A few weapon blocking suggestions

[Manifold]

Currently, when I'm rushing in on a charger with a huge, two-handed axe, a river pirate can completely block my attack with his puny hatchet. Not only is this unrealistic, but more importantly it detracts a bit from the experience. I propose a simple system as follows:

Separate weapons into classes: crappy weapons, less crappy weapons, pretty good weapons etc.

If two people are fighting on foot with weapons in identical classes, the current system applies, i.e. no damage penalty is incurred for blocking.

If two people are fighting on foot with weapons in different classes, make the block relative to the classes. For example, if i have a pretty good weapon and i'm fighting someone who has a crappy weapon, he will block only 25% of the incoming damage. If he attacks me and I block, of course, there should be no damage.

Let's say armagan puts in five classes. A reasonable formula for a damage multiplier could be

damage multiplier = 1 / 2^(class difference).

So as in the above example where the class difference is 2, the weaker guy does in fact block 1/4 or 25% of the damage.

EDIT: I also forgot to take into account if one person is mounted. In that case, if two people have equal strength weapons, the guy on foot should have a multiplier that scales with the speed of the guy on the horse. So if the horseman stops to attack, still no damage is incurred, but if he's flying at someone on a charger, maybe 50% damage will be blocked.

 

[Gilglaurad]

I don't think the weapons should be divided like that - it's neither realistic nor "natural" (at least I don't find it natural - might just be me, though), and making it more realistic would a.) make more sense b.) is IMHO easier to grasp for the player
You should always have the chance to be lucky or unlucky, and you Stregth should make a difference too.

My Suggestion:

Everytime you block there is a basic chance that your enemy powers through your blow - how great that default chance would be would depend on balancing, I have no idea.
That chance would be modified by the strength both of the attacker and the defender, and wether the weapons are onehanded or twohanded (either by modifying the chance directly, or by modifying the Strength bonus + +50% Str? or something like that).
If one (or both) combatans are mounted and could receive the warrider bonus, that would modify the chance of the attacker (even more than Strength).
Now there are four possible outcomes of such a "parry"-check:
1. Good Parry - the Defender rolls way better than the Attacker. No damage or other bad effects for teh defender, but the attacker is stunned for a *very* short time - just so that he can't immediately attack again, so that the defender has a chance for a counterattack.
2. Parry - Defender rolls better than attacker. No damage or ill effects for anyone.
3. Bad Parry - Defender and Attacker roll very near each other. The Defender is knocked back or stunned shortly, but takes no damage.
4. Overpowered - The atatcker rolls better. The Defender takes (reduced) damage and is possible stunned, knocked back (or even down, when it has been stroken by 2 a-H axeswing from a charging charger )

Overpower should have a chance to knock the defender out of the saddle.

Though I say "the defender rolls", it is not necessary that he rolls - maybe he has a parry-score (Strength x 2H-modifier (iff aplyable)) + BAse Bonus) vs the attackers roll ( maybe (Strength x 2H-modifier(if applyable)) +Warriderbonus + Roll)

(Base Chance vs. Roll - "default chance"

like 10 vs 1d20 - 50% (just an example)

In case of shields. 1, 2 or 3 may happen.

Ideas, critic?

 

[KnZ]

Gilglaurad

Interesting suggestion... But some sense of realism makes protests inside of me)) First of all, imagine tahat you hit an armoured man with a longsword in full power. It would be quite painful, and his defence will only passivate part of damage. But if you'll swing your sword a bit weaker, damage will reduce greatly almost to no damage at all when you make a hit with 1/2 of your maximal speed. When you make a parry, you stop opponent's weapon, and even when you fail to make a parry (opponent overpowers you), you reduce his swing's speed greatly. The damage will only be significant in this case if STR of fighters differs by 5 or 6, or weapon weight differs for about 2-3 times. Btw, Miyamoto Musashi (I hope you know who is that ) "invented" a special strike - "attack of fire from stones". It is based on "overpowering" enemy's block when he parried your weapon by putting ALL your strength in a quick deadly strike without any sweep, or, in other words, when enemy stopped your weapon, you gather all powers that you have and start a new strike just from the point where opponent stopped your sword, breaking his defence.
But "attack of fire from stones" is a single example of piercing block... It requires many months of training and high muscle power. I don't know about mounted combat blocks, maybe overpowering should be implemented there, but as for close fight, I don't think it's singnificant.

 

[Gilglaurad]

Well, I have to say that I have no Swordfighting expierence myself (sadly).
But I think that if the defender parries very badly (hilt to far away from the body, and the blades hit near the poin, for example) even a normal, if forceful blow would power through. I forgot to add that the amount of damage you do would depend both on the original damage and by how much you succeded against the parry roll/score. So a Longsword against another, without different Str, would have just a very small chance to power through a block - and even if it would power through, most of the time there wouldn't be enough damage left to overcome the absoption of heavy armor... but it would be enough to harm people wearing lighter armor. Now, if you go with a Greatsword against said Longsword, you would have a much greater chance to power through the block - and if you did power through the block, the chance to actually hurt someone wearing a plate would be much greater, too. (which would make 2handed weapon more powerful - I believe some people complained that they were not really worthwhile?)

So it would propably more like 19 vs 1d20 (or 96 vs 1d100)

As for mounted combat, I'm nearly sure that it would happen there more often, consideringt the force a charging horse would add (in reality there would also be a risk that the axe or sword would be knocked out of your hand - but while realistic I don't think that disarming would be much fun)

And sure, I know of that old Ronin
Haven't read the book by him, though, so far - but I plan to do that soon.

 

[Manifold]

Gilgalaurad- Your parry idea is interesting, but I sort of dislike stuff in games that I can't predict...in other words, random chance. Plus, I think your proposed suggestion would change the current system a bit too much--I think the system right now feels good, and I wanted to try and change as little as I could while eliminating the problem. I think that by dividing the weapons into classes, you would still have the same combat experience when you are battling a group of about the same level.

Also, I think the main point here is what would be the most fun. Yes, realism is an important issue, but if it's not fun, no one's going to play the game. Simplicity is essential as well, since I think part of the beauty of this game is how easy it is to jump right into combat.

 

[Gilglaurad]

Well, there is always a random chance - always will be, as combat is inherently chaotic, and the game protraits that quiete good - you can always catch a crossbow bolt from the back, the reaction of the enemy are also "random" - at least to you - and so on.And just like the uncertainity how you will fight in arena adds to (at least my) enjoyment, uncertainity if you block will hold would add spice to fighting - IMHO.
As long as a diceroll isn't gamedeciding (like a random chance to actually die instead of just being knocked out) I think a little bit random chance here and there is nice. But thats just my opinion, if the majority of the players prefer a system without roling, I can live with that too

I'm still against those classes, as, while not being a realism fanatic, I just can't see why one onehanded sword should be better at overpowering than another one - or even a Twohanded weapon of a worse class... Twohanded weapons should belong to the higher classes in general, if it is implemented that way.

Oh, and I think Believability and Atmosphere are more important than Realism itself - and Believability will help the Atmosphere, and Realism will often help the Believeability - and both will help the fun.

As for Simplicity - The casual Player would just know there is a chance to overpower a block, and that being strong, having a twohanded weapon and getting Warriderdamage would make it more probable to power through the block and do higher damage; and that there can be several results from parrying. - It's more complex than your system, yes, but I don't think it would overtax the learning ability of new players

 

[Manifold]

I'm still against those classes, as, while not being a realism fanatic, I just can't see why one onehanded sword should be better at overpowering than another one - or even a Twohanded weapon of a worse class... Twohanded weapons should belong to the higher classes in general, if it is implemented that way.

Yeah, you're right. But there's definitely something wrong with having a hundred thousand denars worth of equipment intended for kicking ass, and a shirtless neanderthal parries my axe with his club.

 

[Gilglaurad]

Better than parrying with the wooden handle of the axe against a Sword of war - it would shorten your axe to a stick
A big club could propably parry a longsword quiete a few times... but against a Twohanded Sword or Axe... one strong swing you would have either half a club or teh sword would get stuck - and since you wield a towhander with much more foce than you could normally use at one hand, you would propably loose whats left of the club.
Everything AFAIK; I have no RL expierience with theese things, as I said.
In my system weapons that aren't effective for parries maybe should get a mali if the defender uses it for parrying - as disarming/destruction of weapons would be to frustrating and permanent to be fun, I think.
In your system, such weapons would get the lowest class, normal onehanded weapon would the scond, and Twohanded normal weapons would get the highest. Thwohanded weapons who are poor at parrying would either go to into teh second or lowest class.

Edit: hey, I've been Knighted

 

[Wanderer]

If you wanted classes, it would probably be better for 'overpowering' the defenses by weight instead of weapon class.

I swing a big sledgehammer at your dinky military pick, something's gotta give. Either I'm going to break the handle, dent the blade, pick your poison, or you're going to only slow some of the blow. Figuring this is an intelligent fighter who doesn't want his weapon broken, he'll slow some of it.

So, I'd recommend that over a 'weapon class', and instead have it as weight class.

Speed could then be factored into weight... to a point. I could break my pick on your sledgehammer just as easily at full speed.