New Unofficial Armor and Weapon Rules Beta

[Gilbert de Chatillon]

I am creating a set of weapon and armor rules for my campaign with several goals in mind:

#1. Make mundane weapons special. In a lower magic type world where players do not find magic items everywhere, I feel it is better to give mundane items more character. In real life, weapons are tools for killing things and you need different tools for different jobs. The current rule set really does not give a reason to use one weapon over another except for damage.

#2. Make the weapons and armor slightly more historically accurate. I am a bit of a history buff so certain incorrect terms for weapons and armor that have become standard in most RPGs sort of bother me (like the longsword and studded leather armor). I avoided going crazy with it and tried to keep the historical terms at a minimum to be more accessible to the average gamer and not just history nuts and weapon experts.

#3. Keep the players engaged. With players playing multiple characters, their turn to play can come up slowly. With this system players will roll for defense rather than monsters rolling to attack them.

#4. Make the rules more accurately portray combat. In real life, you defend yourself with your weapons, shields, and skill. Armor prevents otherwise lethal attacks from doing as much or any damage. Armor as damage reduction is nothing new, but it is often difficult to implement in other systems. DCC has very simple rules and when adding this in, there are not as many rule changes.

#5. Track encumbrance simply. By assigning a check penalty to weapons you simplify encumbrance. In DCC it states "The check penalty applies to checks to climb, jump, balance, swim, move silently, and other such physical activities". I urge you to try to swim with a mace hanging off your belt and a longsword in your hand.

#6. Keep it simple. I like DCC's simple combat system and so I tried to keep it pretty simple. I could have added many crazy rules for different weapons doing different amounts of damages to different armors, but I chose not to.

Please download my rule set and give it a try or just read over it and I welcome any comments, suggestions and questions. Remember this is just a beta.

VERSION 1: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4EZX_ ... sp=sharing

VERSION 2: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4EZX_ ... sp=sharing

VERSION 3: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4EZX_ ... sp=sharing

VERSION 4: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4EZX_ ... sp=sharing

[Gilbert de Chatillon]

Well the file didnt attach, ill have the rules up here later today.

[ragboy]

Try using google drive and just pitch the link up here to the file.

[Gilbert de Chatillon]

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4EZX_ ... sp=sharing

Oh, that was a great idea, thank you ragboy. I was at work all day so I just got a chance to do this.

[caveman]

It looks neat. I don't know what a lot of those weapons are... I do think its strange for Greatswords to be slow in initiative but good for defense...
One thought is that combats will last a bit longer around the time PCs can afford sets of plate... you might want to up some damage stats.

[Gilbert de Chatillon]

Thanks caveman. In future updates I was thinking about adding descriptions of the weapons and armor and possibly pictures. For some quick simple clarification:
Think of an arming sword as what most RPGs call a longsword, an actual longsword is pretty much what RPGs usually call a “bastard sword” (a bastard sword is either a type of longsword or just another word for longsword depending on your source).
An estoc is a longsword with a thin blade designed for puncturing plate armor.
Messers are kind of thick knife-like swords.
Coustilles are like big daggers or small swords.

I agree with you on the initiative. For now I didn’t really change the initiative rules but I was thinking about giving each weapon its own initiative die. I did change fighting unarmed to be a lower die. My reasoning for this is that in order to attack someone who is armed you must get past their weapon. The armed person will usually get to react first.

With regards to the armor, I debated on taking away the munition plate category and just making that full plate so the max damage reduction would be 5. Many weapons have abilities that reduce the damage reduction armor provides so I didn’t want to diminish the usefulness of armor. I feel if I increase weapon damage more than I have it will cause unbalance. I would like suggestions and thoughts on this. This is one of the most difficult things to work out with the system.

[oncelor]

Thanks for posting that. Interesting rule ideas.

We've been playing that warriors get a damage reduction from armor, 1-3 points per round depending on the type of armor. I've been working on home-brew rules that would allow players to use every weapon with the rules as written, but to give many weapons a unique optional attack, e.g. a mace could be used to bash -2 to attack but +1d damage, or a two-handed sword could be used to sweep and attack two adjacent enemies with -2 attack and -1d. The trick in designing this, I've found, is finding things that work properly with the MDoA system.

[Gilbert de Chatillon]

If you are looking at giving weapons accurate characteristics or just want more info on weapons in general for RPGs, I really recommend looking at Riddle of Steel: Flower of Battle. Here is a link to a review of it: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10921.phtml

[caveman]

They guy who wrote Riddle of Steel has an epic old thread on Enworld about historical warriors. Full of great history and pictures and videos of historically accurate fighting styles. Can't quite remember what it was called...

[Gilbert de Chatillon]

Is damage reduction 6 too much? I do have weapons that reduce damage reduction by 3. I am wondering if everything would work better if the max damage reduction was 5 and weapon's max damage reducing was 2. This may improve the usefulness of other armor a bit as well. Any thoughts?

[oncelor]

Thanks for the link! That looks interesting.

I don't think DR 6 is too much at higher levels, but it may be at 1st and 2nd level.

We play DR as applied per-round, not per-blow. So If you've got DR 3 and get shot by two arrows each doing 3 damage in the same round, the armor stops the first but the second gets through. This may be less realistic but I think it works better as a game mechanic.

[Skyscraper]

It doesn't display anything when except the title of the document, when I click on the link. Any tips?

[Gilbert de Chatillon]

I have tried it on multiple computers and it seemed to work fine. I am not sure, it is a pdf file if that helps.

[Skyscraper]

Ok, i needed to log in.

Cool stuff there. It's more detail than I want in my DCC game, but I like the ideas behind your modifications. At a glance, they all seem to make sense to me.

You could add, for the blowgun: on a natural roll of 1, you mistakenly inhale and swallow the needle. FORT check DC 10 or die choking.

[Skyscraper]

As to your question, I think DR 6 is good for the heavier armor.

I have a question about the pavise: if i undersand correctly, it provides +3 AC as base bonus. But the text under says that it can alternately be put on the ground to grant cover (-2 for attacker) instead of the defense mod (+3 AC?). I don't really where the -2 to attack vs +3 AC tradeoff would be desirable. What am I not understanding?

[Gilbert de Chatillon]

A pavise is typically used for cover for archers. It provides a +3 ac when using it as a shield, but when you set it up it provides cover instead and your hands are free to use a ranged weapon.

[cjoepar]

This is just a thought, but if you are going to go into this much detail, why not add in separate damage reduction values versus different weapon types? For example, chainmail does very little to protect against piercing attacks and essentially nothing against crushing attacks.

[Skyscraper]

This is just a thought, but if you are going to go into this much detail, why not add in separate damage reduction values versus different weapon types? For example, chainmail does very little to protect against piercing attacks and essentially nothing against crushing attacks.

+1d.

I assume this is the kind of feedback he might be looking for.

[Gilbert de Chatillon]

This is just a thought, but if you are going to go into this much detail, why not add in separate damage reduction values versus different weapon types? For example, chainmail does very little to protect against piercing attacks and essentially nothing against crushing attacks.

I was considering it and I understand where you are coming from, but I didnt want to get too complicated. I was kind of hoping that some of the weapons having the ability to reduce damge reduction would somewhat represent this in a more simple fashion. I may switch around some of the values of things to represent this better and may switch chainmail and brigandine armor around.

[Gilbert de Chatillon]

Thank you Skyscraper and cjoepar for your imput and ideas. I have made a few changes and have a newer version in which I did a bit more research and made some changes to the weapons that can be weilded one or two handed. You can DL it here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4EZX_ ... sp=sharing

[Skyscraper]

Cool stuff.

Here's a question for you: why not give longer weapons some advantage in attacking first? Presently, if I understand your rules correctly, the guy with the dagger is likely to hit the guy with the greatsword first, due to d20 init for dagger vs d16 init for greatsword. However, I see approaching an opponent armed with a longer weapon as being difficult without being hit first. I understand that swinging the weapon is more cumbersome, but those 3-4 feet that you need to cross that the greatswod can reach, before your own dagger can reach your opponent, seem pretty intimidating to me. Perhaps people with a lot of experience in fencing might comment on this.

For example, you could have the first strike of round 1 be to the advantage of the longer weapon wielder.

I remember an interesting rule in Middle Earth RPG, where ranged attackers with loaded weapons went first in combat (init amongst themselves); and then the melee attackers went second (init amongst themselves). I liked that rule for "realism" purposes. Charging someone with a crossbow meant you took the hit for sure before getting to him, which makes sense.

Maybe something similar could be done in this case. If the dagger wielder charges the great sword wielder, the great sword wielder goes first on round 1; and then on rounds 2 and subsequently, init is rolled as usual with d16 for great sword wielder and d20 for dagger.

This brings me to the longsword. The rules state that it uses d16 when used two-handed. However, for having done some LARP with good quality foam weapons, wielding a sword 2 handed allowed me to be much quicker than using it one handed (I used a "bastard sword" quite a bit, a bit longer than the long sword and with a hilt that accommodated 2 hands). The ONLY reason I'd wield a weapon one handed is to use a shield, or if my other arm was injured, for I was much more deft with it 2 handed.

This brings me to the question: does a person wielding say, a mace or a longsword, one handed, move his weapon more slowly than a person wielding a greatsword 2-handed? In my opinion and with my limited LARP experience, no. Getting to use both hands provides leverage on the handle of the greatsword, and it's much easier to move it quickly in an arc, than it is to move a long sword one-handed, even if the weapon is bigger. Now we might get into the question of how to move a weapon, i.e. swinging vs piercing... But lets not My main point is: I doubt that the greatsword is so slow, compared to many one-handed weapons, because you get your second arm to move it quicker.

This is even more true for the staff. The great advantage of the staff IMO is how quickly you can attack with it, leveraging it to swing it or darting it in.

My take on a rule for weapons, would probably be to

1) split the round into two parts, where ranged attackers with readied weapons go first - those that draw their weapons immediately drop to the second portion of the round; and melee attackers go in the second part. You can exceptionally up or down creatures in the two-part round depending on certain circumstances.

2) I'd probably give automatic win to init to anyone with a longer or a reach weapon on the first round of combat. I would not use the d16 for subsequent rounds because I'm far from convinced that wielding a long sword two handed, or even a greatsword, is slower than a long sword one-handed or another one handed weapon.

3) I'd consider giving a bonus to hit to someone wielding a small weapon such as a dagger, or a weapon that is very quick to wield such as a staff, to represent that one can attempt to hit with these weapons more often than with a larger weapon. For example, perhaps a d24 to hit with dagger and staff and other selected weapons (only a crit on 24? To be considered.)

*****

On another topic: the flail is indicated as doing 1d12 damage and is not indicated as being a 2-handed weapon. It reduces the DR by 3 and negates shield defense. This seems like a very good, even considering the -1 to defense. Mechanically, I'd rethink the balance of this one. I think it should be a one-handed weapon that does 1d8 or the like.

*****

Another topic: the DR reduction by weapons appears circumstantial depending on what armor you're facing (as noted by cjeopar). I understand that you're using the "blunt = DR" basic principle. This appears consistent.

However, is a hand axe really that much better than a long sword or great sword against an opponent in plate or full plate? Or even against an opponent in leather armor? The two swords are going to hit pretty hard also, but they have the additional possiblity of being used to slice or cut or pierce in addition to the blunt force of impact. I think a very reasonable argument could be made that, on average, the long sword will probably be more effective against most types of armor than the hand axe (although I do not know, really).


******

Another

The AC bonus for weapons. While I agree that wielding a weapon is a great defense in melee, it is worthless for ranged attacks. Do your rules address this?

Why is the flail worth -1 AC, the arbalest 0 AC? (the arbalest appears more cumbersome to me)

The hand axe +1 AC, the hammer 0 AC? (Don't see a diff.)

[Skyscraper]

Just to add to the weapon reach point: boxers with longer arms are seen as having the reach advantage over their opponents. And we understand that the difference in length between two boxers in a same category, is far from comparable to the difference in length between, say, a dagger and a greatsword. Reach really counts (not only on the first round, but I was trying to try to find a balance between the shorter weapon being quick and the longer, having reach).

[cjoepar]

That's a good observation about reach and initiative, Skyscraper.

You see this perspective throughout rulesets where the heavier weapons (that tend to do more damage) are assumed to be slower and so they get an initiative penalty to help create some game balance to try to discourage everybody from always fighting with two-handed swords all the time. But I think this illogical solution arises because there is this weird idea that if two people fight they are standing in place taking turns swinging at each other. Of course in a real melee, everything is happening simultaneously and there is a constant flow of motion with people taking swings at each other as opportunities present themselves. Sometime one person may get multiple attacks in the time that the other gets only a single attack, or perhaps presses his foe so hard that he can do nothing but try to dodge and parry blow after blow. A weapon with reach should get some advantage in this sense if realism is the goal, and an initiative bonus is as good an approach as any. But again, you probably want to be sure to put some balances in place or you get character after character who will want to fight with the weapon that has the greatest reach and does the most damage.

[Gilbert de Chatillon]

Wow this is great!

Here's a question for you: why not give longer weapons some advantage in attacking first? Presently, if I understand your rules correctly, the guy with the dagger is likely to hit the guy with the greatsword first, due to d20 init for dagger vs d16 init for greatsword. However, I see approaching an opponent armed with a longer weapon as being difficult without being hit first. I understand that swinging the weapon is more cumbersome, but those 3-4 feet that you need to cross that the greatswod can reach, before your own dagger can reach your opponent, seem pretty intimidating to me. Perhaps people with a lot of experience in fencing might comment on this......

Initiative definitely needs to be changed. I just kept the rules the same as the base DCC rules but I agree that they really do not make any sense. I was considering giving each weapon its own initiative die at first but thought it may be too complicated with too little of an impact on the game overall. I really like your idea of having combat broken down in phases with ranged weapons going first. To simplify things: what if I break down combat into ranged attack phase and melee phase, then I give every melee weapon a reach score which is added to the initiative roll?
One thing that the rules do not account for is that if I am closed in on you with a dagger and you have a polearm, you lose any advantage that weapon has. I do not really want to get crazy complicated with things like that, but adding in factors like reach might lead to questions like this. I am not sure how to implement this in a system without miniatures (and I don’t want to use miniatures)

On another topic: the flail is indicated as doing 1d12 damage and is not indicated as being a 2-handed weapon. It reduces the DR by 3 and negates shield defense. This seems like a very good, even considering the -1 to defense. Mechanically, I'd rethink the balance of this one. I think it should be a one-handed weapon that does 1d8 or the like.

The flail is overpowered, I thought I fixed it but I didn’t. I was going to make it d10 with a -2 damage reduction instead of -3. I could further make the weapon hard to defend with by giving it a -2 defense modifier but it might be too much.

However, is a hand axe really that much better than a long sword or great sword against an opponent in plate or full plate? Or even against an opponent in leather armor? The two swords are going to hit pretty hard also, but they have the additional possiblity of being used to slice or cut or pierce in addition to the blunt force of impact. I think a very reasonable argument could be made that, on average, the long sword will probably be more effective against most types of armor than the hand axe (although I do not know, really).

An axe is actually very effective against armor vs a sword. Longswords and the estoc are good against armor when halfswording (holding the blade with one hand and the hilt with the other). Longswords are usually not sharp the whole length of the blade for that purpose and estocs usually only have a sharp tip. Halfswording is also not really designed to penetrate the armor so much as to find gaps in it where fleshy bits are exposed. This video does a good job of showing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi757-7XD94 . Axes, maces, warhammers and war picks, however, can puncture and pierce armor. This video is kind of funny but demonstrates this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4yP2B7AJwk . The downside being they are slower and heavier making them less useful for blocking and parrying; a shield would commonly be used to compensate for this.

The AC bonus for weapons. While I agree that wielding a weapon is a great defense in melee, it is worthless for ranged attacks. Do your rules address this?

Why is the flail worth -1 AC, the arbalest 0 AC? (the arbalest appears more cumbersome to me)

The hand axe +1 AC, the hammer 0 AC? (Don't see a diff.)

My rules do address that: * When these ranged weapons are used a weapon's Defense Modifier does not apply. Shield's Defense Modifiers still apply (not including bucklers). I just have it at 0 defense modifier for an arbalest but really ranged weapons aren’t meant to defend with. You shouldn’t really use your crossbow to parry. I should probably just put a “-” instead of a “0”.

[Gilbert de Chatillon]

A weapon with reach should get some advantage in this sense if realism is the goal, and an initiative bonus is as good an approach as any. But again, you probably want to be sure to put some balances in place or you get character after character who will want to fight with the weapon that has the greatest reach and does the most damage.

I agree. That is where the weapon abilities come into play such as some weapons being able to better crush through armor or get around shields or do more damage against a mounted charge. Weapons are tools for killing and defending and different situations benefit better from different tools.