Repel attempt bonuses

Calanor · #1 November 1st, 2003, 06:04 PM

Is the difference in length between two weapons considered when repel attempts are made? Let me clarify that: would it be harder to close in on a guy wielding a spear, if you use a dagger rather than, say, a sword?

If not, I would suggest that repellers gain a bonus (say, +1 per length difference beyond 1) to their attempts when fighting off guys with short weapons.

[ November 01, 2003, 16:05: Message edited by: Calanor ]

Saber Cherry · #2 November 1st, 2003, 06:45 PM

This entire thread is repulsive

I think that the repel/morale save is more difficult for greater length differences.

LordArioch · #3 November 1st, 2003, 07:33 PM

I'd think once you got past the guy's spear a dagger would work as well as a sword, and maybe even better (less unwieldly at close range).
Of course I don't have much melee weapon combat experience here so I'm not sure.

Calanor · #4 November 1st, 2003, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by LordArioch:
I'd think once you got past the guy's spear a dagger would work as well as a sword, and maybe even better (less unwieldly at close range).
Of course I don't have much melee weapon combat experience here so I'm not sure.

I most certainly agree, but you have to get there first. As I mentioned in another thread, I would certainly be clapping my little hands if soldiers with unwieldy weapons would have to draw a secondary blade when forced into close-combat (e.g. a pikeman would have to switch to a shortsword), but I am not sure that such a feature could be easily implemented.

Alternatively, one could skip the whole secondary weapon approach and simply reverse the roles - the pikeman would now have to make rolls in order to distance himself from his attacker.

PvK · #5 November 2nd, 2003, 12:48 AM

It depends on the nature of the longer weapon. Yes, a pike has a signifigant minimum reach, but a two-handed sword, for example, can kill just as easily at shortsword range as it can at spear range.

Trying to get to dagger range is generally easier against a broadsword, than against a longer weapon.

PvK

Calanor · #6 November 2nd, 2003, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PvK:
It depends on the nature of the longer weapon. Yes, a pike has a signifigant minimum reach, but a two-handed sword, for example, can kill just as easily at shortsword range as it can at spear range.

Trying to get to dagger range is generally easier against a broadsword, than against a longer weapon.

PvK

A two-handed sword - provided that we are talking about the ones found in Europe during the late medieval period and early renaissance - won't fare that well at close range. A two-handed sword relies a whole lot on momentum and force, which is hard to achieve if someone's a few inches away from you considering the great length of these blades. The edge wasn't that sharp, as it was mainly meant to penetrate armor (hello, Saber Cherry!). Again, I am refering to Western two-handers here. Eastern (Chinese, to be specific) two-handed swords tended to be much shorter, more akin to the Western "hand-and-a-half", and were used in quite a different manner.
Of course, there are always exceptions, but I think the above is true in most cases.

PvK · #7 November 2nd, 2003, 04:50 AM

Unless the two-handed sword is way too heavy for the wielder, or the guy with the dagger has already managed to actually grab onto the guy with the two-handed sword, I quite disagree. If you have the strength and clearance to swing the sword, you can easily strike even if the foe is right in front of you, taking a quick step back if necessary. Granted, a shortsword will have a speed advantage, and grappling or tackling will tend to make the sword useless, but that's true of practically any hand weapon, and it's not at all easy to do against someone with a sword out.

Most spears can also simply be gripped closer to the point. Only rather long spears (e.g. pikes) and polearms are no good at shortsword range.

Maybe we're not really diagreeing, though. I agree that the shortsword has an advantage once at close range, assuming it can get through the opponent's armor easily enough. My point is just that a 2-hsd user isn't going to say, drop the 2-hsd and start using a dagger against a shortsword, because the shortsword guy got past his first stroke.

PvK

[ November 02, 2003, 02:53: Message edited by: PvK ]

Calanor · #8 November 2nd, 2003, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PvK:
Maybe we're not really diagreeing, though. I agree that the shortsword has an advantage once at close range, assuming it can get through the opponent's armor easily enough. My point is just that a 2-hsd user isn't going to say, drop the 2-hsd and start using a dagger against a shortsword, because the shortsword guy got past his first stroke.

PvK

True, such a move would probably kill the two-hander, heh. Thus, my second suggestion - that a soldier who's failed to repel his opponent must make rolls in order to successfully move away from the opponent - might be something that you'd agree upon? That approach would probably be far easier to implement as well. Mind you, the idea is that it would still be easier for the fellow with the longer weapon to move away than it was for the opponent to close in.

PvK · #9 November 3rd, 2003, 02:05 AM

It would be interesting for the long-weapon fighter to sometimes try to back away.

I think it would be easier to program the original suggestion, but maybe you think that it's not a realistic suggestion?

Actually, what I don't understand is why (if I'm right about how it works, and I'm not sure I am) the repel attack doesn't do full damage. It seems to me that usually the way an incoming foe is repelled is by hitting them (with full strength).

PvK

Calanor · #10 November 3rd, 2003, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PvK:
It would be interesting for the long-weapon fighter to sometimes try to back away.

I think it would be easier to program the original suggestion, but maybe you think that it's not a realistic suggestion?

Actually, what I don't understand is why (if I'm right about how it works, and I'm not sure I am) the repel attack doesn't do full damage. It seems to me that usually the way an incoming foe is repelled is by hitting them (with full strength).

PvK

I agree, it's a bit peculiar, but I've sort of considered it to be a fair compromise between a functional, comprehensible game system and an attempt to model a RL situation. In RL, you'd probably not take turns hitting each other anyway, and things such as attack speed would probably also play a role in situations such as this one.