Broadsword vs. Short Sword "problem"

[JustAnotherVingan]

11 minutes ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

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!

A step too far for me, I use the same 1H Sword rule but my shortsword  does pathetic damage. It makes no sense but hey its traditional.

[Dr. Devici]

On 4/15/2022 at 4:46 PM, Rodney Dangerduck said:

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.

I personally find this solution to be unsatisfying in the context of RQG. In a story game where the focus is on genre tropes and narrative developments rather than the particulars of combat? Sure, a weapon's a weapon, it does weapon damage, you use your "melee" rating. In a system like RQG, which has an entire subsystem dedicated to the particulars of combat encounters, I find stripping most meaningful choices out of weapon selection to be anathema to the core design.

On 4/15/2022 at 4:46 PM, Rodney Dangerduck said:

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!

At least in my experience, dropping 6 RPs on a shield is a huge investment. I've seen it happen, but only in response to engaging a thing that's very likely to hit you for 25+ points of damage. Anyone dropping that kind of magic in a man-to-man combat is marking themselves a a prime threat, a shining beacon that says "please direct all enemy spellcasters and grapplers this way."

And at least in the context of a combat encounter, the heaviest armor available should nearly always be the obvious best choice for frontliners. I'd relegate most of its headaches to out of combat dilemmas. Your overland walking speed is slower in heavy armor. You probably can't wear it for long in hot weather, and may need to swap it out for specialized gear in extreme cold snaps. It penalizes your ability to hide, both in terms of sneaking out of sight and blending into a crowd. Etc.

[JustAnotherVingan]

3 minutes ago, Dr. Device said:

I personally find this solution to be unsatisfying in the context of RQG. In a story game where the focus is on genre tropes and narrative developments rather than the particulars of combat? Sure, a weapon's a weapon, it does weapon damage, you use your "melee" rating. In a system like RQG, which has an entire subsystem dedicated to the particulars of combat encounters, I find stripping most meaningful choices out of weapon selection to be anathema to the core design.

I would agree but we still need a mechanical reason to use shortswords rather than broadswords

At least in my experience, dropping 6 RPs on a shield is a huge investment. I've seen it happen, but only in response to engaging a thing that's very likely to hit you for 25+ points of damage. Anyone dropping that kind of magic in a man-to-man combat is marking themselves a a prime threat, a shining beacon that says "please direct all enemy spellcasters and grapplers this way."

Theres a massive difference between the way different groups play RQ. I never had one of those games where people dropped a dozen RP on a single fight or had characters with hundreds of MP available but some campaigns it seems common

And at least in the context of a combat encounter, the heaviest armor available should nearly always be the obvious best choice for frontliners. I'd relegate most of its headaches to out of combat dilemmas. Your overland walking speed is slower in heavy armor. You probably can't wear it for long in hot weather, and may need to swap it out for specialized gear in extreme cold snaps. It penalizes your ability to hide, both in terms of sneaking out of sight and blending into a crowd. Etc.

Absolutely agree. Don't wear it when hunting or travelling either.

 

[JustAnotherVingan]

7 hours ago, g33k said:

Although "massed combat" often calls for spears a bit longer than is good for single fighters or small-groups.  Too long, and it gets unwieldy...

Hunters often used quite long spears. I'd argue useful in massed formations or against a single foe, bad against several opponents in a skirmish which is a lot of RPG fights.

[Dr. Devici]

22 minutes ago, JustAnotherVingan said:

I would agree but we still need a mechanical reason to use shortswords rather than broadswords

Karlak's mention of a close quarters condition had me thinking about using scaling penalties for weapons based on weapon length to incentivize the shorter weapons (and also give the weapon length statistic some value beyond just calculating WSR), but I didn't land on a concrete guideline for the numbers. The basic thought was something like "in close quarters combat, weapons up to 0.5m in length fight at no penalty, with a scaling 10% penalty for every 0.1m above that." If it reduces your skill to 0, that means your weapon is too big for the situation.

I also want to do something with weapon length in general, like maybe longest weapon gets first strike on a new engagement. Because man, the rapier needs something going for it.

Edited April 17, 2022 by Dr. Device

[Oldskolgmr]

On 4/15/2022 at 4:12 PM, g33k said:

Worth watching:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRt4wx-norQ
Lindybeige generally does good stuff!

 

Thank you for introducing me to this link g33k, good stuff!

[Martin Dick]

8 hours ago, Dr. Device said:

At least in my experience, dropping 6 RPs on a shield is a huge investment. I've seen it happen, but only in response to engaging a thing that's very likely to hit you for 25+ points of damage. Anyone dropping that kind of magic in a man-to-man combat is marking themselves a a prime threat, a shining beacon that says "please direct all enemy spellcasters and grapplers this way."

It really depends a lot on the party and the opponents that you face. In my campaign, the party consists of an Odaylan hunter, a Yinkin hunter, a Chalana Arroy healer, a farmer who is in Orlanth Thunderous and a Kolati Shaman. The hunters are lethal with their bow and sling and Mobility, the others are all dangerous ( the farmer has Thunderbolt and you really don't want to get in to spirit combat with the shaman and even the Chalana Arroy if you are undead), but none can really face something tough in hand to hand combat for long. So my Orlanth Adventurous thane fills that role and when the party is facing off against a Cacodemon or an Undead dinosaur, having 20 plus points of armour is a necessity for survival (sometimes running away is not an option from a roleplaying perspective)

And being the target goes with the role of frontline tank, he even has Distraction in order to keep enemies from attacking other party members

[JRE]

We use several house rules based on historical fencing and equipment. The longer weapon is advantaged in normal combat, but if the space is restricted or you succeed in a maneuver to get close, the longer weapon counts as an improvised weapon as you fight with the haft or the pommel. It is another advantage of shields as shields tend to be short range, so if the dagger guy gets too close to hit them with your sword, push them with your shield. In RQG I would house rule improvised weapons as 1D4, SR3 and the normal HP, so the two handed sword becomes worse than a dagger in a hut or when your foe is in physical contact. The maneuver to enter the guard would be based on Dodge, while lengthening the distance just requires space (bad luck in the above mentioned hut or if outnumbered) and either a 5 SR maneuver (meaning you cannot attack unless fast) or a succesful attack (unparried hit).

Yes, we play that if six trolkin attack you with clubs, after the first attack your space is restricted so you cannot use fully your weapon. As the weapon magic and your skill still applies to the improvised weapon, a humakti Sword will probably brain three of the trolkins with guard and pommel strikes, and then skewer the other three, but for someone less well prepared it can be deadly.

Some weapons are flexible (quarterstaff, shortspear with two points) and can be used with different grips / distances.

Coming from other systems and RQ3, the encumbrance rules in RQG favor heavy armour if the character is strong enough, and that is how it should be for melee combatants, as history shows. However we apply penalties to missile use (but not projectiles) with arm armour, as historically they usually carried chest armour and helmets but not arm armour except for an archer bracer, and high penalties to perception with helmets or helms. Not important in a normal duel where the enemy is in sight, but that forces people to take helmets off in non combat situations. Many officers and generals were killed because they fought without helmets to really be aware of the situation around them.

We also assign an encumbrance level depending on leg armour, and general weight carried compared to strength. That modifies movement, dodge and cumulative penalties (every round to every four rounds). Combat is exhausting, and historically duels between well armored fighters usually depended on who tired first, or the lucky hit (criticals and specials).

 

[soltakss]

On 4/16/2022 at 1:10 AM, JustAnotherVingan said:

A step too far for me, I use the same 1H Sword rule but my shortsword  does pathetic damage. It makes no sense but hey its traditional.

Interestingly enough, RuneQuest Glorantha uses a mixture of generic and specific skills.

So, it has 1H Axe, 1H Hammer, 1H Mace and 1H Spear but has Broadsword, Kopis, Rapier and Shortsword as separate skills, presumably because swords are "special" in some way.

 

[PhilHibbs]

3 hours ago, soltakss said:

Interestingly enough, RuneQuest Glorantha uses a mixture of generic and specific skills.

So, it has 1H Axe, 1H Hammer, 1H Mace and 1H Spear but has Broadsword, Kopis, Rapier and Shortsword as separate skills, presumably because swords are "special" in some way.

 

No it doesn't, that list is just a mess that's all. "1H Axe" isn't a skill of its own, it's a category in which you can have several different independent skills, but use any other weapon in the same category at half chance of your best skill. It has no place being on a character sheet.

Oh and Rapier (05) is wrong, it should be 10 like all others in the 1H Sword category. And there are two weapons in the Hammer, 2H category, one with 5 base and one with 10.

Edited April 18, 2022 by PhilHibbs

[Darius West]

On 4/18/2022 at 8:17 PM, soltakss said:

Interestingly enough, RuneQuest Glorantha uses a mixture of generic and specific skills.

So, it has 1H Axe, 1H Hammer, 1H Mace and 1H Spear but has Broadsword, Kopis, Rapier and Shortsword as separate skills, presumably because swords are "special" in some way.

Swords are not "special" there are just a few different types in use, and they all perform a little different in untrained hands.

Page 207 specifies that characters will have full skill with the weapon type they are actually familiar with, but can use any weapon in the same class i.e. 1h sword, 1h axe etc. at half skill. 

In terms of base weapon values, the table you have included, this is for people with no prior training in that weapon class picking up those weapons for the first time.  Some weapons are easier to use instinctively than others, and that is what this table is supposed to reflect. 

Note that pages 60-63 cover cultural weapon bonuses which will apply to many first time users, and they will also get their Manipulation Skill Category Modifier added on (p59).

[svensson]

OK, first thing's first, every weapon listed in the RQ rules have techniques involved in them. You fight a 2h Axe and a 1h Axe entirely differently, even if it doesn't look like it. This is even more pronounced with swords. A shortsword is not fought like a rapier is not fought like a broadsword is not fought like a greatsword. Most of this is physics. It's question of how to achieve a killing result with the least expenditure of energy... force minus resistance equals injury.

All that being said, I don't have a problem with swords being subdivided and I think that other weapons ought to as well. A warhammer requires the wielder to control the angle of the strike in order to put the striking surface onto the target, just like an axe or a sword does. A mace doesn't. It may appear to be the same, but I can assure you it's not.

Also, a 'kopis' is not a scimitar. Scimitars are relatively light when compared with broadswords, and are designed to to deliver deep slashing cuts to somewhat lightly armored opponents. A kopis is a falcata, which is essentially a axe with a large blade and a short grip. Where a scimitar blade turns up, a kopis blade turns downward like a kukri knife. Kopises [kopii?] are designed to chop limbs off through shields, armors and anything else you put in the way. In this way, they are more similar to broadswords.

 

Edited April 22, 2022 by svensson

[coffeemancer]

8 hours ago, svensson said:

OK, first thing's first, every weapon listed in the RQ rules have techniques involved in them. You fight a 2h Axe and a 1h Axe entirely differently, even if it doesn't look like it. This is even more pronounced with swords. A shortsword is not fought like a rapier is not fought like a broadsword is not fought like a greatsword. Most of this is physics. It's question of how to achieve a killing result with the least expenditure of energy... force minus resistance equals injury.

All that being said, I don't have a problem with swords being subdivided and I think that other weapons ought to as well. A warhammer requires the wielder to control the angle of the strike in order to put the striking surface onto the target, just like an axe or a sword does. A mace doesn't. It may appear to be the same, but I can assure you it's not.

Also, a 'kopis' is not a scimitar. Scimitars are relatively light when compared with broadswords, and are designed to to deliver deep slashing cuts to somewhat lightly armored opponents. A kopis is a falcata, which is essentially a axe with a large blade and a short grip. Where a scimitar blade turns up, a kopis blade turns downward like a kukri knife. Kopises [kopii?] are designed to chop limbs off through shields, armors and anything else you put in the way. In this way, they are more similar to broadswords.

 

I agree with you on the kopis/scimitar point.

I have quite some experience fighting with swords and spears and such, in a sporting context. Thus, this is my way of doing things based my experience.

1H sword

2H sword

Rapier

Knife/dagger

axe (warhammers and falcatta)

1H curved swords

2H Polearms

1H polearms

1H blunt

2H blunt

 

and to make matters worse I allow some skills to be used with different weapons. You can use your 1H sword skill for a dagger at -20, forexample.

Thats just how I roll

[svensson]

@coffeemancer

I'm not seeing your list as being all that different from the RQG main lists.

We got two issues here:

First we don't want to get too simple with it and remove the whole cultural weapons aspect out of things. You go too far with that, and you end up with WHFRPG's 'hand weapon' [any 1h axe, mace or sword all with the same stats]. And that is just bland... plain oatmeal bland.

Secondly we don't want to get too specific either. I don't know if you remember RQ2's broadsword to scimitar conversion rules, but even back then I found those to be more than a little pedantic... especially since you didn't get to keep your original broadsword skill!

I don't think RQG does a bad job of balancing the two viewpoints. You want some uniqueness between Sartarite and Esrolian culture, just to make your homeland count for more. And if you're up the Oslir River and you're still wearing all your 'Thunder Rebel' stuff because 'the stats are the same and there's no need to spend the money' [typical PC logic], you're gonna get a lot of ugly interactions with the locals.

Think of it in terms of Conan in Shadizar the Wicked. Everybody carries knives, some long enough to be shortswords, and guards and soldiers carry scimitars. But only a big, hulking barbarian from the frozen North is gonna take a broadsword into an alley fight. And everybody knows when Conan killed somebody. Almost nobody leaves quite so many body parts scattered in diverse nooks and corners about after a fight as a Cimmerian 😆

[JRE]

You cannot compare formation combat with individual combat. If you can hold your formation, the closest effective order will usually beat any looser one. There are a few exceptions with equipment or morale advantage (dismounted knights or viking huscarls versus spearmen militias) but in battle that has been the case except when projectile weapons change the dynamic. Which is why almost all close order infantry uses spears, and usually they are beaten only by even more closely packed pikemen, or strange hybrids such as the legion, that still fought in very close order.

This highlights the fighting style changes a lot when you fight in formation compared to fighting on your own, specially in terms of mobility and trading ground for defence. Weapons for one are not necessarily good for the other. In most cases players will be looking at dueling styles, and formation combat will be down to armour, magic and luck, as by definition you cannot really move freely in formation. 

In terms of arming whole armies, cost and weight is more important than for individuals, as a weapon you have on you is always 100 times better than the wonderful weapon you do not have. A good example is comparing all the interesting Chinese martial arts weapons with the few actual weapons used by Chinese soldiers throughout the centuries and in different dinasties. Career soldiers with cut and thrust polearm, a more flexible weapon than a spear in the hands of skilled users, and spear armed militias.

Another factor that RQ acknowledges but does not tackle right is skill difficulty. Using a broadsword is easier than using an arming (cut and thrust) sword. Using a spear effectively is easier than using a kopis. Hitting people with a club or stabbing them with a knife is the easiest, and many people are still killed now by people with no training using those weapons.

In RQ you may have 5 or 10% difference, but if that is all the difference, everyone will gravitate to the same weapons, as improving them is equally difficult, usually flexible weapons that offer several styles and usually good damage ratios. How many people would change their swords for spears if skill improvement were 1/3 less with a sword, so you were really choosing between 90% sword or 120% spear?

As our current campaign is not combat oriented, with the characters using quarterstaff and daggers, I am not really concerned by the granularity of combat, but in our previous combat heavy RQ3 campaign we fine tuned the starting skill values, and we substracted the starting value from the actual value to check for improvement, so it was much easier to improve 1-H club skill (starting value 40%) than Rapier (01%). 

[icebrand]

16 hours ago, svensson said:

OK, first thing's first, every weapon listed in the RQ rules have techniques involved in them. You fight a 2h Axe and a 1h Axe entirely differently, even if it doesn't look like it. This is even more pronounced with swords. A shortsword is not fought like a rapier is not fought like a broadsword is not fought like a greatsword. Most of this is physics. It's question of how to achieve a killing result with the least expenditure of energy... force minus resistance equals injury.

All that being said, I don't have a problem with swords being subdivided and I think that other weapons ought to as well. A warhammer requires the wielder to control the angle of the strike in order to put the striking surface onto the target, just like an axe or a sword does. A mace doesn't. It may appear to be the same, but I can assure you it's not.

Also, a 'kopis' is not a scimitar. Scimitars are relatively light when compared with broadswords, and are designed to to deliver deep slashing cuts to somewhat lightly armored opponents. A kopis is a falcata, which is essentially a axe with a large blade and a short grip. Where a scimitar blade turns up, a kopis blade turns downward like a kukri knife. Kopises [kopii?] are designed to chop limbs off through shields, armors and anything else you put in the way. In this way, they are more similar to broadswords.

 

My problem with this is that a guy that has 120% sword would never, ever be at 30% on anything.

Timing, measuring distance, footwork cannot be the same for a world class fighter than a random that never actually fought.

If you give Francis Ngannou an axe, he sure as hell will be leaps and bounds better than someone who doesn't know how to fight, even though he most likely didn't wield one before.

[SDLeary]

17 hours ago, svensson said:

OK, first thing's first, every weapon listed in the RQ rules have techniques involved in them. You fight a 2h Axe and a 1h Axe entirely differently, even if it doesn't look like it. This is even more pronounced with swords. A shortsword is not fought like a rapier is not fought like a broadsword is not fought like a greatsword. Most of this is physics. It's question of how to achieve a killing result with the least expenditure of energy... force minus resistance equals injury.

Kind of... While you are somewhat correct about Rapiers (and their descendants), straight single and double edged 1h swords, of varying lengths, are all used much the same way. They tend to be cut and thrust. There is some variation to this because of local/regional design of blades (some pointy points, some rounded points), but the basic fighting style is the same. Even Bronze Age rapiers can be used in this way.

We think shortswords are different, because of the Romans and the way their legionaries employed them. They intentionally trained to use it primarily as a thrusting weapon. This was thought unusual enough that this is commented on in primary sources, and how difficult it was to accomplish this; but Livy (Macedonian Wars) also comments about how Macedonian soldiers were horrified at the dismemberment of bodies caused by this sword. We don't hear (to my knowledge) about Greek soldiers using the Xiphos in the same way (primarily thrust).

17 hours ago, svensson said:

All that being said, I don't have a problem with swords being subdivided and I think that other weapons ought to as well. A warhammer requires the wielder to control the angle of the strike in order to put the striking surface onto the target, just like an axe or a sword does. A mace doesn't. It may appear to be the same, but I can assure you it's not.

You don't want things to be too divided though. I would keep 1h sword for most, and only call out those that might be outliers, such as the falx, by giving them low base chance. I would even leave rapiers in this category unless you are thinking of them in the later European context. Hammer and Axe should probably be in the same category of "1h hafted". Single handed maces should be placed in a "club" category, though given a lower base skill chance.

SDLeary

Edited April 22, 2022 by SDLeary

[SDLeary]

33 minutes ago, icebrand said:

My problem with this is that a guy that has 120% sword would never, ever be at 30% on anything.

Timing, measuring distance, footwork cannot be the same for a world class fighter than a random that never actually fought.

If you give Francis Ngannou an axe, he sure as hell will be leaps and bounds better than someone who doesn't know how to fight, even though he most likely didn't wield one before.

Agreed. Perhaps the "skill" is Close Combat (specialization), where the specialization is one of the weapon categories. Similar categories are at a malus (though never less than 1/2 skill), dissimilar categories at 1/2 skill? This, at least, would encapsulate basic hand-to-hand concepts into a single skill that would carry over to other weapons. And if you wanted to know another weapon category, you could always learn a new specialization starting at half Close Combat skill.

SDLeary

[French Desperate WindChild]

2 hours ago, icebrand said:

My problem with this is that a guy that has 120% sword would never, ever be at 30% on anything.

Timing, measuring distance, footwork cannot be the same for a world class fighter than a random that never actually fought.

Yes Definitely yes

[icebrand]

2 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Agreed. Perhaps the "skill" is Close Combat (specialization), where the specialization is one of the weapon categories. Similar categories are at a malus (though never less than 1/2 skill), dissimilar categories at 1/2 skill? This, at least, would encapsulate basic hand-to-hand concepts into a single skill that would carry over to other weapons. And if you wanted to know another weapon category, you could always learn a new specialization starting at half Close Combat skill.

SDLeary

That's EXACTLY how i play it.

The skills are: 

Axe, sword, spear, mace (1h & 2 h versions, so 8 skills) + hand-to-hand (includes punch, kick, grapple and dagger). And of course shields! For a total of 10 melee skills.

So, if you have broadsword 90%, you attack with other 1h swords at 70 and with every other non-1Hsword weapon under the sun (yes, including the dimensionally displaced VCR) at 45%.

Thrown weapons are each their own skill but again you can throw anything at 1/2 skill

Bow, crossbow and firearms are their own skills, again you roll with a different type at -20 and with a different class at 1/2. So a character can actually pick up a mostali flintlock and fire it and have a chance to hit instead of wasting their action. My rationale is that using different weapons almost never happens, and this encourages a bit of variety (+ it's a bit more realistic imho)

 

Edited April 22, 2022 by icebrand

[HreshtIronBorne]

1 hour ago, icebrand said:

Bow, crossbow and firearms are their own skills, again you roll with a different type at -20 and with a different class at 1/2. So a character can actually pick up a mostali flintlock and fire it and have a chance to hit instead of wasting their action. My rationale is that using different weapons almost never happens, and this encourages a bit of variety (+ it's a bit more realistic imho)

I really love this. Some of our most epic moments at the table came from using things we just found or things we'd had a long time in ways not quite supported by the rules. I vividly remember throwing a Stone Greataxe at a flying enemy while under the effects of Berserk. I got lucky and it worked and it was awesome. It would be fun to encourage that sort of stuff a little more. 

[Shiningbrow]

16 hours ago, JRE said:

How many people would change their swords for spears if skill improvement were 1/3 less with a sword,

I'd like to see some sort of rule that exemplifies this!

[Monty Lovering]

Cool thread. 

OK, so I do the following;

I’ve played with SRs to make spears, rapier, etc., faster and reflect speed of strike as well as length as the kinetics are as important as length.  It means brawling weapons have a WSR of 5 but it works because Closing is about more than open sea travel being impossible.

I firmly believe most weapons should be capable of doing only 1HP damage. The idea a dagger can on average take someone average to zero in the chest is silly, let alone great axes doing 9HP on average. So they go 1d3, 1d4, 1d5, 1d6, 1d8, 1d10, 1d12, 2d6, 2d8, etc., with two-handed use bumping it up a die, and ‘big’ two handed weapons getting another die. So a long sword (shoot me I’m anachronistic) is 1d8 1H, 1d10 2H, and a great sword is 1d12 with others following a similar pattern.

Weapons that are effective against armour get a +1, and it’s an imperfect and generic ‘best against armour’ but it does mean spear and hammers get that little extra. 

Crushing weapons are 1H Mace, 2H Mace, 1H Hammer, 2H Hammer, with anyone giving 50% of skill in the other. Have wondered if hammers and maces should be different and feel the equivalent of ‘edge alignment’ Is enough of a reason. 

Blades are Dagger, Rapier, Short C/T, Short Slashing,  and then Long C/T, Long Slashing, both in 1H and 2H versions. 50% of skills applies as above. 

Axe is 1H and 2H. 2H includes edged slashing pole arms. 50% of skills applies as above. 

Articulated follows the same pattern.

Quarterstaff is a thing unto itself, as are some other weirder things. 

Spear is 1H, 2H and Pike with same 50% thing. Lance is too, but you have the same skill in 1H Spear as Lance. 

And I am playing with parry modifiers ranging from 1/4 skill for 1H spear which is shit to parry with through 1/2 for hafted weapons like axes which are unwieldy with swords, 2H spears at full. But I think basing HP on the ability of a weapon to deflect a blow (so 1H spear will have less than 2H spear) with separate AP based on durability which get reduced by parrying specials/criticals) is probably better. 

IMG, YGMV, yes it’s crunchy, no my campaign is not combat centric there’s not been a fight beyond a fist fight in a bar in over a month. 
 

And I’m still not happy with my Brawling rules but am getting there. 
 

And that’s not even starting on me making ranged weapons slightly less feeble than they are in RAW, or on Multimissile just making you shoot quicker as I’ve loathed the idea of solidified air arrows for 40 years. 
 

 

[icebrand]

On 4/22/2022 at 11:52 PM, Shiningbrow said:

I'd like to see some sort of rule that exemplifies this!

Replace skill modifier for skill base in your exp roll. If you still want to make skill increase different for each player use 1/2 int (from brp4e) as a bonus (or keep skill modifier but that will probably make everything increase super fast (not that that's a bad thing)

[French Desperate WindChild]

On 4/22/2022 at 12:40 PM, JRE said:

Another factor that RQ acknowledges but does not tackle right is skill difficulty. Using a broadsword is easier than using an arming (cut and thrust) sword. Using a spear effectively is easier than using a kopis. Hitting people with a club or stabbing them with a knife is the easiest, and many people are still killed now by people with no training using those weapons.

if you apply a "true"  (well I m not specialist at all, I cannot say if using a spear is irl easier than using a kopis, I trust you, that's all) simulation you must too :

- go deeper with armor (malus to attack/parry depending on the weapon, different restistand depending on the weapon),

- go deeper with hit area : one damage may kill someone (throat, heart, etc...),difficulty to focus an area depending on the weapon

- go deeper with fatigue (skill malus, damage malus, mood malus)

- go deeper with situation (skill malus depending on the weapon, horse, tunnel, water, field size, etc...)

- go deeper with mood (wound after wound, friend after friend, ennemy after ennemy, orate skill, etc...)

- go deeper with concentration (distraction, scream, ....)

- go deeper with special techniques giving more opportuinities/damage/etc (I have not the english word, in french "botte" when you talk about fencing)

- don't know what else

 

well go deeper with so many things that at the end of the day we will play only magical fights because physical fight is too complex to modelize or to apply 😛

 

For me (I understand that other would have different view) the lack of simulation is more about psychology, in fight but not only, and "technique"/"school" of fighting. But every time I go in this direction with house rule, I obtain more issues than benefits

 

Edited April 25, 2022 by French Desperate WindChild