Weapons and how I handle combat.

[Ra-Tiel]

[...] Realistically, if you are proficient with a weapon and know what you're doing with it, it doesn't take more than a second to "get it in place".  Weapon speed is, IMO, the wrong direction.

Yeah, but DnD is not realistic. :P

In real fighting with a greatsword, you can grab the greatsword like a lance and make powerful thrusts. You can hold and swing it like a hammer and punch through your opponents helmet with the cross guard. You can swing it like an axe and chop at your enemy. You can hold it on the blade and crush your opponent's larynx with a hard thrust of the pommel. Iirc there are like a dozen deadly points on a greatsword other than the blade.

Just take a look at this video and tell me how you'd simulate some of the "slash-kick-grab-thrust" combos in DnD. In any game system you need to make certain abstractions and compromises.

So, the facts are:
* Smaller weapons with less mass deal less damage but are more maneuverable and easier to use against an enemy with a larger, slower weapon.
* Larger weapons with more mass deal much more damage but are harder to swing effectively and require more strength and time to maneuver.
* A combatant with a longer weapon has an advantage against an opponent with a short weapon, but only as long as he can keep his opponent at the right striking distance. The moment the opponent can get under his weapon, the combatant faces a severe disadvantage.
* A combatant with a shorter weapon has a disadvantage against an opponent with a long weapon, but only as long as he is in the striking distance of his opponent. The moment he can get under the opponent's weapon, he gains a strong advantage.

These are the points you need to consider and pack into an easy, sensible, and fun game mechanic. And you current appraoch is, sorry to say so, neither of that.

It's not easy because it deals with AoO, which are like a pandora's box in DnD combat. There's so much confusion and possible abuse packed in AoO that I know many many groups who greatly simplified or abandoned them. Your system gives the Combat Reflexes feat an incredible power boost, for example.

It's not sensible because it completely negates the possibility of one combatant going under his opponent's weapon. So far, only long weapons have an advantage and short weapons can never get into position where they could gain an advantage. Also, there's the abuse scenarios I already mentioned earlier.

It's not fun because it forces players do decide between playing the character they imagine or playing a character that can be effective at combat. In your system, a dual shortsword wielding fighter is completely f**ked against anything with a two-handed weapon. It's not that the two-handed weapon and sword and shield styles already have significant advantages in DnD over dual wielding, but your system is the last nail on dual wielding's coffin.

[Cheomesh]

It's not sensible because it completely negates the possibility of one combatant going under his opponent's weapon. So far, only long weapons have an advantage and short weapons can never get into position where they could gain an advantage. Also, there's the abuse scenarios I already mentioned earlier.

It's not fun because it forces players do decide between playing the character they imagine or playing a character that can be effective at combat. In your system, a dual shortsword wielding fighter is completely f**ked against anything with a two-handed weapon. It's not that the two-handed weapon and sword and shield styles already have significant advantages in DnD over dual wielding, but your system is the last nail on dual wielding's coffin. [/quote]

In generic DnD the dual wielding fighter is already borkd...the fighter is the second worst class in Core.

M.

[Superfluous Crow]

Again, Cheo, you might just consider looking into tRoS if you're that much into realistic fighting. They officially have one of the most realistic roleplaying combat systems based directly on medieval fighting techniques. They even had it approved by actual practitioners of those techniques.
Of course, you might have other reasons for using DnD, but tRoS does seem to fit your setting quite well.

[Cheomesh]

Which one is TROS?

M.

[Matt Larkin (author)]

The Riddle of Steel. The practitioners that approved was ARMA, among others.

[Cheomesh]

Sounds interesting, I'll have to buy their core ruleset sometime.

M.

[Tybalt]

Have you playtested your combat system significantly? Generally I like the fact that you have an equation that adds up to your base attack number, that makes things fairly simple. So would you have one of those little charts on a character sheet that adds these factors in for different weapons? I found that this worked very well for example in games like Earthdawn and Twilight 2000, that the player could just glance at the numbers and make their rolls. In a way what you're doing is substituting range of effectiveness as in TW2000 for length of weapon. (for example in TW2000 a shotgun does less damage at long range than it does at short range; certain weapons are more accurate than others at longer ranges)

[Cheomesh]

Tybalt:  I have tested it and it seems to work well, though I've probably got some things to do before I'm good.  Currently, the RC is just written into the "notes" section, though I may produce an individualized character sheet for my campaign setting.

M.

[Cheomesh]

I've some time to make a post so here's some new theory.

I think instead of AoO, I'd just grant a bonus to AC based on the difference between the weapons.  Also introduced is the concept of "reaction", which is a weapon property that either supplements critical hits or replaces them.

For my examples, I will use a nobleman wielding a single handed sword in defense against a brigand who drew a dagger on him.  Neither wears armor, but both have +2 in dex, granting a total of AC12 and +2 to hit.  The nobles sword has a RC of 3 and the dagger has an RC of 1.  The sword has a "reaction" of 2, and the dagger, being nimble and swift, has a reaction of "3".

==
So we find our combatants face to face, armed and aware, within engagement distance.  The brigand, emboldened by his anger against the oppressive nobleman, drives forward his attack.  The difference between the weapons yields a +2 AC bonus to the noble, granting him a total of 14.

Outcomes:
The brigand's player rolls equal to or above the noble's AC (d20 + 2 => 14).  This could kill the brigand.
The brigand's player fails to hit the nobleman, rolling something between 3 and 13.
The brigand's player fails to hit the nobleman, rolling a 1 or a 2.  This result is equal to the range of "reaction" a sword has.  In this case, the nobleman is granted an attack of opportunity against the opponent, resolved as usual.  If the swordsman fails to hit and provokes a "reaction" AoO, the dagger man can make his in return.
***
So, we find our brigand in a position where he can strike from secrecy.  Say, he's in a bush.  He charges, and strikes the opponent, who is flat footed and unarmed (AC10).

Outcomes:
The brigand strikes the noble, possibly killing him (d20 + 4 => 10).
The brigand fails to strike the noble, rolling between 3 and 9.
The brigand fails to strike the noble, rolling 1 or 2.  As the noble is not armed, and is unaware of impending doom, he does not get the "reaction" roll the sword would otherwise grant him.
***
So we find our combatants face to face, armed and aware, within engagement distance.  The brigand, emboldened by his anger against the oppressive nobleman, drives forward his attack.  The difference between the weapons yields a +2 AC bonus to the noble, granting him a total of 14.  The brigand feints, making a motion as if he was to strike towards a given opening.  At the last second, he changes the direction of his thrust.

Outcomes:
The nobleman fails to see this coming and loses the AC bonus of his weapon and dex (AC 10 instead of 14).
The nobleman sees this coming and the feint fails.

Feint could also be rewritten to only negate the bonus of the weapon.
***

So there are some examples.  Feedback is, as always, wanted yet in short supply here.

M.

[Cheomesh]

So yeah, that's how it's done.

M.

[Superfluous Crow]

If you want feedback could you possibly give us some hints as to what you want? Questions you want answered etc.

[LordVreeg]

CHEO,
In your first set of probable outcomes....
[blockquote=CHEO]The brigand's player rolls equal to or above the noble's AC (d20 + 2 => 14). This could kill the brigand.[/blockquote]  you meant kill the noble, correct?
And from this post, you've used AC to account for reach, imitating the fact that the shorter weapon needs to get inside  the range of the longer.  And since the speed advantage normally belongs to the smaller weapon, it seems there will very often be a tradeoff.  

Is feinting a skill?

[Cheomesh]

Crow:  Any and everything that comes to your mind.

Vreeg:
Yeah, I meant to say Noble.  Reach converts to AC right now, which kind of represents getting inside of the guard.  I am unsure what kind of tradeoff in speed advantage you're talking about, however; I don't know of a way to work that in without having to totally rework a few things.

Feinting is an ability, though I'm not fond of the way it's handled in regular DnD.

M.