|
8 months ago ::
Oct 29, 2012 - 6:35AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2008
|
I already run my game under yardage, because many other pen and papers already use meters, and honestly the scale of miniatures makes more sense. Plus, how much space you occupy in combat is not nearly as strange. If you have roughly two foots width of shoulder, then you will occupy roughly 3 foots width of space in a fighting stance. It doesn't seem that large, but if you think about a yardstick underneath you, then it seems more reasonable (especially for a dagger user). The big issue some might have for this is weapons such as the two-handed swords and long axes, and the amount of reach there should be.
I am sure there is more that could said on the subject, but I am definitely a fan of yards.
For crazy big weapons like two-hander swords, it makes sense to *require* reach. In other words, this weapon cant hit adjacent targets. The wielder would need to step back away from the adjacent target to hit them. This is realistic, and for the game seems balanced.
looks like sombody has never heard of halfswording techniques.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnqOMbFDEAI
Umm... I'll admit real-life situations require many different tactics, and there are a plethora of fighting styles with that probably do really odd things... but if you have to hold your sword by the blade and then swing the hilt at your opponent.... I'd say you are using the wrong weapon, maces are much better blunt weapons and have the advantage of being grippable in an area that won't slice open your hand. I get that if you are using a big sword, and then someone gets in your face, it is a technique that... allows you to continue using your weapon, but I don't know how effective it is. Especially since half that video is grappling and knees to the groin.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 29, 2012 - 9:07AM
#22
|
|
|
I already run my game under yardage, because many other pen and papers already use meters, and honestly the scale of miniatures makes more sense. Plus, how much space you occupy in combat is not nearly as strange. If you have roughly two foots width of shoulder, then you will occupy roughly 3 foots width of space in a fighting stance. It doesn't seem that large, but if you think about a yardstick underneath you, then it seems more reasonable (especially for a dagger user). The big issue some might have for this is weapons such as the two-handed swords and long axes, and the amount of reach there should be.
I am sure there is more that could said on the subject, but I am definitely a fan of yards.
For crazy big weapons like two-hander swords, it makes sense to *require* reach. In other words, this weapon cant hit adjacent targets. The wielder would need to step back away from the adjacent target to hit them. This is realistic, and for the game seems balanced.
looks like sombody has never heard of halfswording techniques.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnqOMbFDEAI
Umm... I'll admit real-life situations require many different tactics, and there are a plethora of fighting styles with that probably do really odd things... but if you have to hold your sword by the blade and then swing the hilt at your opponent.... I'd say you are using the wrong weapon, maces are much better blunt weapons and have the advantage of being grippable in an area that won't slice open your hand. I get that if you are using a big sword, and then someone gets in your face, it is a technique that... allows you to continue using your weapon, but I don't know how effective it is. Especially since half that video is grappling and knees to the groin.
Yeah, half-swording is fine, but you certainly wont be benefiting from full damage. That d12 slash greatsword becomes a d6 pierce halfsword or a d4 bludgeon club.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 29, 2012 - 11:39AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2012
|
I already run my game under yardage, because many other pen and papers already use meters, and honestly the scale of miniatures makes more sense. Plus, how much space you occupy in combat is not nearly as strange. If you have roughly two foots width of shoulder, then you will occupy roughly 3 foots width of space in a fighting stance. It doesn't seem that large, but if you think about a yardstick underneath you, then it seems more reasonable (especially for a dagger user). The big issue some might have for this is weapons such as the two-handed swords and long axes, and the amount of reach there should be.
I am sure there is more that could said on the subject, but I am definitely a fan of yards.
For crazy big weapons like two-hander swords, it makes sense to *require* reach. In other words, this weapon cant hit adjacent targets. The wielder would need to step back away from the adjacent target to hit them. This is realistic, and for the game seems balanced.
looks like sombody has never heard of halfswording techniques.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnqOMbFDEAI
Umm... I'll admit real-life situations require many different tactics, and there are a plethora of fighting styles with that probably do really odd things... but if you have to hold your sword by the blade and then swing the hilt at your opponent.... I'd say you are using the wrong weapon, maces are much better blunt weapons and have the advantage of being grippable in an area that won't slice open your hand. I get that if you are using a big sword, and then someone gets in your face, it is a technique that... allows you to continue using your weapon, but I don't know how effective it is. Especially since half that video is grappling and knees to the groin.
Half sword techniques are not some crazy oddball or rare thing - they are a legitimate (and much more common than folks think) way to fight with a sword. Real fighting, not Hollywood fighting. Also, you're not going to slice your hand open holding a sword this way - it's not a razor blade - and yes, even bare-handed, never mind wearing armor or gloves.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 29, 2012 - 12:29PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Oct 16, 2008
|
Umm... I'll admit real-life situations require many different tactics, and there are a plethora of fighting styles with that probably do really odd things... but if you have to hold your sword by the blade and then swing the hilt at your opponent.... I'd say you are using the wrong weapon, maces are much better blunt weapons and have the advantage of being grippable in an area that won't slice open your hand. I get that if you are using a big sword, and then someone gets in your face, it is a technique that... allows you to continue using your weapon, but I don't know how effective it is. Especially since half that video is grappling and knees to the groin.
Half sword techniques are not some crazy oddball or rare thing - they are a legitimate (and much more common than folks think) way to fight with a sword. Real fighting, not Hollywood fighting. Also, you're not going to slice your hand open holding a sword this way - it's not a razor blade - and yes, even bare-handed, never mind wearing armor or gloves.
If it is sharp enough to cut the guy being attacked I would think it is sharp enough to cut you hand, flesh is flesh after all. Also, I'm not sure I would trust my grip on the blade of a sword, especially if I was wearing metal gloves which would have little traction.
But honestly, I think my main point stands. Legitimate tactic or not, it is not as effective as swinging a weapon by it's hilt as it was designed to be swung. I'm not an expert in real-life fighting, I could be completely wrong, but it seems like you would be more effective dropping your weapon and attacking your opponent with those metal encased fists than swinging a sword hilt by the blade of the sword.
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 29, 2012 - 12:52PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Jan 28, 2010
|
International squares (like in 4E), please!
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 29, 2012 - 7:50PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2012
|
Umm... I'll admit real-life situations require many different tactics, and there are a plethora of fighting styles with that probably do really odd things... but if you have to hold your sword by the blade and then swing the hilt at your opponent.... I'd say you are using the wrong weapon, maces are much better blunt weapons and have the advantage of being grippable in an area that won't slice open your hand. I get that if you are using a big sword, and then someone gets in your face, it is a technique that... allows you to continue using your weapon, but I don't know how effective it is. Especially since half that video is grappling and knees to the groin.
Half sword techniques are not some crazy oddball or rare thing - they are a legitimate (and much more common than folks think) way to fight with a sword. Real fighting, not Hollywood fighting. Also, you're not going to slice your hand open holding a sword this way - it's not a razor blade - and yes, even bare-handed, never mind wearing armor or gloves.
If it is sharp enough to cut the guy being attacked I would think it is sharp enough to cut you hand, flesh is flesh after all. Also, I'm not sure I would trust my grip on the blade of a sword, especially if I was wearing metal gloves which would have little traction.
But honestly, I think my main point stands. Legitimate tactic or not, it is not as effective as swinging a weapon by it's hilt as it was designed to be swung. I'm not an expert in real-life fighting, I could be completely wrong, but it seems like you would be more effective dropping your weapon and attacking your opponent with those metal encased fists than swinging a sword hilt by the blade of the sword.
Well, full disclaimer, I'm not an expert either, but I guess you could say I'm a bit of an enthusiast in the subject.
It's not the sharp edge that cuts with a weapon, it's the lever-action, weight of the weapon and strength of the steel (or metal) that's doing most of the cutting - of course, the strength behind the swing counts for something as well. A sword edge is a bit like a dull knife, sure you can cut with it, but it'll take some effort. It's the same as with an ax, it's not very sharp either, you can grip the ax head and not cut yourself, but it'll still take down a tree (and in combat, crush bone, destroy flesh and puncture plate armor better than a swung sword blade will).
As for your main point, it depends on what you mean by effective. If you want to cleave someone in two, then no, it's not as effective obviously, but if you just want to cause enough damage to take someone out of a fight, that hilt (swung with that lever action) will crush a skull and therefore easily take someone out of a fight. In fact, some sword hilts were given spiked ends for using the sword this way to penetrate armor like a pick. Imagine getting hit by a hammer with it's end slightly sharpened instead of flattened and with an additional 1' on the handle, multiplying the force of the attacker's swing...
Yeah, it'll break bones, tear through flesh and just generally mess up your day. 
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 29, 2012 - 8:18PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2001
|
+1 for Yards = Meters! for me too. . . I like both so I'd just use yards, but I like it more than 5' squares.
He who should not speak...
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 29, 2012 - 8:36PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2011
|
why should halfswording do any less damage? that is a level of detail that isn't needed in DND.
if you want an example of why that is a bad idea, look at Rifts.
and cheosmancer, you are missing the point of that overhand swing, the guy wasn't trying to go for the kill (although he wouldn't mind if he did get the kill from that attack i suppose), rather he was trying to use the shape of his hilt to hook his opponents weapon and disarm him.
Longswords are the swiss army knife of weapons, they are offensive and defencive, and every single bit of that sword is used for combat by a seasoned fighter.
cuts were rarely used against knights because the armour they are wearing is near imutable, instead knights needed a way to disarm their opponent and hopefully knock them on the ground.
also consider that a knight in that kind of armour is rich, his opponent doesn't want to kill him, he wants to capture him for the ransom.
actual sword cuts were used with longswords against the common rabble that didn't have armour, and in this case longswords had great reach, but also consider that in DND there can be at any one time a maximum of 10 feet between each opponent (as the rules for spacing has each opponent owning a 5 by 5 foot square) and 10 feet is about the range of a longsword when you factore in the movement a combatent makes when he is swinging it (they would usually step into a kill swing to cross distance at a good speed and add extra force to the strike).
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 29, 2012 - 10:37PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2001
|
I assume you're using "longsword" the way people who actually fight with (replicas of) them do, not the way D&D does, especially when you talk about a 10-foot range. In this context (where familiarity with D&D can be assumed, but familiarity with real fighting can't), you might want to be clear that that's closer to what D&D calls a "bastard sword" or even a "two-handed sword".
Jeff Heikkinen
DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
|
|
|
|
8 months ago ::
Oct 30, 2012 - 1:56PM
#30
|
|
|
I see no reason why 5e could not move to a 3 foot or 1 meter square... This really seems like a very easy change if you are publishing all new rules/books anyway.
|
|
|
