|
Post by mao on Sept 9, 2018 15:56:04 GMT -5
I've never been happy that almost every player picks long sword and greatsword, so I made a special chart to make them more unique. I use this in OSR and Pathfinder. I use 20 only as crit threat(Pathfinder speak),double damage.
dagger +2 to hit, D4 damage
short sword +1 to hit, d6 damage
long sword, threatens critical(see below) on 19-20, D8 damage
battle axe, ignores one Damage resistance( some monsters have resistance to damage in the form of knocks damage off before you do actual damage)(scale at higher L?) D8 damage
Mace, 0ne damage on a miss(Scalable?) D8 damage (Ok , should prob only be vrs Metal armor but not looking for that kind of complexity)
spear D6 damage, d12 damage vrs large creatures
great sword 2d6 damage
military pick d6 damage, x3 damage( triple dice damage) on crit(20)
great axe D10 damage, +3 to confirm crit ( in pathfinder if you roll a 20 you then reroll your attack and if you hit the targets AC, you get a critical multiplier)
quarterstaff(2 handed) D6 damage +1 bonus to AC (to the better)
Etc.
|
|
|
Post by The Archivist on Sept 9, 2018 17:25:46 GMT -5
I've never been happy that almost every player picks long sword and greatsword, so I made a special chart to make them more unique. I use this in OSR and Pathfinder. I use 20 only as crit threat(Pathfinder speak),double damage. dagger +2 to hit, D4 damage short sword +1 to hit, d6 damage long sword, threatens crit on 19-20, D8 damage battle axe, ignores one Damage resistance(scale at higher L?) D8 damage Mace, 0ne damage on a miss(Scalable?) D8 damage (Ok , should prob only be vrs Metal armor but not looking for that kind of complexity) spear D6 damage, d12 damage vrs large creatures great sword 2d6 damage military pick d6 damage, x3 damage on crit great axe D10 damage, +3 to confirm crit quarterstaff(2 handed) D6 damage 1 bonus to AC Etc. I don't speak Pathfinder so, What does critical threat mean? What does ignore one Damage resistance mean? What does one damage on a miss mean? Are you saying a military pick does 1d6 damage and if you roll a natural 20 it does triple damage? What does +3 to confirm critical mean? For a quarterstaff are you saying it gives you a defensive bonus of +1 to AC?
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 9, 2018 18:37:26 GMT -5
I've never been happy that almost every player picks long sword and greatsword, so I made a special chart to make them more unique. I use this in OSR and Pathfinder. I use 20 only as crit threat(Pathfinder speak),double damage. dagger +2 to hit, D4 damage short sword +1 to hit, d6 damage long sword, threatens crit on 19-20, D8 damage battle axe, ignores one Damage resistance(scale at higher L?) D8 damage Mace, 0ne damage on a miss(Scalable?) D8 damage (Ok , should prob only be vrs Metal armor but not looking for that kind of complexity) spear D6 damage, d12 damage vrs large creatures great sword 2d6 damage military pick d6 damage, x3 damage on crit great axe D10 damage, +3 to confirm crit quarterstaff(2 handed) D6 damage 1 bonus to AC Etc. I don't speak Pathfinder so, What does critical threat mean? What does ignore one Damage resistance mean? What does one damage on a miss mean? Are you saying a military pick does 1d6 damage and if you roll a natural 20 it does triple damage? What does +3 to confirm critical mean? For a quarterstaff are you saying it gives you a defensive bonus of +1 to AC? Really sorry about this I was rushing my last couple of Copy and paste posts and forgot how "Pathfindery "this was.
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 9, 2018 18:38:04 GMT -5
Edited original post, should answer all your questions
|
|
|
Post by The Archivist on Sept 9, 2018 19:28:17 GMT -5
Edited original post, should answer all your questions I've never been happy that almost every player picks long sword and greatsword, so I made a special chart to make them more unique. I use this in OSR and Pathfinder. I use 20 only as crit threat(Pathfinder speak), double damage. dagger +2 to hit, D4 damage short sword +1 to hit, d6 damage long sword, threatens critical(see below) on 19-20, D8 damage battle axe, ignores one Damage resistance( some monsters have resistance to damage in the form of knocks damage off before you do actual damage)(scale at higher L?) D8 damage Mace, 0ne damage on a miss(Scalable?) D8 damage (Ok , should prob only be vrs Metal armor but not looking for that kind of complexity) spear D6 damage, d12 damage vrs large creatures great sword 2d6 damage military pick d6 damage, x3 damage( triple dice damage) on crit(20) great axe D10 damage, +3 to confirm crit ( in pathfinder if you roll a 20 you then reroll your attack and if you hit the targets AC, you get a critical multiplier) quarterstaff(2 handed) D6 damage +1 bonus to AC (to the better) Etc.
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Sept 9, 2018 22:26:16 GMT -5
This is something I tend to disagree with mao on, I see no need of special rules except for weapons created for larger creatures doing a bit more damage. I also have zero problem adding new weapons to the listing, but in general they'll be d6 damage like the rest. That said, if mao wants to add such special rules to his game or shares them.
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Sept 9, 2018 22:31:54 GMT -5
I used to fuss over this, but right now I am okay with everyone doing 1d6 on a hit. I've always debated about letting folks use whatever they imagine but only do their own AD&D hit dice, for example the fighter always rolls 1d10, and mages only do 1d4. Never did it though.
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 10, 2018 7:16:48 GMT -5
Edited original post, should answer all your questions I've never been happy that almost every player picks long sword and greatsword, so I made a special chart to make them more unique. I use this in OSR and Pathfinder. I use 20 only as crit threat(Pathfinder speak), double damage. dagger +2 to hit, D4 damage short sword +1 to hit, d6 damage long sword, threatens critical(see below) on 19-20, D8 damage battle axe, ignores one Damage resistance( some monsters have resistance to damage in the form of knocks damage off before you do actual damage)(scale at higher L?) D8 damage Mace, 0ne damage on a miss(Scalable?) D8 damage (Ok , should prob only be vrs Metal armor but not looking for that kind of complexity) spear D6 damage, d12 damage vrs large creatures great sword 2d6 damage military pick d6 damage, x3 damage( triple dice damage) on crit(20) great axe D10 damage, +3 to confirm crit ( in pathfinder if you roll a 20 you then reroll your attack and if you hit the targets AC, you get a critical multiplier) quarterstaff(2 handed) D6 damage +1 bonus to AC (to the better) Etc.
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 10, 2018 7:52:43 GMT -5
I really thought I was on to something here, maybe not this version. But in all my postings of this , I don't think a single peep liked it. I'm gonna try again, but this time I will tailor it closer to OD&D.
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Sept 10, 2018 9:02:25 GMT -5
I don't hate the ideas. I actually loved the AD&D Weapons system; you know, with all of the weapon speeds, vs. AC type, and sizes. I didn't enforce them all of the time, only when it mattered. They didn't slow me down at all, because I didn't let them, though I never could convey the idea of weapon speeds to the players, they wanted to go all at once, and just tell me who hits and how much damage that they did.
The d6 has benefits, it is fast and easy to remember. I also find myself actually loving how the physical attacks done by magic users are handled and find myself actually preferring the method. However, I don't think that I'll like how all monsters also do the d6 dmg roll, regardless of size and threat level. We haven't gone there yet. Players are still in the 1st level of the dungeon. We've only played two games with the OD&D rules, so it is really too early to tell if the players will still like it if they advance to higher levels.
Should different weapons have different functions? The idea has always pleased me, but how to do this in an easy to remember form that keeps the players from looking for answers on their character sheet and doesn't slow down combat is tricky, and should we punish a player who wants to imagine that they are using a sword rather than an axe or a mace?
I played, and really enjoyed a videogame series called "Fire Emblem", a board game chess variant of sorts, and it had an interesting weapon system that I kind of liked. There were three basic weapon classes and each was superior to one of the three but weak to the other. Axe over Spear, Spear over Sword, Sword over Axe. There were things that I really liked about it, but many things made no sense outside of the context for it. That and a computer can do math much faster than I can, and could easily recalculate odds and statistics each and every time is beyond what can be expected from a guy sitting behind a screen. Why wouldn't the spear be more powerful than an axe? It has longer reach! I think that this just goes back to tactics though. If you can convince me that you can attack an enemy without receiving a counter-attack than we can do that. If a man with an axe attacks another man's shield, this should mean something! I think that when we define a thing before applying it to the game that we set limitations upon it. I really do! To the point where I think that AC itself should not be a fixed thing, but one that floats depending on the situation.
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Sept 10, 2018 9:36:56 GMT -5
I really thought I was on to something here, maybe not this version. But in all my postings of this , I don't think a single peep liked it. I'm gonna try again, but this time I will tailor it closer to OD&D. I don't hate the idea, but I have just gotten to the point where I don't want that level of detail. If it works for your game tht is cool. But I do have exceptions to that rule, say I want to deal with things like cleave or sunder your system could work as I developed my own houserules for it when I was just getting into OD&D. I was coming from Pathfinder, 5e D&D & Rolemaster so have such rules were natural assumptions to be & I thought it was a flaw in the OD&D & B/X systems that they were not included, so I had to reorient my thinking on it. Will I have a campaign eventually that needs such a system? Maybe, but at the moment. mao, just remember that what may not appeal to some members of this board doesn't mean others who read your blog or play in your future/current home games won't like these house-rules. The Archivist has his style of play & some of his criticisms seemed to be more about apparent spelling errors or unclear meaning of terms used. Since I own 3.5 D&D & played Pathfinder I understood what you meant. My initial criticism may have come off too harsh and I could've explained it better but I've been hitting a wall creatively of late and the frustration maybe bleeding through unintentionally. I have a few ideas for mini-settings I want to blog about and then post here but I am having troubles getting them onto paper or typed up.
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 10, 2018 9:40:00 GMT -5
I really thought I was on to something here, maybe not this version. But in all my postings of this , I don't think a single peep liked it. I'm gonna try again, but this time I will tailor it closer to OD&D. I don't hate the idea, but I have just gotten to the point where I don't want that level of detail. If it works for your game tht is cool. But I do have exceptions to that rule, say I want to deal with things like cleave or sunder your system could work as I developed my own houserules for it when I was just getting into OD&D. I was coming from Pathfinder, 5e D&D & Rolemaster so have such rules were natural assumptions to be & I thought it was a flaw in the OD&D & B/X systems that they were not included, so I had to reorient my thinking on it. Will I have a campaign eventually that needs such a system? Maybe, but at the moment. mao , just remember that what may not appeal to some members of this board doesn't mean others who read your blog or play in your future/current home games won't like these house-rules. The Archivist has his style of play & some of his criticisms seemed to be more about apparent spelling errors or unclear meaning of terms used. Since I own 3.5 D&D & played Pathfinder I understood what you meant. My initial criticism may have come off too harsh and I could've explained it better but I've been hitting a wall creatively of late and the frustration maybe bleeding through unintentionally. I have a few ideas for mini-settings I want to blog about and then post here but I am having troubles getting them onto paper or typed up. No offence taken!
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 10, 2018 10:15:26 GMT -5
I don't hate the ideas. I actually loved the AD&D Weapons system; you know, with all of the weapon speeds, vs. AC type, and sizes. I didn't enforce them all of the time, only when it mattered. They didn't slow me down at all, because I didn't let them, though I never could convey the idea of weapon speeds to the players, they wanted to go all at once, and just tell me who hits and how much damage that they did. The d6 has benefits, it is fast and easy to remember. I also find myself actually loving how the physical attacks done by magic users are handled and find myself actually preferring the method. However, I don't think that I'll like how all monsters also do the d6 dmg roll, regardless of size and threat level. We haven't gone there yet. Players are still in the 1st level of the dungeon. We've only played two games with the OD&D rules, so it is really too early to tell if the players will still like it if they advance to higher levels. Should different weapons have different functions? The idea has always pleased me, but how to do this in an easy to remember form that keeps the players from looking for answers on their character sheet and doesn't slow down combat is tricky, and should we punish a player who wants to imagine that they are using a sword rather than an axe or a mace? I played, and really enjoyed a videogame series called "Fire Emblem", a board game chess variant of sorts, and it had an interesting weapon system that I kind of liked. There were three basic weapon classes and each was superior to one of the three but weak to the other. Axe over Spear, Spear over Sword, Sword over Axe. There were things that I really liked about it, but many things made no sense outside of the context for it. That and a computer can do math much faster than I can, and could easily recalculate odds and statistics each and every time is beyond what can be expected from a guy sitting behind a screen. Why wouldn't the spear be more powerful than an axe? It has longer reach! I think that this just goes back to tactics though. If you can convince me that you can attack an enemy without receiving a counter-attack than we can do that. If a man with an axe attacks another man's shield, this should mean something! I think that when we define a thing before applying it to the game that we set limitations upon it. I really do! To the point where I think that AC itself should not be a fixed thing, but one that floats depending on the situation. Floating AC? Nice, gonna write that up!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by ripx187 on Sept 10, 2018 17:22:54 GMT -5
. . . If a man with an axe attacks another man's shield, this should mean something! I think that when we define a thing before applying it to the game that we set limitations upon it. I really do! To the point where I think that AC itself should not be a fixed thing, but one that floats depending on the situation. Floating AC? Nice, gonna write that up!!!!!! While I think that the avoidance mechanic which Gygax put into the game was brilliant and very playable, it still requires constant modification on the part of the DM. There is a decent leeway of -/+ 4 to simulate lots of different factors without causing havoc to the system, and I prefer to modify the defenders AC up or down but that is just because I have that algorithm. Shields serve a purpose in my rules. The system BTB always said that a shield only gave the wielder a -1 to AC regardless of size or what the shield was constructed with, but in AD&D there was an additional table which I fell in love with called "Cover & Concealment Modifiers". This table mixed with situational modifiers allows the players to interact with the setting in a tactical way and opens up the combat system so that it isn't static.
|
|
|
Post by Harry Wolf on Sept 10, 2018 21:04:28 GMT -5
I really thought I was on to something here, maybe not this version. But in all my postings of this , I don't think a single peep liked it. I'm gonna try again, but this time I will tailor it closer to OD&D. Slow down mao! I like this, it is an alternate to the method in the Greyhawk supplement for variable damage by weapon and I think it is an interesting treatment and you are on to something. Thanks to The Archivist for his additional clarifying work, what you ( mao) could do with an editor sitting next to you would be mindblowing.
|
|
|
Post by Harry Wolf on Sept 10, 2018 21:10:04 GMT -5
I really thought I was on to something here, maybe not this version. But in all my postings of this , I don't think a single peep liked it. I'm gonna try again, but this time I will tailor it closer to OD&D. I don't hate the idea, but I have just gotten to the point where I don't want that level of detail. If it works for your game tht is cool. But I do have exceptions to that rule, say I want to deal with things like cleave or sunder your system could work as I developed my own houserules for it when I was just getting into OD&D. I was coming from Pathfinder, 5e D&D & Rolemaster so have such rules were natural assumptions to be & I thought it was a flaw in the OD&D & B/X systems that they were not included, so I had to reorient my thinking on it. Will I have a campaign eventually that needs such a system? Maybe, but at the moment. mao , just remember that what may not appeal to some members of this board doesn't mean others who read your blog or play in your future/current home games won't like these house-rules. The Archivist has his style of play & some of his criticisms seemed to be more about apparent spelling errors or unclear meaning of terms used. Since I own 3.5 D&D & played Pathfinder I understood what you meant. My initial criticism may have come off too harsh and I could've explained it better but I've been hitting a wall creatively of late and the frustration maybe bleeding through unintentionally. I have a few ideas for mini-settings I want to blog about and then post here but I am having troubles getting them onto paper or typed up. Yeah, I think that The Archivist was mainly trying to translate the Pathfinder jargon to language that an OD&D fan could understand. Keep posting your ideas, they are going to appeal to a lot of the lurkers I am sure. And many of us will find things we like. Some of the questions that The Archivist was asking I also would like to know the answer too. Is the greatsword a two-handed sword or something else? In reference to the quarterstaff was better meant to be bearer?
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 11, 2018 6:28:12 GMT -5
I really thought I was on to something here, maybe not this version. But in all my postings of this , I don't think a single peep liked it. I'm gonna try again, but this time I will tailor it closer to OD&D. Slow down mao ! I like this, it is an alternate to the method in the Greyhawk supplement for variable damage by weapon and I think it is an interesting treatment and you are on to something. Thanks to The Archivist for his additional clarifying work, what you ( mao ) could do with an editor sitting next to you would be mindblowing. I actually have a more OD&D friendly version about 80% worked out, prob finish it this morning and will post on this thread, thanx for the input.
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Sept 11, 2018 10:25:23 GMT -5
Slow down mao ! I like this, it is an alternate to the method in the Greyhawk supplement for variable damage by weapon and I think it is an interesting treatment and you are on to something. Thanks to The Archivist for his additional clarifying work, what you ( mao ) could do with an editor sitting next to you would be mindblowing. I actually have a more OD&D friendly version about 80% worked out, prob finish it this morning and will post on this thread, thanx for the input. I'm going to agree with Harry Wolf, I think you are onto something that could be made very streamlined, easy to remember and easy to use.
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 11, 2018 10:29:00 GMT -5
I actually have a more OD&D friendly version about 80% worked out, prob finish it this morning and will post on this thread, thanx for the input. I'm going to agree with Harry Wolf , I think you are onto something that could be made very streamlined, easy to remember and easy to use. I think you are going to like the new one then, It may not have any special rules at all,still workin (darn laundry
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 11, 2018 14:48:29 GMT -5
Ok Version 2 (D6 damage if not mentioned)
Dagger+2 hit vrs metal armor damage D6-1 Short sword +2 to hit vrs non-metal armor, damage D6-1 Long Sword +D6 damage on a natural 19-20 Mace Does 1 damage on a miss, must hit AC 9 Battle Axe if you roll a 6 on damage, add another D6 damage Broad Sword 2D3 Damage Spear +D6 vrs large foes
2 handed Weapons
Great Axe +1 to hit Great sword +1 to damage Pole arms May attack at a range of 6" Staff D6-1 damage, +1 to AC
ok hows this version?
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 12, 2018 9:10:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Hexenritter Verlag on Sept 12, 2018 11:09:35 GMT -5
Ok Version 2 (D6 damage if not mentioned) Dagger+2 hit vrs metal armor damage D6-1 Shouldn't that be against non-metal armors instead? Even in Chainmail metallic armors are harder to hit with daggers.Short sword +2 to hit vrs non-metal armor, damage D6-1 Long Sword +D6 damage on a natural 19-20 Mace Does 1 damage on a miss, must hit AC 9 Not sure of the reasoning for this, can you explain the rational about it?Battle Axe if you roll a 6 on damage, add another D6 damage Broad Sword 2D3 Damage Spear +D6 vrs large foes 2 handed Weapons Great Axe +1 to hit Great sword +1 to damage Pole arms May attack at a range of 6" Staff D6-1 damage, +1 to AC ok hows this version? Other than the above comments I have no serious quibbles with the above mao.
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 12, 2018 11:15:08 GMT -5
Ok Version 2 (D6 damage if not mentioned) Dagger+2 hit vrs metal armor damage D6-1 Shouldn't that be against non-metal armors instead? Even in Chainmail metallic armors are harder to hit with daggers.Short sword +2 to hit vrs non-metal armor, damage D6-1 Long Sword +D6 damage on a natural 19-20 Mace Does 1 damage on a miss, must hit AC 9 Not sure of the reasoning for this, can you explain the rational about it?Battle Axe if you roll a 6 on damage, add another D6 damage Broad Sword 2D3 Damage Spear +D6 vrs large foes 2 handed Weapons Great Axe +1 to hit Great sword +1 to damage Pole arms May attack at a range of 6" Staff D6-1 damage, +1 to AC ok hows this version? Other than the above comments I have no serious quibbles with the above mao . Knights carried daggers to slip between the joints of plate, Mces work by impact so if they hit a creatures armor it will dent and such, this the damage on a miss(I admit I am on far better ground w the dagger)
|
|
|
Post by El Borak on Sept 12, 2018 22:50:57 GMT -5
Other than the above comments I have no serious quibbles with the above mao . Knights carried daggers to slip between the joints of plate, Mces work by impact so if they hit a creatures armor it will dent and such, this the damage on a miss(I admit I am on far better ground w the dagger) You're using pole arms with a Missile range?
|
|
|
Post by fearghus on Sept 25, 2018 19:09:08 GMT -5
Have you tried looking at the weapon vs armor modifiers in OD&D and AD&D? For example, the dagger in OD&D (supplement 1, Greyhawk) gains a +3 to hit vs AC2 when the target is prone; +2 against AC 3 and 4; and +1 against AC 5. I am assuming AC 6-9 remains unchanged. Again, all of those assumed prone. The dagger is at a disadvantage against AC2 through 5 otherwise.
If you wanted to get more fiddly, you could allow the sword to be half-sworded in order to permit a murder stroke. This would mean the sword strikes as a mace. Wouldn't allow it for a broadsword in AD&D, but any type of arming sword would be fine. Half-swording should have less reach than a standard swing so the user should have an init penalty, or swing as a mace (4) in the OD&D reach chart.
If you prefer to keep it simple then allow for two-handed weapons to have a +1 or +2 to-hit. This way there is a trade off from weapon-and-shield that is worth pursuing. Not certain there should be any real benefit to a dagger other than being readily available as a backup, great in a scrum, and ideal in close quarters. I wouldn't recommend adding bonuses to make it an ideal pick over, or equal pick to, a sword or axe for standard combat.
I still find variable damage in an AC/HP game very weird. I am purposely trying to think about it differently. The base rules assume two combatants of relatively equal standing (CM and OD&D). Weapons started simple, and then armors advanced, and then weapons got more complex. All weapons kill you dead. Some are better at combating armored opponents. Weapon vs armor makes much more sense.
It was fun to read the ideas presented, and is it kicks off creative thinking. I did like the idea behind the mace always dealing 1 damage so long as an AC 9 is struck. I am not certain I like the idea for the mace, but the idea that a particular weapon is so effective that it is always connecting and messing up someone even in armor.
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 25, 2018 19:18:00 GMT -5
I never think realistically. I see these as a way of causing fighters to get real choices instead of swords being dominant. When I was younger(Get off my Lawn) I had swords be dominant by way of making them very common magic items
|
|
|
Post by fearghus on Sept 27, 2018 18:47:19 GMT -5
Weapon vs Armor charts results in the sword not being dominant. Two handed sword, flail and possibly the morning star end up being good vs armor (memory is fuzzy). I believe it was someone on the OD&D boards that mentioned the weapon vs armor was ditched at some point so that swords wouldn't be at a disadvantage. This to support sword and sorcery play.
And your decision to make magical swords common is keeping in line with the random magical item charts. Being a fan of fighters, I would have been thrilled to be in such a game.
|
|
|
Post by mao on Sept 27, 2018 19:18:26 GMT -5
Weapon vs Armor charts results in the sword not being dominant. Two handed sword, flail and possibly the morning star end up being good vs armor (memory is fuzzy). I believe it was someone on the OD&D boards that mentioned the weapon vs armor was ditched at some point so that swords wouldn't be at a disadvantage. This to support sword and sorcery play. And your decision to make magical swords common is keeping in line with the random magical item charts. Being a fan of fighters, I would have been thrilled to be in such a game. Actually, I designed the whole world to be fighter dominant, so yea if you love fighters you would have had a blast. Th logic of a fighter driven world holds up to the smell test.
|
|
elanfanboy
Wanderer
A newbie to the forum, just here for discussion.
Posts: 22
|
Post by elanfanboy on Dec 20, 2018 10:17:09 GMT -5
Just a quick mention.
You should switch 'Longsword' with Bastard sword. Then switch 'Greatsword' with Longsword. You coud also switch 'Shortsword' with Arming Sword.
Arming swords were one handed swords, approximately 30 inches in length.(for the blade)
Bastard swords were the earliest longswords, they could be used with one hand, but the length of the handle allowed them to be used with two. typically around 33-38 inches in length.(blade, 10-15 inch handle)
Also longswords, which would have a blade length of about 39 inches.
The 'Greatsword' would have been known as a Zweihander (German for 'two-hander'), and would be too big to practically use for adventuring. It was up to 85 inches long in total length.
You don't need to edit it much for it to work, but I feel injecting a little bit more realism to pair with the dagger and mace abilities, well done by the way, would make it all the more greater.
|
|
|
Post by mao on Dec 20, 2018 10:33:18 GMT -5
Just a quick mention. You should switch 'Longsword' with Bastard sword. Then switch 'Greatsword' with Longsword. You coud also switch 'Shortsword' with Arming Sword. Arming swords were one handed swords, approximately 30 inches in length.(for the blade) Bastard swords were the earliest longswords, they could be used with one hand, but the length of the handle allowed them to be used with two. typically around 33-38 inches in length.(blade, 10-15 inch handle) Also longswords, which would have a blade length of about 39 inches. The 'Greatsword' would have been known as a Zweihander (German for 'two-hander'), and would be too big to practically use for adventuring. It was up to 85 inches long in total length. You don't need to edit it much for it to work, but I feel injecting a little bit more realism to pair with the dagger and mace abilities, well done by the way, would make it all the more greater. I am very happy w both versions and I have sated realism is always put behind me, but welcome you to run w it either here or in a thread of your own. Thanx for reading and your input(Oh and welcome to our band of brothers)
|
|