Of short swords and light armors

[JustAnotherVingan]

11 minutes ago, SevenSistersOfVinga said:

I need to read more stories about Pavis then!

 

I recommend the ones by Olav then http://www.griselda.org.uk/olaf.html

[Eff]

I'm of two minds on this.

The first mind is that the reasons why particular weapon types are common archaeologically often have little to do with why a player character would pick a particular weapon type- a xiphos or a gladius is made to be useful in a military context that a player character is not often in. With that in mind, it doesn't really matter if some weapons are straightforwardly better for the individual activities of a player character, because the other weapons have stats in case they get into trouble with soldiers or similar.

The second mind is that if players have access to a weapon, and that weapon isn't signposted as not one they should pick, the weapon should be a worthwhile choice, something which justifies having more categories than "sword", "big sword", "curvy sword" and "big curvy sword", if even that many. While there are straightforward reasons why someone would use a short weapon (assuming the RQ shortsword is a <24 inch/50cm blade length weapon, like a xiphos, gladius, or seax- note that the historical kopis also fits this category in most examples) they also require adding additional chrome onto the rules to make the advantages of getting into knife-fighting range reflected in results.

So with those two minds in synchronization, I think my solution is mostly "shrink down the weapons table and allow people to customize their generic sword".

As far as armor goes, RQ armor is messy and the question of how it ought to be requires first asking the question of what the combat system should encourage and what tradeoffs should exist there.

Edited April 15, 2022 by Eff
Quick edit to cover armor

[Rodney Dangerduck]

The way to fix the Broadsword vs. Short Sword "problem" is to group them, plus scimitar(?), all together into a single, simple category, 1H Sword.  If a player wants to be "Roman style" and use a short sword, or "Oriental" and use a jian or katana, let them do so, but treat it as a broadsword in all practical effects - damage and HP.  In RQG a slash and an impale do the same damage, so the cut vs. thrust issue is less important as well.

As for armor, no idea.  I'd love to hear some.  Our first GM gamely tried a "you can move faster in lighter armor" rule that nobody except me liked, and it was ignored then dropped.  Our group has a lot of hard-core minimax players who are loathe to give up even one point of armor protection.  And that really really bad overall.  When your Humakti tank has iron plate and Shield 6, the bad guys need to do 25+ damage to be at all dangerous.  Which means that a Sorala-type "Sword Sage" gets slaughtered even when she makes a parry!

[SevenSistersOfVinga]

22 hours ago, Eff said:

with those two minds in synchronization, I think my solution is mostly "shrink down the weapons table and allow people to customize their generic sword

Customize in the way of looks? I'm all in for simple rules. 

[Shiningbrow]

On 4/16/2022 at 7:30 AM, Eff said:

So with those two minds in synchronization, I think my solution is mostly "shrink down the weapons table and allow people to customize their generic sword".

Isn't that what the table is? A bunch of customised weapons...

[Darius West]

Simply put, there aren't real advantages for wearing light armor and using light weapons.  The idea that light armor is less constricting and allows freer movement is probably true, but dodging is far harder than most RPGs suggest.  The advantages for light armor are the price point, and the lower encumbrance.  As for using shortswords, they simply don't hit as hard as larger weapons, and that isn't going to change.  Presently there are no rules for semi-grappling combat in RQG, so the value of a shorter weapon for very-up-close-and-personal combat, where characters are under the guard of longer weapons do not apply.  This is fair, as irl combat is quick, and the longer weapon will strike first.  If the longer weapon misses, then the shorter weapon has its chance and the owner of the longer weapon does their best to fend, parry or withdraw to a better range. 

There is a reason that most ancient armies fielded massed spears and heavy armor.  They work so much better than the lighter shorter gear.  Light and short might be fine for a criminal who needs concealability, or a martial artist style individual fighter, but their best method for dealing with heavily armored people with long weapons is to run away, hide, and/or ambush.  Another option is to use a missile weapon in combination with the light combination.

[SevenSistersOfVinga]

8 hours ago, davecake said:

One issue is the rules more or less conflate very tight rigid phalanx formations with looser 1-2 person deep ‘Viking’ style shield walls without uniform weaponry (which seems a very common Orlanthi battle tactic), in which using larger 1-h seem less of an issue. The rule might still work, though, with the expected result that such shield walls fall apart easily when breached, turning into more of a standard melee - which actually seems pretty fair. 

I find in these situations that if given the choice, picking between broadswords and any other sword is clear. So I end up with 2 categories, broadswords and food utensils. 

I get it if the long sword is a revolutionary weapon, faster, stronger, deadlier, I bet that if someone has to choose between a knife and a sawed off shotgun the option would be the same. 

Are broadswords rare? I don't see it on price, they are on many cultural weapons list, nothing seem to indicate they are.

 

[Shiningbrow]

4 minutes ago, SevenSistersOfVinga said:

I bet that if someone has to choose between a knife and a sawed off shotgun the option would be the same. 

Yep! I love eating my dinner with shotgun and fork.... 😜

[Eff]

On 4/16/2022 at 6:15 PM, SevenSistersOfVinga said:

Customize in the way of looks? I'm all in for simple rules. 

 

On 4/16/2022 at 10:39 PM, Shiningbrow said:

Isn't that what the table is? A bunch of customised weapons...

Yes. But I'd honestly go relatively radical and perhaps just reduce weapons down to the following categories:

Size: Little, 1H, 2H, Polearm
Method: Crushing, Slashing, Impaling, Cut-and-Thrust

So a sword would be a 1H C&T weapon, a kopis or scimitar would be a 1H S weapon, a dagger-axe would be a Polearm S weapon, etc. Standardize the strike ranks and damage based on the size, allow Little weapons to be used like a main-gauche, perhaps, possibly differentiate slashes and impales to make C&T weapons mechanically distinct in operation, and you've essentially got a more freeform weapons table. You can then add chrome in the form of tags for particular weapons- this one is Fast, so it has -1 SR, this one is Heavy, so it has +2 SR and damage goes up by one die size. This one Entangles, so the damage goes down by two die sizes but on a hit it forces the target to focus on getting out from it. 

I think the main advantage here for me is that it allows players to pick a "look" that feels appropriate- your gladius-esque pig-sticker and a generic leaf-shaped "broadsword" are effectively similar weapons in combat, but someone who wants to look "Hellenic" or "Roman" doesn't feel punished for not picking the "Barbarian" or "Mycenean" gear. It formalizes a dial of combat chrome you can turn up or turn down. And it's easy enough to sync this with existing magic- True Sword only works on C&T weapons, True Spear on Impaling, Axe Trance on Slashing (the kopis and rhompaia are evolved butchering tools, I think a Lunar Babeester Gor cultist would be perfectly fine using those as ritual axes, but maybe some people would disagree there) and the like. 

Armor... I have percolating thoughts. Still nothing concrete. I think for me armor requires rethinking the way parries work and possibly the entire order of combat operations?