Armour & weapon designs (part V).

[Karranthain]

Just for you! ;-)

 

I was alluding to this scene:

 

[Lephys]

You know what I'd love to see? A quarterstaff/bo staff actually used as a legitimate weapon in the game, instead of treated like a "Meh... I guess if you can't find anything else, you can always awkwardly swing this at the foe as if you have absolutely zero martial training whatsoever" weapon.

 

I want to see specializations, and multi-hit combos, disarms, trips, etc. That would be great.

 

I just thought of that in proximity to spears, since they're both similar in shape.

 

Also... I love it when the equivalent of single-weapon "two-weapon fighting" (using both ends of a staff/spear.polearm, etc.) makes its way into the game, as a stance or what-have-you. Instead of just "spear thrust... spear thrust... spear thrust... spear thrust..."

[Woldan]

You know what I'd love to see? A quarterstaff/bo staff actually used as a legitimate weapon in the game, instead of treated like a "Meh... I guess if you can't find anything else, you can always awkwardly swing this at the foe as if you have absolutely zero martial training whatsoever" weapon.

 

Like Little John?

 

[Jarmo]

You know what I'd love to see? A quarterstaff/bo staff actually used as a legitimate weapon in the game,

I just thought of that in proximity to spears, since they're both similar in shape.

 

Also... I love it when the equivalent of single-weapon "two-weapon fighting" (using both ends of a staff/spear.polearm, etc.) makes its way into the game, as a stance or what-have-you. Instead of just "spear thrust... spear thrust... spear thrust... spear thrust..."

 

The problem I'd have with quarterstaves is the same as with unarmed combat.

There are reasons why no army ever decided to adopt staffs or karate as their main offense weapons.

They're just not as effective as something with a bit more cutting edge. A spear does pretty much everything,

a staff does, and then some.

 

Then again, even if there are no weapons allowed areas, the authorities are not likely to grab away your hands or walking sticks.

And also, it's easier to bludgeon someone to submission with staffs or fists than by stabbing them with a stiletto.

Which is probably why many police forces have been relying on blunt sticks a lot more than daggers.

 

So yeah, I'd like to see staffs well treated in RPG's, but most likely wouldn't use them myself in a combat oriented CRPG.

[lolaldanee]

like the shao lin i guess

[Greensleeve]

Oh god that video just oozes of the 90s. The picture quality, the sound, the colours... It's like a 90s soap opera all over again.

[Suburban-Fox]

You know what I'd love to see? A quarterstaff/bo staff actually used as a legitimate weapon in the game, instead of treated like a "Meh... I guess if you can't find anything else, you can always awkwardly swing this at the foe as if you have absolutely zero martial training whatsoever" weapon.

 

Q, F, and a huge resounding T!!

 

I always thought the quarterstaff was horribly under-represented in RPGs (although Warhammer FRP2e does represent them properly). They're always the cheap, crappy, "use this if you can't use anything else" weapon, but they're actually very good.

 

I'd also like to see them used properly, not in the half-staff style always portrayed in films.

 

 

 

The problem I'd have with quarterstaves is the same as with unarmed combat.

There are reasons why no army ever decided to adopt staffs or karate as their main offense weapons.

They're just not as effective as something with a bit more cutting edge. A spear does pretty much everything,

a staff does, and then some.

 

Perhaps not in an army, but they're useful for self-defence, and in street fights and skirmishes. There's a story about a sailor, Richard Peke, who famously defeated three Spanish swordsmen in a public duel wielding a quarterstaff.

[Jarmo]

Perhaps not in an army, but they're useful for self-defence, and in street fights and skirmishes. There's a story about a sailor, Richard Peke, who famously defeated three Spanish swordsmen in a public duel wielding a quarterstaff.

 

 

Oh I wouldn't doubt they can be effective, even very effective in the right hands.

But in RPG's the player can (usually) see and evaluate the actual numbers,

and when one weapon type is just less effective than another, it tends to be avoided.

 

Like staffs in D&D, you can pool in all the feats and it's just not a very good choice for a weapon.

Spear is another D&D example, historically it was used a lot but in D&D it's simply a bad choice.

 

And RPG creators, especially creators of combat oriented CRPG's, don't like to give choices that are just bad.

So then you come up with monk classes and stuff, where fighting barehanded is suddenly a viable tactic.

Or you give special attacks to staffs, the kind you can't do in any other weapon, to give a reason to pick a staff.

And then I'm all unhappy because it hurts my brain when you can do a staff-super-spin-combo,

but can't do that with a spear because of no good reason except game balance.

[PrimeJunta]

Although P:E is probably not that game, I would like to see one where social rules governing carrying of weapons are enforced. Only nobles carry swords openly, nobody walks into the lord's presence armed, and armor is only worn when expecting to go into battle. That would make room for all those neglected weapon types. Could even have whole categories of concealable or disguised weapons -- walking-sticks with lead poured into the pommel, sword-sticks, boots with sewn-in sheaths for knives, a belt that doubles as a garotte, and so on.

[Suburban-Fox]

Yeah, I would love to see that! In most RPGs, there's literally nothing to stop you from taking the best weapon you can buy (and you can buy it very quickly). The only real question is "shield or not?", then you just take the highest damage dealer you can find. Also, it's perfectly normal to wander around with it all the time, like it's nothing. This is the RPG equivalent of wandering around New York City with an armalite rifle. (in the UK, if you're so much as found carrying a knife, you get arrested!)

 

Daggers are always practically worthless in RPGs, but in reality, they can be quite deadly if you get close enough. The trick is getting close enough, of course, but it's hard to represent that in a D&D style game, especially on the computer. Instead, they just make daggers the crappy, pants, generic 1d4 damage weapon that's only worth using when you have absolutely nothing else. As for spears...they're one of the worst weapons around in RPGs! (although this might change after last week's Game of Thrones episode).

 

They could get around this by making each weapon good in certain ways, but not so good in others. Things like spears, bills, and two-handed swords, would be great for fighting in an open field, but not so great for fighting in narrow corridors, etc. Some weapons would give bonuses to defence, others to damage...things like that.

[Merlkir]

Although P:E is probably not that game, I would like to see one where social rules governing carrying of weapons are enforced. Only nobles carry swords openly, nobody walks into the lord's presence armed, and armor is only worn when expecting to go into battle. That would make room for all those neglected weapon types. Could even have whole categories of concealable or disguised weapons -- walking-sticks with lead poured into the pommel, sword-sticks, boots with sewn-in sheaths for knives, a belt that doubles as a garotte, and so on.

That is such an easy thing to do in games, but few ever address it. Mount and Blade for instance, automatically strips you of weapons and helmet when you visit a lord. And it would make for interesting gameplay too, as you'd have to rely on hidden weapons while in a city, or risk being chased by the guards.

[Kjaamor]

Perhaps not in an army, but they're useful for self-defence, and in street fights and skirmishes. There's a story about a sailor, Richard Peke, who famously defeated three Spanish swordsmen in a public duel wielding a quarterstaff.

 

I would've thought that the fact that the story has fame because he used a staff is indicative of the general ineffectiveness of the weapon rather than the effectiveness.

 

In other news, the older I get the more jaded I become with the idea of Shaolin-style combat weapons. The above video of the chap from the 90s wielding a bo just feels like it needs a seven-foot Viking-type to wade in and cut him in half with an axe. I'm no expert on the subject, but my understanding of Shaolin and "ninja" success was that the guerilla tactics made it work rather than the weapon skill.

 

It's sad, but modern mixed martial arts seem to have all but settled the discussion that grace, poise and years of kata just aren't as effective as a reasonably trained big chap punching you in the face.

[Suburban-Fox]

I would've thought that the fact that the story has fame because he used a staff is indicative of the general ineffectiveness of the weapon rather than the effectiveness.

 

 

The story was in a book about English martial arts, and was included as a demonstration of how effective it can be.

 

re: Shaolin style combat weapons - I agree with you there, and while I don't doubt the skill of Shaolin monks, many of these demonstrations tend to be katas, which don't really impress me - to me, it's just a dance. I'm not saying it doesn't take skill, but being able to dance, and follow coreography, doesn't make you a skilled fighter. Vikings could easily do katas if they felt so inclined, but they didn't. Incidentally, Cossacks used to do sword dances too, as did the Sikhs, and many other cultures. It's not even an excusively Oriental thing.

 

When I think of quarterstaff fighting, I don't think of Shaolin style twirling, and using the staff in the Hollywood "half-staff" manner (in which you hold half of the staff), I think of holding it in a similar way to a spear (holding only a quarter of it, hence the name "quarterstaff") and thrusting, as much as striking, with it. In other words, to me, it's a reach weapon, not a double weapon. The halfstaff method of holding in the middle and striking with both ends does not look very effective to me. Stylish and impressive, sure, but by holding it that way, you're severely limiting its reach, thereby taking away its advantage. You're much better off with a pollaxe if you're going to fight like that.

[Elerond]

 

I would've thought that the fact that the story has fame because he used a staff is indicative of the general ineffectiveness of the weapon rather than the effectiveness.

 

 

The story was in a book about English martial arts, and was included as a demonstration of how effective it can be.

 

re: Shaolin style combat weapons - I agree with you there, and while I don't doubt the skill of Shaolin monks, many of these demonstrations tend to be katas, which don't really impress me - to me, it's just a dance. I'm not saying it doesn't take skill, but being able to dance, and follow coreography, doesn't make you a skilled fighter. Vikings could easily do katas if they felt so inclined, but they didn't. Incidentally, Cossacks used to do sword dances too, as did the Sikhs, and many other cultures. It's not even an excusively Oriental thing.

 

When I think of quarterstaff fighting, I don't think of Shaolin style twirling, and using the staff in the Hollywood "half-staff" manner (in which you hold half of the staff), I think of holding it in a similar way to a spear (holding only a quarter of it, hence the name "quarterstaff") and thrusting, as much as striking, with it. In other words, to me, it's a reach weapon, not a double weapon. The halfstaff method of holding in the middle and striking with both ends does not look very effective to me. Stylish and impressive, sure, but by holding it that way, you're severely limiting its reach, thereby taking away its advantage. You're much better off with a pollaxe if you're going to fight like that.

 

 

Quarterstaffs/short staffs has been quite popular in England during history and during 16th century they were favored weapon of London Masters of Defense (or Company of Maisters of the Science of Defence of London, an organization that taught fencing). Zachary Wylde referred quatterstaffs as national English weapon in his book called "English Master of Defence or The Gentleman's Al-a-mode Accomplish", which is English martial arts manual from 1711.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Elerond

[JFSOCC]

less talk more pics

[IndiraLightfoot]

I'm yearning a bit for spring-mechanism weapons (perhaps a bit early, I know, but still...)

 

A German lever-lock switchblade, one of the earliest specimens known

 

And why not a spring-powered ballistic knife (obviously more modern, but nonetheless certainly within the realm of possibilities)?

[Lephys]

I realize there's a lot of "Hollywood" twirling and "shaolin" stuff regarding staves, and I know I talked about using it as a double weapon. But, for the record, I just meant that I'd like to see that possibility. I'd like to see it be used in different ways (the quarter-staff grip, AND the half-staff, etc.). I would think the double weapon grip would be pretty effective in given circumstances. BUT, the main point was merely just that most of the cRPGs we're used to treat staves (and spears alike) as extremely simple weapons.

 

Of course, some of the older games even treated everything as an extremely simple weapon, just having your character swing it like a baseball bat at everything sight.

 

I just think it'd be great to draw a little inspiration (not necessarily simulate 100%) from reality (isn't that part of the purpose of this thread?) in order to season the game's weapon system with a bit of mechanical interest. I'd like to see circumstantial bonuses/detriments come not only from how the weapon is designed to damage (piercing, slashing, effect versus armor, etc.), but also from how you actually wield it and fight with it.

 

That, and from other things, such as concealment (as you guys already brought up). The guards might take away "lethal" weapons, like swords and other bladed weapons, but probably wouldn't deny someone their walking stick. Especially someone who seemed to need it. Also, for what it's worth, Shadowrun (the PnP rules) had a Concealment system, with ratings for all the weapons. That was pretty great, in concept. It would be interesting if one of the trade-offs of carrying, say, a sword, as opposed to a dagger, was the fact that your foe would more likely notice you're carrying the sword than they would a dagger. You could even have more traditionally Rogue-ish armor/apparel be specifically made to better conceal various weapons, etc.

 

*shrug*.

 

Anywho, JFSOCC's right. We've been doing too much talking, and not enough showing of spiffy historical arms and armor.

[Suburban-Fox]

Of course, some of the older games even treated everything as an extremely simple weapon, just having your character swing it like a baseball bat at everything sight.

 

But that's because, as we all know, European knights had no skill whatsoever, and just flailed around like idiots...a thousand years of hurting each other and nobody in Europe managed to devise an effective way to do so!

[Lord Gorchnik]

 

Of course, some of the older games even treated everything as an extremely simple weapon, just having your character swing it like a baseball bat at everything sight.

 

But that's because, as we all know, European knights had no skill whatsoever, and just flailed around like idiots...a thousand years of hurting each other and nobody in Europe managed to devise an effective way to do so!

 

 

But.....But.....But 4000 years of China!

 

Oh wait, 2000 of it was spent being surrounded by a wall.

[Lephys]

But that's because, as we all know, European knights had no skill whatsoever, and just flailed around like idiots...a thousand years of hurting each other and nobody in Europe managed to devise an effective way to do so!

Yeah, it's like in films and fiction regarding modern firearms! You don't need to actually emply skill at all. You just sort of hip-aim in the general direction of your enemies, and then fire for the next 17 seconds straight. Because it's not like your 30-round magazine would be spent in about 4-5 seconds of full automatic fire, and your spray wouldn't be inaccurate as all getout from the recoil.

 

Of course, then you've got those movies that overcompensate, with ALL 1,000,000 bullets fired in a given conflict missing all the targets, who are running as fast as they can in an open field to dive behind cover. 8P

 

Annnnywho.

[Suburban-Fox]

Because it's not like your 30-round magazine would be spent in about 4-5 seconds of full automatic fire, and your spray wouldn't be inaccurate as all getout from the recoil.

 

Not to mention the fact that you're not even looking down the sights...yeah, I love how assault rifles are always portrayed in films as portable machine guns that can just shoot forever without a need to reload, and are somehow able to shoot with pinpoint accuracy.

 

Also, if there are guns in the game, then there absolutely MUST be bulletproof steel railings that act as super-hard cover!  

[Lephys]

Also, if there are guns in the game, then there absolutely MUST be bulletproof steel railings that act as super-hard cover!

Speaking of that, I'm now curious about the existence/nature of grenade-type weaponry back then. What kind of stuff was commonly seen, and when did it start showing up, exactly?

[Nonek]

Has anyone posted this, a rather effective display of well made plate armours mobility and strength?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q

[Suburban-Fox]

 

Also, if there are guns in the game, then there absolutely MUST be bulletproof steel railings that act as super-hard cover!

Speaking of that, I'm now curious about the existence/nature of grenade-type weaponry back then. What kind of stuff was commonly seen, and when did it start showing up, exactly?

 

 

Hmm...earliest I know of is about 17th century, but they may well have been around a bit before then. They were black and spherical with fuses - a bit like the cartoon bomb we generally see in Loony Tunes animations (you know, the ones that don't actually kill you but just leave you charred a bit and then you're totally fine in the next scene :D ). I know that they had grenadiers in the 18/19th centuries.

 

They also had things like Greek Fire, and Chinese rockets, in the medieval period. Pyrotechnics have been weaponised for a long time, but like everything else, it was refined and perfected over the years.

 

eta Nonek

 

That's a pretty cool video! It shows how armoured knights weren't hulking juggernaughts with no skill who couldn't get up when they fell down.

 

The tecniques where they grab their swords' blade half-way down is called "half-swording", and was generally used against armoured knights. The idea was they would use the sword as a lever to trap and throw their opponent, so that they could get the tip into an unprotected area. Also, the dagger in the last scene is an example of a rondel dagger.

 

Also, see how small the swords are? That's what swords really look like. ;-)

Edited June 11, 2014 by Suburban-Fox

[Greensleeve]

Has anyone posted this, a rather effective display of well made plate armours mobility and strength?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hlIUrd7d1Q

 

Nice demonstration. I loved the roll the dude did in the middle of the video. Looked almost exactly like a Dark Souls fat roll. Reminds me of ENBs fat roll run.. Good times.