actually think about the effects of rule changes.  Not that I'm trying to convince you that I do, but of course I do.  That is the whole point to changing rules: the effects that they will or could potentially have.

Quote

The goal of Pendragon isn't to be realsitic or simulate the real world -it is the play in an Arthurian world. 

Well, that might be your goal, and the goal of many players, and perhaps even the goal of Greg Stafford and anyone else who had a hand in creating Pendragon.  However, if it's an either-or proposition, then that is not my goal.  My goal is to play in an Arthurian world that has perhaps a bit more realism added to it.

Quote

There is something wrong with doing so without considering the consequences of doing so. A GM should always look at the pros and cons of any change they are considering.

I think human beings in general weigh the pros and cons of actions they're about to take.

Quote

Now that doesn't mean you shouldn't change anything, but you should consider the pros and cons of doing so. 

Okay, so that's like the third time you've said this in this particular response.  And I havent gotten through all of it yet...

Quote

As far as I can tell the big pro is to give more love to the spear at the risk of increased PK injury and death. 

You can look at it that way if you choose.  I choose to look at it as possibly modeling one weapon more realistically.

Quote

Definitely, but that doesn't mean than any and every proposed change is necessarily an improvement.

Okay, well I think changing spears is an improvement.

Quote

No. Verisimilitude is the willing suspension of disbelief. That is it is the ability of the audience to go along with something that they know isn't real because it seems or feels real enough to work for the story. 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verisimilitude

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/verisimilar

Quote

And it can be, if realism is the goal. But Arthurian fiction isn't striving for realism. 

Your Arthurian fiction might not be.  Mine is.

Quote

Now if you make spears, and thus footmen, better against horsemen, you will find that you players will soon be feeling realistically dead.

That is a possibility.

Quote

And that's just it. Game reality isn't the same as actual reality. Thus a knight or horseback fighting righteously will defeat some dirty commoner wielding a spear. 

If he does it right, he'll defeat the bloody peasant.  If he does it wrong, he'll wind up wounded or dead.

Quote

What I'm trying to say is upping the risk might not be the best thing for your game.

I appreciate your concern, but I think "the greater the risk, the greater the reward".  Games, and really life in general, is a whole lot more rewarding when you actually earn what you've gained.  If you win victories because of unrealistic rules stacked in your favor, somehow I think those victories will not be as meaningful as the ones where you struggle against greater odds.

Quote

And if are things are not equal, if they are ordered to charge they should charge. Knights are expected to obey thier leige lord.

Than 99% of liege lords are idiots. Look at medieval battles. Charging spearmen was a thing. Successfully doing it, less so.

Knights are expected to bring honor and glory to their liege lords.  A great way of doing that is by winning battles and not squandering their lord's soldiery, noble or otherwise.

Yes, it would appear that 99% of liege lords were/are (in the game) tactically idiotic.  I don't have an issue admitting that.  I've looked at medieval battles extensively throughout my life as a student, as a professional, and as a hobby and I do come away with the impression that the military art was not particularly sophisticated during the era depicted by Arthurian fiction, at least of the romantic sort.  It's not like it is a huge secret or anything.  Charging well-armed, disciplined spearmen was a great way to thin the herd of aristocrats and aristocratic wanna-be's.

Quote

You mean insubordination, cowardice and treason?

I highly doubt that a knight who gave his lord reasonable tactical advice would be considered insubordinate, cowardly, or treasonous.  I mean, some lords might look at it that way.  So, they can lead the charge into those thickets of spears and thereby earn glorious deaths for themselves and their valiant bands of intrepid warriors.

Or!  You can just keep spears as they are, wade through a sea of spear-wielding tackling dummies and hack them to pieces.  All hail the conquering heroes!

Quote

Much like with the example of the "peasants can be trusted to govern themselves" belief, chivalry is based upon obedience and a belief that knight will prevail if they are true enough. The French knights blamed their losses at Crecy and Agincourt on a lack of courage and chivalry rather than bad tactics.  

Chivalry was not based on blind obedience, and it was not predicated upon the notion that "if only you believe hard enough", you'll win.  Chivalry was a code of behavior for the military aristocracy; and the military aristocracy would've gone extinct within a generation or two if it fought stupidly.

As far as the French go, they drew the wrong conclusion from Crecy and Agincourt.  The English "fought smarter"... and won.

BREAK

Okay, I can keep on going, but I think I've said enough to make my point, and it is getting tedious responding point by point over and over again.  The bottom line is that I understand where you're coming from (KAP, RAW, is not meant to be realistic), and I accept the point you're trying to make about being careful when implementing changes.  I don't think giving spears a realistic advantage in reach (for instance) is going to break the game, ruin player morale, or make it any less Arthurian.  If you do, then I guess just don't change spears in your game.

On 2/17/2020 at 5:45 PM, BioKeith said:

On a tangent - is there a list anywhere of suggested prices for the arms/armor - the 5.2 rules cover the stuff that is available at the start of the campaign, but I haven't found a list for any of the things that become available later.

Another tangent!

Good question, @BioKeith.  I don't remember seeing prices for the arms & armor available later in the game.  Maybe someone with all the supplements knows...

7 hours ago, Morien said:

In any case, I think it is a good idea that the PKs need to think about getting swarmed by spearmen and to try to avoid that happening, rather than be untouchable demi-gods of war...

This!

How you decide to crack that nut is up to you, and I definitely think it is a nut to crack.

7 hours ago, Morien said:

Bottom line: It works for us, I like it, and I am the GM, so my rules!

Totally on board with that!  🍺😊

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

And I say that's bad for the game. Running Pendragon, or any RPG realstically will just kill off the player characters. All RPGs are biased to some extent in order to allow the player characters the ability to do what they do every session and survive. This is true in games, movies, TV shows, comic books, novels, etc. Run things realstically and the PCs go down just from the laws of probability. 

Well, in general, I don't usually think something that adds realism to a game is intrinsically negative unless by adding it, it slows the game down to the point where the game is no longer fun.  Granted, "no longer fun" is a matter of taste, but lethality to me is a feature, not a bug.  Increasing the potential for killing off PCs, particularly in game dominated by characters who are literally members of a warrior elite, doesn't seem unreasonable or unfair, unless maybe that potential were to only apply to PCs and not to NPCs, for example.

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

No, the spear is a common weapon. Knights use spear. Everybody does. It is the most common weapon on the battlefield. No if you make spears signficantly better then that increases the chances of PKs dropping to spear wielding opponents. 

Well, according to the current rulebook (KAP 5.2, p. 110), the Spear skill is listed as a Knightly skill, implying that the Spear is a knightly weapon.

Again, in my opinion, if improving spears significantly means that they're modeled more realistically, and that means that it increases the chances of PC knights dying at the hands of spear-wielding opponents, I don't see that as a problem.  There's nothing stopping PCs from using spears themselves.

I get that you hold the opposite opinion.  No issue with that.  I'm not asking you, personally, to change how you run your game.

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Probably yes. Histroically knights didn't go for sowrds until spear was no longer a viable option. If you watch the fight between Lancelot and Arthur in Excalibur, you can see just how much of an advantage Lance had on horse with a spear. 

Yes, it's obvious that spear-wielding opponents, mounted or on foot, have a significant advantage in terms of reach.  That's really the missing component to spears, the way I see it.  Not greater damage (they're 1H weapons, afterall), but the potential to strike first, before someone with a sword can close the distance.

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

They are not modeled authentically/historically, and are not really intended to be. Pendragon isn't a historical game, but romantic one. Oh, I mean by the older definition of Romance as  opposed to the modern (love story) definition.

And yet being a romantic game, it's set in a Dark Ages through Middle Ages European milieu where the PCs use the corresponding military technology.  You can say, well it's not historical, and use that as a justification to keep certain weapons as they are.  My counter to you would then be, why bother tinkering with bows, as you are in a separate thread?  The game is not historical: it's romantic.  Just keep things as they are.  The RAW are good enough.

It seems to me that this is simply a matter of taste.

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Let me try to explain this in another way. In the comic books, super strong characters sometimes fall from great heights and hit the ground, breaking the ground. This is realistic, even if you account for super strength, or bulletproof skin or the like. But in the world of super hero comics, that is how reality works. Now Pendragon is similar in that the rules are designed to mimic the reality of the setting, rather than actual reality. For instance, in the real world 5% or so of the enemy on the battlefield don't flip out and go insane because of a hate passion when on the battlefield. But rules like that are in the game to reflect how things work in the setting.

Yes, again I get that Pendragon's rules arent trying to mimic objective reality.  But they do appear, to me, to be trying to roughly approximate or simulate certain benefits and drawbacks to the different choices among weapons and armor.  And I think that some of those rules can possibly be improved upon.

Let me try to explain this in another way.  There's a thing called verisimilitude.   Verisimilitude is basically a fancy way of saying that something has a realistic quality.  In my experience, modeling weapons capabilities and characteristics more accurately in-game tends to improve verisimilitude, which then impacts the willing suspension of disbelief in a positive manner.  To me, that's a good thing.

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Greg put in a bit from in Malory, that shows  the idea of commoners ruling themselves is bad and leads to evil things. Obviously this isn't historically accurate (we hope), and simily a case of medieval bias on the part of Malory. But it does illustrate how the game reality different for actual reality.

Actually, the idea of commoners ruling themselves being bad and leading to evil things is historically accurate, if our perspective is that of knights during the Dark and Middle Ages (which, of course, it is if all your PCs are knights, squires, or ladies using the RAW).  So, in this case, the game reality (PCs taking the roles, predominantly, of members of the military aristocracy) does in fact reflect the actual reality of the Dark and Middle Ages.

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Would they? How? And what makes you think they'd be allowed to? When their  liege lord says "Charge!" they are expected to charge. Look at World War I. Armies took hooredous casualties because they didn't adapt (and didn't want to adapt) to the changes to warfare brought about by weapons such as the machine gun. 

Well, I'm operating under the assumption that player character knights aren't only serving as soldiers or officers in their liege lords' armies, but also off adventuring, slaying dragons, rescuing damsels, and so on.  Sure, all things being equal, if they are in a battle and they're ordered to charge, they should charge.  And if they're ordered by their liege lord to charge into a thicket of spears wielded by disciplined foot soldiers, then their liege lord is an idiot.  Small comfort to the impaled PC knights, of course.  But, maybe the PC knights can convince their lord to soften up the spearmen by showering them with arrows or somesuch.  Or hit them from a flank.  Or display some other form of tactical competence.

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Would wiping out the PKS on a regular basis kill off a campaign? Probably. That's why you need to be careful with any improvements -especially to weapons that are going to be used against the PKS a lot. 

You're assuming that PC knights would be wiped out on a regular basis.  There's a saying about insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Anyhow, while I do understand the need for caution and discretion in implementing rules changes, I don't think that PC knights getting wiped out is the fault of a given weapon, but of how that weapon is used and countered.  I don't think I can put it any more plainly.

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I like the options and being able to customize a suit of armor (heck, I'm the one who started writing up the rules to do so, so I obviously liked the idea), but I can see my players just trying to max out their armor all the time. So if I introduce Double Mail at 12 points  in the Boy King Period, all my players will upgrade, even if Reinforced Mail is right around the corner. Likewise if I introduce a Jupon (+1) to wear over armor, all the players will do so and keep doing so until there is a reason to stop.

I think being able to customize a suit of armor is a great idea.  Of course players will try to maximize their armor.  I'm thinking most players play to win or at least survive.  Better armor in a hostile environment tends to improve survival.  So, I'd expect that sort of behavior from rational players.  Just off the top of my head, I don't see any problem with customized armor as long as it's implemented across the board -- i.e., such armor would be available to both PCs and NPCs.  But that's a whole, 'nother topic.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

So you nerf it so that the most common weapon of the battlefield doesn't show up anymore? First off that goes against your '"more realism"  reason for improving spears, and secondly if you what the point of upping the spear if it's not going to be used?

I don't think I ever suggested nerfing spears.  What I am saying is model spears authentically/realistically, and let the chips fall where they will.  I think that if a particular change to the spear improves their effectiveness as a weapon, then yes players could certainly end up using them more.  To me, that's an acceptable risk.  The spear is a knightly weapon, afterall.

Does that mean that the traditional knightly sword will get used less frequently?  I don't know.  Probably not, and precisely because of the significance of the sword as a symbol of knightly authority as well as its general effectiveness as a weapon.

Quote

So the'd let the riff raff get battle axes, maces and swords instead. Weapons which were better at hurting armored opponents, and which cost a whole lot more?

Spears were common because they were cheap, easy to make, effective, and didn't have much of a learning curve. When used effectively by disciplined troops spears and stop cavalry charges, and for a long time dominated the battlefield. It's still in use by soldiers today in the form of the bayonet. That's because it works. 

You're preaching to the choir.  The point to spears (no pun intended), in addition to their reach was that was they were cheap and effective.  Are they cheap and effective in-game?  Cheap, certainly.  Effective as written?  I guess that's up to you to decide.

Quote

Exactly. And it goes beyond weapons but to any kind of rule change.

In my experience,  house rules have unintended consequences, and most tend to cause worse issues than the things they were created to fix. So a GM should be careful. Also, changes made mid-campaign are especially dangerous, as the players can only react to them after the fact. If spearmen suddenly become highly effective it's not just going to make things tougher for the players, it will probably kill off several of them. This in a game where characters do not bounce back from the dead. 

Well, when you decide to implement any changes, if you decide to make any, is your call of course.  I'm not suggesting that you or anyone does, or does not.  I'm simply wondering about the relative effectiveness of certain weapons available in the game, and whether or not they are modeled authentically/historically.  For my part, if I come to the conclusion that they aren't, I'd probably tend towards changing them so that they are, even if it impacts the Arthurian genre... and I don't know that it would impact it, but it would be fun (for me) to see if it did and how it would play out.

In terms of lethality, one of the reasons I appreciate KAP is the obvious lethality built into the rules.  And I see the generational/dynastic aspect as a part of mitigating that lethality.  (In my opinion, it's a brilliant aspect.)  Would modeling spears more authentically, rules-wise, make them more lethal?  I don't know.  Probably, but probably not in all circumstances.

Even if it did, I think that intelligent players would adapt and change their tactics.  Would such adaptation wreck the Arthurian feel?  I don't know.  Maybe, maybe not.  That's really for you to decide, IMO.

Quote

I'll give you an example from my current campaign. I've been working on some rules for introducing new types of armor and allow people to built suits of armor from pieces. What I've got so far mostly works and I'm tweaking the numbers here and there to get values that seem right, and it's mostly going on good, but...

...players being players and RPGs being RPGs, everybody is going to jump on every potential incremental improvement owner one shows up. In real life this would be less of an issue as marginal improvements are not as concrete and dependable as game stats. Barring special weapon bonuses, 13 point armor, in the game, is always better than 12 point armor, and it always stops 1 more point of damage. Now since in real life most armors could be, and generally were layered, it is quite possible to wear some extra mail, or padding with a full suit of armor for added protection. That's not just gaming, knights actually did that sort of thing in real life. So if I introduce a Jupon, or a double mail hauberk,  I know every player character is going to spend the money to get one if they can, because in the logic of the game, it makes total sense to do so. This means that either everyone ends up with an extra point of armor, or the improvement doesn't last long and gets replaced by something better (partial plate), or I don't bother introducing the Jupon in the first place. 

So, any new bits of armor I do introduce, will need to be integrated with the existing one is such a way as to blend in and not cause armor escalation. That's a lot easier with some things (like proofed armor) than with others (a simple Jupon).

That's a cool example.  You've probably already thought about this, but armor effectiveness typically comes with a trade-off in terms of weight and bulk: more protection tends to mean heavier, bulkier gear.  So, while buying that extra point of armor in the form of Jupon (using your example) will always give you one more point of damage reduction, perhaps the trade-off should be felt in game terms as a DEX penalty and count as a heavy load, for instance.  And if that's a significant enough penalty/trade-off, some players may opt not to have it while some others will.

And if the improvement doesn't last long, IMO that's how the ball bounces.  If you don't think it's worth including -- the juice isn't worth the squeeze -- then, as you say, just don't include it in the first place.  My personal preference is for more options, because part of the fun in deciding what gear to buy and use is weighing the pros and cons.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Making spear better against knights is very dangerous because:

1. Its the most common weapon for footmen to use.
2. Greatspears and Halbards are already the best weapons for footmen to wield against mounted opponents.
3. An effective use of those weapons, combined with decent missile troops is what lead to the downfall of the knight.  

So, for me, I don't see those as dangers.  The only "dangers" I'd be concerned about is how, mechanically, a spear would differ from a great spear, and how spears could be modeled with a reasonable degree of historical accuracy.  If that causes the battlefield effectiveness of knights to suffer, then the answer isn't to nerf spears (or whatever), but to give some sort of game reason why the knights dont face spearmen regularly.  Perhaps it's Medieval "gun control" for instance: can't have the riff-raff running around with the means to defend themselves against their benevolent overlords, & c.

Quote

For several reasons:

1. First off it might help to contribute to setting.
2. It will help with certiain non-knight player characters in my current campaign.
3. It could porve useful in other setting using the same basic game mechanics.

Interestingly, these are the same basic reasons that I'd want to examine any weapon in the game system, not just bows or spears.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Greater realism isn't always a good thing. It dpends upon what the goals are.

No, it's not.  I like realism; I also like streamlined.  The balance between the two (how much is too much?) always seems to be the question.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

I think the key thing here is when you mentioned that you "were not particular ed to the genre". The thing is the majority of Pendragon GMs and players are. They expect and want Pendragon to be about King Arthur and his knights and have chivalry and all that sort of stuff, and that is more important that realism.It's a romanticized setting not a realistic one.  

Well, of course I enjoy the genre.  I would never have explored the game if I didn't.  I just don't think that tweaking rules to be a little more realistic will necessarily torpedo the knights and chivalry and all that sort of stuff.  In fact, it might even strengthen it.

On a related note, I see that you're exploring the idea of tweaking bows and crossbows by tying them to draw weight, which is a very realistic way of going about the subject, and one that I can and do appreciate and support.  Now, it's been a while since I've read any of the source material, but I just don't recall bows having a major role in Arthurian literature or the Arthurian legends as a whole.  Pendragon is about King Arthur and his knights and has chivalry and all that sort of stuff... but I don't recall King Arthur or his knights being archers or even facing many archers.  (No doubt they did, but no big examples come to mind.  What comes to mind is buff dudes in plate armor charging at each other on war horses with lances, then getting off their horses and wailing away at each other with swords or whatever.)  Why bother pulling on that particular thread when the added realism wouldn't really contribute to the romanticized setting?  Or do you think it would?