Armour & weapon designs - a plea (part II).

[villain of the story 63]

This absolutely ridiculous. There is no such thing as "giant weapons that are slow". Even the largest IRL infantry weapons that you can think of are handled with relative speed and ease. Because that's what weapons are for, they are made to be handled with relative ease and sped. I've always despised it how in games, bigger the weapon, the slower it is. Makes absolutely no sense at all. Even the biggest RL axe you have seen is a very versatile and agile weapon. Likewise, a two-handed weapon is a weapon that just takes a total of two hands to use instead of just one which is what it takes to land it on equal footing with one-handed weapons: that you don't get to have an off-hand for second tool of war.

 

I don't know how this retarded trope came to be in the first place. It's a horrible and inherently broken element of balance.

 

Likewise with armour. People wearing mail or plate in ancient and later times were likely far more faster and agile than just about anyone posting on these forums.

 

I say get rid of this mockery even if just for once.

 

Yes and no. "Giant" weapons, greatswords, polearms and the like were not SLOW for sure, especially not as described in the post you were responding to. They were definitely slowER than their smaller counterparts however. This is in fact one of the main reasons why rapiers (true rapiers - not the smallswords that many people think of when they think of rapiers) came about as a natural progression from arming swords (your typical one-handed "knight's" sword). And even those arming swords were used partially for speed and nimbleness at handling, especially since their lighter, quicker, one-handed nature freed up the other hand for a shield as you mentioned. So I'm all for seeing relative speed differences between weapon types, but nothing along the lines of "this sword attacks twice every round, that greataxe attacks once every 3 rounds" sorts of differences.

 

Of course. There certainly is a relative speed difference but the main point is that it's not always about "speed" as all weapons employed a wide range of techniques developed to handle a range of other weapons. Eg. look at those videos I put. A pollaxe wasn't made to "hit hard" with its edge only. It's a complete polearm package that serves several functions employing a lot of techniques common to all polearms plus a few of its own. You don't just "hit with the shaft", you do whole lot of other things with it which puts it up against other types of weapons as well that negates speed differences up to a point. So I'd say that as much as a person with a polearm might have hesitated facing someone with a rapier, someone with rapier might have hesitated facing someone with polearm just as much because it's not only about speed.

 

As for rapiers, I'm not sure of the "main reasons". I've always attributed it to firearms gaining a foothold as infantry weapons and armour slowly disappearance from the battlefield, becoming more and more niche and such, the need to carry lighter and more flexible blades. I might be wrong.

 

Your points on armor are definitely valid as well - the main issue with wearing heavy armor was not an issue of speed, it was an issue of endurance. Most skilled fighters (and in this I can draw directly from modern RL experience and observation) in even full plate can move almost if not as fast and nimbly as they do in nothing but cloth - they just can't keep it up for hours on end without a break. Given what we know of the combat system so far, I would much rather see heavier armors lead to an increase in rate of stamina drain/fatigue, rather than a loss of dex/agility.

 

Absolutely. Alas, I'm pretty sure that Obsidian won't introduce that kind of penalty.

 

Ideally, I would discourage against wearing armour at all times and instead, carry it with you and wear it beforehand when you are anticipating a fight and if you are caught unprepared, you make the best of what you have. Or wear it all around and suffer fatigue and whatnot.

[villain of the story 63]

Speed depends on weight and balance.

 

Bigger weapons were usually slower - but that's mostly because a lot of htem were poorly balanced.

Two-handed axes, maces, hammers, morningstars - they all have the weight at the tip, which makes them poorly balanced...the best word would be a bi sluggish.

 

It's slow to start a swing and it's even harder to stop it or change direction - but once it hits it hits HARD.

 

That's Hollywood-level understanding of the weapons. Current understanding and studies point to otherwise.

 

 

No, that's physics.

Bigger mass takes more effort to get moving. It is slower to accelerate. It is also harder to stop.

Center of mass affects balance.

Mid-swing a two-handed hammer is just as fast as a sword.

But it takes slightly longer to get up to that speed. The difference is minimal tough, but it exists. And it might very well make a difference in battle.

 

Umm, no. That's Hollywood. You don't use a hammer the way you would use a sword. If you did, only then it would be legitimate to say that it's slower due to physics. Different weapons employ different techniques, also based on physics, however, which make up for the relative speed differences.

 

A weapon cannot be slow and cumbersome (eg. poorly balanced) to use.

 

Actually, they can be poorly balanced.

People used not only what was best, but also what they could aford. Some used makeshift weapons, some used weapon made by sub-bar blacksmiths.

Some weapons were made to be used by masses of dirty pesants and survivabiltiy was not a big issue. As long as pesants take some enemeis with them, that is.

 

Of course, absolutely true. But all things being equal, different types of weapons, produced with the same level of quality and craftmanship, can not be compared and rated as "better or worse balanced than each other" which is how I interpreted your previous statement. A fine sword is just as balanced as a fine axe or mace or hammer or halberd or whatever.

[Jarmo 804]

Blunderbuss

 

 

The only firearm to make this list, the Blunderbuss was an early form of shotgun, using powder and shot. The weapon was muzzle loaded and is identified by the distinctive flared muzzle. The nasty part of the Blunderbuss was actually a flaw in the design, the flared muzzle caused the shot to spread quite widely and reduced the muzzle velocity, meaning that shots outside of very close quarters resulted only in shrapnel wounds rather than death.

 

Neat looking example and I'd love to see them in game.

But the bit about the muzzle is just wrong, a common misconception, now and at the time.

 

The spread is wide (like in any short shotgun) and when even the starting velocity is low (ike in all blackpowder weapons)

it's correct they'd only be effective at short ranges, but that had nothing to do with muzzle shape.

(except that the flared part doesn't really do anything except look intimidating, so the barrel is effectively about an inch shorter)

[RaccoonTOF 81]

Of course. There certainly is a relative speed difference but the main point is that it's not always about "speed" as all weapons employed a wide range of techniques developed to handle a range of other weapons. Eg. look at those videos I put. A pollaxe wasn't made to "hit hard" with its edge only. It's a complete polearm package that serves several functions employing a lot of techniques common to all polearms plus a few of its own. You don't just "hit with the shaft", you do whole lot of other things with it which puts it up against other types of weapons as well that negates speed differences up to a point. So I'd say that as much as a person with a polearm might have hesitated facing someone with a rapier, someone with rapier might have hesitated facing someone with polearm just as much because it's not only about speed.

 

As for rapiers, I'm not sure of the "main reasons". I've always attributed it to firearms gaining a foothold as infantry weapons and armour slowly disappearance from the battlefield, becoming more and more niche and such, the need to carry lighter and more flexible blades. I might be wrong.

 

Totally agreed on the multiple techniques and that not every weapon fought "like a sword". This is actually part of why one of my favorite RL weapon styles is a quarterstaff That said, when using a staff, my 'reaction speed' to a change is definitely slower than it is when using a rapier, and a large part of that is the inherently "slower" use of the staff. In motion, they both may be moving at the same linear speed (in fact, while I've not measured it 'scientifically' in any way, I strongly suspect and 'feel' that the staff is actually moving faster in use) but the 'reaction speed' of the staff is MUCH slower than the rapier. As for your comment re: the rapier and firearms, do bear in mind the difference between an actual rapier (usual blade length of 3-4 feet) and a smallsword (what is often seen as a rapier in most films, generally with a blade length on the order of 2 1/2-3 feet and often much more slender). The "side sword" would actually be the more proper direct lineage for the time period the game seems to be heading towards being set in (though it was also still being used after the development of the rapier as well), which is of similar length as the rapier (longer than the arming swords) but with a blade width and weight about halfway between an arming sword (one-handed sword) and a rapier, for better cutting potential. The biggest differentiation between a rapier and a side sword though is actually usually the hilt design, because a rapier is gripped in a different manner than 'traditional' swords, usually keeping a finger or fingers along the blade itself, and thus the hilt evolved to protect the hand when held in that position. Just a case of something where the "ornamental" aspect of the design was indeed actually a direct result of the functional aspect

[Slaunyeh 30]

 

Umm, no. That's Hollywood. You don't use a hammer the way you would use a sword. If you did, only then it would be legitimate to say that it's slower due to physics. Different weapons employ different techniques, also based on physics, however, which make up for the relative speed differences.

 

 

To emphasise this you would not, for instance, swing a two-handed sword in the same way you would a one-handed sword. Every 2-hander demonstration I've seen have involved a lot more stabs and slashes with the blade, because if you tried to swing it you'd die. A two-handed sword used correctly is a surprisingly defensive weapon and very good at parrying or deflecting attacks.

[Jarmo 804]

 

Your points on armor are definitely valid as well - the main issue with wearing heavy armor was not an issue of speed, it was an issue of endurance. Most skilled fighters (and in this I can draw directly from modern RL experience and observation) in even full plate can move almost if not as fast and nimbly as they do in nothing but cloth - they just can't keep it up for hours on end without a break. Given what we know of the combat system so far, I would much rather see heavier armors lead to an increase in rate of stamina drain/fatigue, rather than a loss of dex/agility.

 

Absolutely. Alas, I'm pretty sure that Obsidian won't introduce that kind of penalty.

 

 

They might. If magic and stuff requires endurance that'd be a good penalty for wizards going plate.

 

Actually a pretty good swordfight from Rob Roy with broadsword against a rapier.

Generally not smart to use movies as benchmark, but I think that's on the mark and illustrates things well.

The bigger weapon is not that much slower, but causes more fatigue. The end is a bit hollywood though.

 

And of course heavier weapons are a bit slower, not MMO much, but still.

Just consider a whatever length and kind of staff, then add a 500g axehead on top, just can't swing it as fast anymore no matter what.

 

There'd be pretty hefty mauls of all kinds you could use to try to knock down an armored opponent,

and those just don't swing like a sword. Yes, you wouldn't stand a chance against a knight with that in one on one "fair fight",

but you wouldn't no matter what weapon you'd use. Just hope he's distracted and put some back into the swing.

Wouldn't be a good weapon for an adventurer to use.

[UncleBourbon 111]

Well, depending on the extent to which mythical materials are implemented, they could add things like mithral or ironwood, lighted yet still sturdy counterparts to the typical iron or steel or what have you. I could see weapons having some endurance cost parameter, which a better material might modify it to either lessen the endurance cost, or increase it and the damage done.

[RaccoonTOF 81]

That clip from Rob roy is actually a perfect example of what I mean by most people having the wrong idea of what a rapier is - that is a pretty much stereotypical example of a smallsword (though slightly wider than most), and not of a rapier

Edited October 19, 2012 by RaccoonTOF

[Jarmo 804]

Classification smassification, a heavy sword vs a light sword.

 

The thing about medieval and older and newer weapons was they had a bucketload of different designs.

They didn't have a factory putting these out. One AK-47 is pretty much the same as next, but it wasn't the same at all

what with metalworkers here and there doing individual items, taking notes from here and there. Mass produced or mostly not.

Mostly the labels and classifications are made by historians while the locals would just talk about swords.

[RaccoonTOF 81]

Definitely agreed there. Even the terms we use today such as épée, spada, etc. all literally just mean "sword". Heck, even the term "longsword" doesn't actually refer to a type of weapon, but is derived from a style of fighting with a particular type of weapon (the two-handed greatsword, with "half sword" being the alternate form to "long sword"). I just pointed it out because I had mentioned it above when discussing the various classes of thin bladed cut-and-thrust swords with villain

[Jarmo 804]

And furthermore, what I actually should have mentioned in the previous post is "thanks for clarification".

Because I didn't even have smallsword in my vocabulary (and I'm still not clear on the definition, or the main difference with rapier).

[Karranthain 1,108]

Terminology notwithstanding, I really liked that fight sequence in Rob Roy; I think it was a fairly accurate representation, as far movies go. I think they've done a good job of showing the effects of fatigue. It really can be quite tiring

 

But to not derail the topic further :

 

I'm really hoping we'll see halberds in the game, it's a really interesting weapon. Make sure to check that link, the detail on that particular piece is quite outstanding

Edited October 19, 2012 by Karranthain

[Jarmo 804]

To do halberds right (or the... umm... terminology... the short waraxes that look exactly like halberds only with short(er) shafts),

the game would really need to have multiple use modes for weapons. Hack away with the axe side,

poke (or even slash) with the spear end/shortsword tip, grab pull or do piercing strikes with the hook / pointy side.

 

User selectable (micromanagement) or would the character use them automatically (randomly?) as situation demands.

 

But yeah, I'd like to see them in and I'd like to see them done properly.

D&D didn't do the whole polearm genre any favors by grouping them all into 1d10 category,

doing less damage than great axes (why?) and basically just having the one benefit of being pretty cheap.

[Karranthain 1,108]

To do halberds right (or the... umm... terminology... the short waraxes that look exactly like halberds only with short(er) shafts),

the game would really need to have multiple use modes for weapons. Hack away with the axe side,

poke (or even slash) with the spear end/shortsword tip, grab pull or do piercing strikes with the hook / pointy side.

 

User selectable (micromanagement) or would the character use them automatically (randomly?) as situation demands.

 

But yeah, I'd like to see them in and I'd like to see them done properly.

D&D didn't do the whole polearm genre any favors by grouping them all into 1d10 category,

doing less damage than great axes (why?) and basically just having the one benefit of being pretty cheap.

 

Yeah, halberds are usually woefully misrepresented, some ideas on how to implement them : http://forums.obsidi...40#entry1215667

 

And here's another example, very ornate :

 

[Monte Carlo 4,908]

Falchion FTW, note the notch for a disarming move...

 

[Takamori 15]

The more weapon options the merrier, problem is to balance everything in the game later

Guess everyone want your weapon style to be viable

[Tsuga C 457]

To do halberds right (or the... umm... terminology... the short waraxes that look exactly like halberds only with short(er) shafts),

the game would really need to have multiple use modes for weapons. Hack away with the axe side,

poke (or even slash) with the spear end/shortsword tip, grab pull or do piercing strikes with the hook / pointy side.

 

You were thinking of a poleaxe. Though similar at first blush, the poleaxe had a much shorter and thicker cutting edge on the axe head than the halberd and a shorter spike or spear-type point on the end. The shorter, thicker head and spike were specifically designed to crush/punch through fully articulated plate and thrust into the joints in knight-to-knight combat. The halberd, though quite capable, was more of a generalist and was meant to be used in mass.

[UncleBourbon 111]

I'd like to see some khopeshes, as I was always a fan.

[Jarmo 804]

You were thinking of a poleaxe.

 

That I was. But again, if you google up images, there's a bewildering variety popping up.

The naming and classifying of weapons leads and has lead to silly rpg conventions where this is a poleaxe,

this is a short halberd and this is a long battleaxe and the last one is a greataxe.

And they all have about the same length and in game you use the axe blade to do the damage.

 

 

 

And it's all just variations of the same thing.

 

Basically, you always just have the pole/staff/handle that's either long or short or something in between.

The shorter it is, the faster you can swing it (that's just basic physics, but the difference isn't huge when the difference isn't huge),

and the better it's usable in enclosed spaces. The longer it is, the better reach and higher damage (until absurd lengths when it's totally unwieldy).

 

 

 

On the top, is whatever kind of weapon you'd want to stick in there, or nothing at all (staff).

Could be a sword (sword staff, naginata), could be a dagger (spear), axehead (axe, battleaxe, poleaxe),

hammer or mace (polehammer, is there such a thing as polemace?)

 

On the base 3-way halberd type design:

You have the forward business end that can be an axe blade, forward or reverse curved, hammerhead, spike, or nothing at all.

The top, which can be nothing at all or a spike, dagger or a sword type.

The reverse business end, with a second axe blade, spike, or hook or nothing at all.

 

I'd love the system or/and developers to work by factoring in the length, dimensions and the stuff that's there and work out the speed/damage/other features from that.

Not by relying on old rpg tropes and pulling figures from their butts by gut feeling.

 

Now.. was there ever a polearm with 2 hooks and a sword on top? Or a spear with 2 hooks?

Just do the math and you have the correct effectiveness for such, in in game terms as related to other polearms in game.

If the formula is wrong, it's the same wrong for everything.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Jarmo

[RaccoonTOF 81]

A ranseur/spetum are both "2 protrusions with a spear/sword top" (which could be hooks, either forward facing or reversed) designs, as is the partisan in many forms. Just like with swords, the naming convention between different polearms often varies regionally and over time - in many cases a "spear with 2 hooks" would just be called a "spear"...

 

Edit: For that matter, many examples of "tridents" are really nothing more than a spear with two additional "hooks"

Edited October 20, 2012 by RaccoonTOF

[Monte Carlo 4,908]

I used to love the dizzying numbers of polearms in 1st Ed AD&D. "Bec de Corbin?" LOL.

 

Anyhoo, I found this....

 

[Karranthain 1,108]

And I'll add some rapier designs :

 

 

Some rapiers are truly works of art.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Karranthain

[Karranthain 1,108]

And another halberd (along some nice plate armour) :

 

[Nonek 4,762]

Watched young Mr Branagh's Henry V today, thought armour such as that used by Brian Blessed in this scene might be appropriate for a dwarven character, i've always thought the esteemed gentleman is almost the definition of the stereotype.

 

[Kane_Severance 41]

God, I hope they don't go pure historical piece equipment. I realize that many fantasy games out there make ridiculous looking armor and weapons. That said, this game is not set in medieval Europe. It's an entirely different world. Lets see some unique designs. Stuff can be creative and new without looking impractical or unreal.

 

Edited for clarity.

Edited October 22, 2012 by Kane_Severance