Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2018 6:19:18 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2018 6:34:48 GMT -6
I though this video was quite interesting: Obviously, the sword as the principal heroic weapon is a product of medieval literature, but the spear is perhaps the most common weapon of historical medieval warfare.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fearghus on Sept 30, 2018 7:30:21 GMT -6
Saw it in my youtube feed, but have not made the time watch it. Will be doing so this morning with breakfast!
Edit:
I subscribe to both Lindy and Matt, and thought that was fun to watch. I have no skill with either weapon, so have nothing useful to add. For a fantasy game, I am happy to keep with 1d6 for all weapons so that the player can choose to be like Achilles or Conan. Both are fun weapons.
|
|
|
|
Post by coffee on Sept 30, 2018 9:22:44 GMT -6
I just saw that one the other day! It's pretty good (they usually are). It gave me a lot to think about.
I especially like the point about how a sword slash, if it doesn't penetrate, won't affect you at all. But a spear thrust, even if it doesn't punch through, still has a lot of stopping power; there's still a person pushing against you with all their weight, stopping you going forward.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Oct 26, 2018 12:16:09 GMT -6
Haven't watched the video yet, but will. Even if I don't always agree with Lindybeige's arguments, I don't care because he's always fun to watch.
A friend and I used to do guest talks to middle school kids about life in the middle ages, and obviously the weapons and warriors bit was always their favourite. They'd get a big kick out of watching one of us put on a chain surcoat and let the other guy slash us up with a sword without getting hurt, like it was a magic trick.
|
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Oct 26, 2018 14:58:13 GMT -6
I have no knowledge of or experience with swords or with spears. That said, if I could have one or the other in a fight, I'd choose the spear.
|
|
|
|
Post by delta on Nov 23, 2018 18:03:55 GMT -6
I've been thinking about this occasionally for about the last month. The action seen here is very similar to what I've in the past in SCA (I think) fights with spear vs. sword: swordsman steps forward, gets tagged with spear, spearman steps back, repeat lots of times.
My dilemma is that I've given up on trying to simulate this in the RPG, especially when I want very fast round-the-table initiative (without "interrupts"!). Of course, Chainmail Man-to-Man had the same benefit (first blow by defender if weapon two classes higher, p. 25), but that assumed an everyone-move, then everyone-attack sequence. And even that didn't simulate the observed effect of the swordsman simply not being able to get a blow at all in the exchange.
I had a house rule for several years where figures with spears would get a free attack as someone closed with them, but this was too complicated for anyone to remember (simply always forgotten in combat); so I cut that recently, and replaced it with the ability to attack from a 2nd rank. Not a perfect simulation, but something my players have been eager to take advantage of, and now almost everyone is carrying a spear or polearm as a 2nd weapon, and thereby wrestling with encumbrance boundaries, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2020 1:36:09 GMT -6
This might well be regarded the "sister video" to the above one. Maybe worth some consideration, as well.  (Sorry for the necro, after such a long time, but I remain interested in this topic quite a bit.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2020 23:06:18 GMT -6
This is also maybe pretty interesting, within the given context.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 9, 2020 23:55:08 GMT -6
I've been thinking about this occasionally for about the last month. The action seen here is very similar to what I've in the past in SCA (I think) fights with spear vs. sword: swordsman steps forward, gets tagged with spear, spearman steps back, repeat lots of times. My dilemma is that I've given up on trying to simulate this in the RPG, especially when I want very fast round-the-table initiative (without "interrupts"!). Of course, Chainmail Man-to-Man had the same benefit (first blow by defender if weapon two classes higher, p. 25), but that assumed an everyone-move, then everyone-attack sequence. And even that didn't simulate the observed effect of the swordsman simply not being able to get a blow at all in the exchange. I had a house rule for several years where figures with spears would get a free attack as someone closed with them, but this was too complicated for anyone to remember (simply always forgotten in combat); so I cut that recently, and replaced it with the ability to attack from a 2nd rank. Not a perfect simulation, but something my players have been eager to take advantage of, and now almost everyone is carrying a spear or polearm as a 2nd weapon, and thereby wrestling with encumbrance boundaries, etc. How about: The spearman attacks first; if he hits the swordsman cannot close to attack this round. Slightly more onerous: The spearman attacks first; if he hits or misses by at most 4 pips the swordsman cannot close to attack this round. Once the swordsman gets "inside" the spear's reach this advantage would vanish (time to pull daggers). |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 10, 2020 11:56:24 GMT -6
I would go with the spear gets the first attack the first time the enemy combatant steps into melee range. If successful, in addition to suffering damage, the enemy combatant makes a saving throw. If the save fails, they are pushed back out of melee range or stopped from moving closer. Rinse and repeat. If they make their save the enemy closes in and gets their normal attack roll.
This doesn't apply in subsequent rounds if the enemy start out already in melee range. The maneuvers one uses for a spear in a close in fight are not the same when you attack somebody closing in.
To reset you have disengage i.e. lose your attack, use your move to step out of melee range. The downside is that you given up ground.
The point of throwing a save in, that being stopped by a spear is a "bad thing" for the enemy. What do we do with OD&D when something "bad" happens to a character? The character makes a save. Saves improves at higher hit dice and as one levels. So it is also a reflection of experience which make sense when avoiding something "bad". In this case an fighter with more experience is more adapt as doing what needed to avoid being pushed back by a spear thrust. Using one's skill to duck and weave, parry, or pushing aside with the shield.
|
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 10, 2020 15:35:04 GMT -6
Possibly- spear gets first strike. If he hits his opponent with a roll that exceeds the target number by 15% or more it is also considered a push back and the opponent cannot counter. Spear gets first strike again.
If spear scores a normal hit (score <15% greater or = target number) then no push back. Opponent gets a counter, but spear maintains initiative next round.
option- allow defender to call a strike or parry before rolling hit dice. A successful roll on a parry would not inflict damage, instead it would offset spears damage. Either allow all damage to be mitigated or roll d6.
If spear misses, opponent gets counter and gains initiative next round.
Rinse & repeat.
|
|
|
|
Post by delta on Sept 12, 2020 1:06:02 GMT -6
How about: The spearman attacks first; if he hits the swordsman cannot close to attack this round. Slightly more onerous: The spearman attacks first; if he hits or misses by at most 4 pips the swordsman cannot close to attack this round. Once the swordsman gets "inside" the spear's reach this advantage would vanish (time to pull daggers). But that doesn't address my problem with needing "interrupts" in the turn sequence, which IME new players don't remember to call out, and also slows down the play. |
|
|
|
Post by Desparil on Sept 12, 2020 1:25:36 GMT -6
How about: The spearman attacks first; if he hits the swordsman cannot close to attack this round. Slightly more onerous: The spearman attacks first; if he hits or misses by at most 4 pips the swordsman cannot close to attack this round. Once the swordsman gets "inside" the spear's reach this advantage would vanish (time to pull daggers). But that doesn't address my problem with needing "interrupts" in the turn sequence, which IME new players don't remember to call out, and also slows down the play. Maybe have it be a maneuver similar to "set spear to receive charge" - so a character wielding a spear against opponents with shorter weapons can choose "fight while maintaining distance," which would force any attacking enemies coming from a basically frontal direction to make saving throws or else lose their attacks for the turn. Perhaps use a save vs. breath weapon since fighters are better than all the other classes at that save. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 12, 2020 6:26:41 GMT -6
But that doesn't address my problem with needing "interrupts" in the turn sequence, which IME new players don't remember to call out, and also slows down the play. I might not quite understand what's implied by "interrupts"? The way I was imagining it, the suggested sequence would be per usual (1. determine who has the first blow, 2. spearman attacks, 3. swordsman attacks, done) with the possibility that the swordsman's attack would be "short-circuited" and skipped altogether. In which case the round is reduced to: 1. determine who has the first blow, 2. spearman attacks, done. So in theory there might be less to do, which could actually hasten play. In 1 vs 1 combat this "short circuit" might not actually save much time, but IMHO it would add a layer of tension: will the swordsman get inside the spearman's defence or not? In a group combat, however, the time-saving might be more apparent. I.e., suppose we have 10 spearmen vs 10 orc axe/mace/swords. 10 (THAC2 17) spearmen vs AC6 orcs require 13+ to hit, so 4 of them would likely hit. Now only 6 (rather than 10) orcs can return blows, so right away you have 4 fewer attacks to resolve. In terms of "remembering" stuff, minis could be a great help. I.e., you could place attacking figures who have successfully closed the gap in base-to-base contact with the spearmen, while those who are yet to close the gap could be left 1/2" away. Without miniatures, the same could be achieved with dice or bottle caps or hand-drawn mudmaps. Thus you wouldn't need to remember anything much; it would simply be that the attackers don't get to attack until they are across that gap. p.s. the notion that spears (or longer weapons) can hold attackers "at bay" also affords the spearman a better chance of defending a doorway, narrow passage or gap. As long as he keeps rolling high he could hold out indefinitely. Or until someone brings a crossbow All of which is to say: spears would have a tactical advantage over shorter weapons. Wait, wha...?? |
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Sept 12, 2020 21:28:10 GMT -6
How about: The spearman attacks first; if he hits the swordsman cannot close to attack this round. Slightly more onerous: The spearman attacks first; if he hits or misses by at most 4 pips the swordsman cannot close to attack this round. Once the swordsman gets "inside" the spear's reach this advantage would vanish (time to pull daggers). But that doesn't address my problem with needing "interrupts" in the turn sequence, which IME new players don't remember to call out, and also slows down the play. My two cents, try this on for size: just let "setting spears" be something that happens the first round of melee whenever you use a spear against a shorter weapon. My rationale: D&D combat is abstracted; rather than devise a game mechanism that mimics the visual narrative of what we want to represent, we instead have to think about what the purpose of a spear in real life is, and what the purpose of D&D combat rolls are, and devise a mechanism that translates one purpose into the other. In real life, the purpose of the spear is to kill from a protected distance. The backpedaling you mentioned works for SCA combat, but probably less so in reality since in reality people get wounded or killed. In a real combat there would probably not be any need for backing up after a successful "stop," since the stopped swordsman is now on the ground with a hole in him; if you didn't stop him dead, then that means he's still coming, and backing up at that point usually turns being run down. However, D&D combat goes well into abstract territory when it brings in multiple hit dice and victory by attrition of hit points. The spear simply can't replicate its "do-or-die" stopping power in real life without seriously overhauling how combat works above the lowest levels. So instead, let's look at purpose and function: the purpose of a spear is to kill a guy before he gets to you; however, by function, if the guy is good or lucky, he might get past your spearpoint and engage you in melee, at which point you are at best losing ground and at worst defenseless, based on your own comparative skill and luck. In D&D, the purpose of combat is to drain the opponent of hit points by making successful attack and damage rolls against AC; the way it functions is that figures are killed on average by as many successful attacks as they have hit dice, plus one. So, on the first round when melee is joined, your spear strikes first and deals double or perhaps treble damage against a shorter hand weapon. If you are very good (high levels), you are quite likely to hit your mark, and the extra damage will stop an average fighter dead. If the swordsman is very good (high HD and/or high AC) then he is quite likely to survive the thrust and engage you in melee: after which, God help you, you are on your own and must fight without bonus to initiative or damage. If you like, you can even halve damage or require a -2 penalty to hit for the duration of the melee unless a shield is in use. |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on Sept 12, 2020 21:47:24 GMT -6
I like your abstraction starbeard So, in a nutshell: forget about "pushback" and "cancelling attacks", instead go with: spears cause double/treble damage on the first round. Done. |
|
|
|
Post by derv on Sept 13, 2020 7:27:58 GMT -6
My rationale: D&D combat is abstracted; rather than devise a game mechanism that mimics the visual narrative of what we want to represent, we instead have to think about what the purpose of a spear in real life is, and what the purpose of D&D combat rolls are, and devise a mechanism that translates one purpose into the other. The thing is that the entire combat procedure in D&D is abstracted. So, there is a rationale to leaving well enough alone. Once we alter any of the procedure we are typically walking down the path of simulation, even when altering damage. There is precedence for this within the text and I think the introduction of variable damage also prejudices peoples desire for such. Maybe variable damage is a good option in this case, say a d10 or d12 damage on the first round. But, consider the door that's now being opened, one of weapon length. Will it suffice with only the spear or will we have to consider all the weapon choices and combinations ala Chainmail? We're simply looking at man to man situations so far. How about monsters? Should a dragon or giant get similar benefits? I think it's worth scrutinizing the entire procedure if we are going to alter the abstraction of combat. 1. Initiative- the benefit of first strike and potentially multiple strikes. I feel this quality is often overlooked. 2. Roll to hit- a miss results in no damage and a hit typically does d6. Again, some may get multiple attack rolls. Modifiers are also a factor. 3. Roll for damage- In OD&D it's d6 +/- modifiers. Greyhawk introduces variable damage. 4. Reduction of hit points- Zero traditionally means death. For some unconsciousness. Not all characters and monsters are created equal. I guess the question when modifying damage is if we want a weapon to be a guaranteed death dealer. If so, in what cases? People go through phases where they try different things. I think it's fun and a worthwhile exercise. Yet, often we return to the simplicity of OD&D and fully embrace the abstraction for what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by robertsconley on Sept 14, 2020 7:09:04 GMT -6
One question I have in general why as a group folks in the OD&D hobby accept the four dozen or so "special cases" represented in the spell lists, and balk at having a dozen or so "special cases" for weaponry.
Look I get that nobody want to turn OD&D into a form of GURPS, Arms Law, Harnmaster, or even the Fantasy Trip. That the Weapon vs. AC table is still as unappealing today as it was back in the day.
To be clear I am not saying anybody doing it wrong by keeping OD&D combat as simple as possible. But after working with the system for a decade, I found OD&D remain OD&D if you flesh out the combat system a bit provided that you keep at the same level of detail and complexity as the spell list. Plus it highlights the fact that these mechanics were already being incorporated in campaign when it was still just an offshoot of miniature wargaming hobby. It just Gygax assumed that his reader knew about them so didn't bother writing them up.
|
|
|
|
Post by angantyr on Sept 15, 2020 11:34:20 GMT -6
Lindybeige says a lot of things.... :-)
I wouldn't take all of it at face value, however. That said I do enjoy watching his videos, even if I don't always agree, since he is always thought provoking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Starbeard on Sept 15, 2020 12:03:21 GMT -6
Lindybeige says a lot of things.... :-) I wouldn't take all of it at face value, however. That said I do enjoy watching his videos, even if I don't always agree, since he is always thought provoking. Agreed. He uses a lot of "Youtube logic" for his arguments, and when he does manage to bring in source evidence that I happen to have some research knowledge of, I find them to be more or less misrepresented—not wholly wrong, but definitely misleading in terms of how they're interpreted, what other sources say, and the overall context—which only makes me assume that this must also be the case with the sources I don't know much about. Plus, he has always kept a sort of sly, misleading duplicity about his academic credentials. I don't think he's ever straight-up lied about it, but he has conveniently worded his college career in such a way that glosses over the details and makes him sound like he has academic research training that he doesn't. I wouldn't care whether he did, it's not like he needs them for his target audience, and his videos are no less entertaining or thought provoking with or without them; it just seems in poor taste that he feels the need to massage around it. But like I said, always entertaining and worth the watch, even if he's spouting hogwash. |
|
