Core Combat System

[Ark]

CCS for short from now on.

It has always felt unfinished in the FH system to me. im am a very large D&D fan, in fact i missed this event to continue a Ravenloft campaign among other reasons. however, after looking over FH compared to other mechanics in other games i would like to point out, and attempt to fix some things i belive may need fixing/completing. I belive that given the proper fixes your characters Weapon choice could be an interactive choice that defines them, rather than a sword because you already had it.

1) Weapon sizes, in the current CCS this is overlooked and off all things feels the most unfinished to me. there are names for sizes over short and long, hand and a half, two handed, etc. but these function only as names and do nothing at all.
also the only skill that requires you to weild a weapon over "long" in the current CCS is pikeman Vorpal, and the pike Weapon focuses, i have for a long time tried to change this skill to either effect all bladed weapons regaurdless of size, but to no avail as it was:
(a bonus to an unweildy weapon size)
i therefore thought that it should then be changed to benifit any weapon over the leangth of long, such as but not restricted to a pike. also to no avail as:
(the discipline is called pikeman) really?

this is a good place to begin proposed ideas of a new CCS. rules should reflect the core reason of the change, example:
"vorpal, 15 count to swing a "5 vorpal" can be used by any waepon of Hand and a half or longer."
same idea to pikeman cap, allow people to use what they would like for there character, whilst still keeping the core rule enforced.

i also thought that the warrior skilll could be changed under this:
Weapon Spec, a warrior recives a stacking +1 bonus to weapon damage with any weapon over hand and a half length.

as well as giving benifits, there are also drawbacks. if anyone were to weild a weapon of hand and a half or longer, they could only weild that one weapon, no off hand and no shield. i actually had a thought, that if you had Weapon Spec, and Weapon Focus, and you wanted to use rage, you could only be in light armor or less, this fits in with the idea of a barbarian, berzerker, or the like.

this fits in with part 2

2) two weapon (2WF), two handed (2HF), sword and board (S&B), and single weapon (SW)
single weapon obviously does the least damage in most cases, this is usually the core weapons of sages or healers, people who want defense but dont fight, any warrior seriously considering combat would want to pick up either of the options above.

sword and board is obviously for one who forsakes offensive for defensive, and is also seen by healers and sages who plan to be in battle often, deffensive warriors will go here as well as a good shield can mitigate alot of damage.

2 weapon fighting is for those pirates and rouges out there, and most warriors as well, and gives very versatile bonuses, providing almost shield like deffense when needed, and when used offensivlydoubles your damage.
(yes it does, 1*2 =2, if your swinging two, and you now have 2 weapons, in the same time you are now swinging 4, its simple math. dont give me varialbe and in combat such and such, there is no math to balance that. at core a person with 2 does twice as much as a person with 1, accept it.)

2 handed fighting is the current worst way to fight in this game, it can be situationally behind and ahead single weapon combat per situations, and is FAR behind S&D and 2WF in every situation. this needs to be fixed. as per D&D a bonus is givin to damage, however we cannot really do the same in FH's CCS. i have listed ways to fix this above via pikeman and Weapon spec specifically targeting 2 handed fighting. as i have stated before, no fighter only uses one weapon, especially a long one, unless a bonus is given.

I want to see in the FH CCS the clasic party, the duel weilding rouge/ranger, the massive club weilding orc, the wise old mage, the kind healer, etc. but i dont think that certain styles of fighting should outclass another in all aspects unless it obviously should, sinlge weapon alone should be the worst way to go in combat.
I am in no way saying "warrior needs moar powah" or "rouge is over powered", etc. those are different discusions entirely. i am simply comenting on the styles of fighting, i think with the right tweaks it could be a very diverse and interesting combat system, while still being tight nit and something that you dont have to scratch your head over. . .even if there are other things in the system you still scratch your head over.

[Wyrmwrath]

2 weapon fighting is for those pirates and rouges out there, and most warriors as well,

ANd just what facts are you using to make such a statement? what impirical studies have you read or done? Where are the numbers that show 51% or more warriors fall into this catagory? Sounds likeskewed perception and opinion not fact

and gives very versatile bonuses, providing almost shield like deffense when needed,

If thats what you belive you have never faced someone skilled with a shield, or used one effectivly before.

and when used offensivly doubles your damage.
(yes it does, 1*2 =2, if your swinging two, and you now have 2 weapons, in the same time you are now swinging 4, its simple math. dont give me varialbe and in combat such and such, there is no math to balance that. at core a person with 2 does twice as much as a person with 1, accept it.)

You could not be more wrong, being able to swing damage with two weapons doesnt double your damage output, it increases your POTENTIAL to do your base damage, and it doesnt even double your chances.
Unless your swinging both claws/weapons at the same time and hitting every time your NOT doubling your damage output.
If you think your math supports your statement, its time to take another math class...

[Salvatore_Tenhammers]

My only response:

Final Haven is NOT D&D and trying to justify any LARP rules by using D&D's flawed, abstract, unrealistic combat system is an exercise in futility.

[Wyrmwrath]

I want to see in the FH CCS the clasic party, the duel weilding rouge/ranger, the massive club weilding orc, the wise old mage, the kind healer, etc.

I have to agree, stop trying to bring table top combat simulation structures to LARP. LARP combat is miles closer to real life melee combat than any tabletop could ever dream of simulating.

but i dont think that certain styles of fighting should outclass another in all aspects unless it obviously should, sinlge weapon alone should be the worst way to go in combat.

No offense, but this just highlights a lack of real life combat and martial arts exposure and experience. I single fencing saber would decimate a dual axe weilder, or a two handed sword user, and likely give the sword and shield user a true work out. In real life to the death combat, barring body armor, speed is what rules the day 95% of the time. The only equaliser is a significant gap in experience between combatants, since a more experienced fighter may well be able to compensate for a faster yet less experienced foe.

[Dallid]

Have to agree swinging two weapons for 2 damage is not the same as swinging 4. If you swing both weapons at once while calling '2', only one weapon is actually doing damage (you don't take one damage call twice). It'd be up to the target to decide which one, and it'll be the one he blocks. Basically swinging both weapons simultaneously to one damage call is the same as a bite attack.

[cole45]

and if you swing too fast, your machinegunning. the target doesn't have to take ANY OF it.


this has been up before. Other systems have those rules. Carps has a very complete set of such rules.

FH is designed for simplicity and this is why size of weapons just doesn't matter.


a bat swings one, a cactus swings one a baby teething swings one.

it is what it is.

[Ark]

i knew the kind of answers i was probobly going to get when posting this so i only hope that i have the constitution to continue this discusion.

2WF over one weapon.
i am not talking about theoretical "well one fighter can do this and he might hit" etc, etc, etc. im talking about if you have one weapon, are dealing 1 damage every second

1, 1, 1, 1, etc.

now its given 2, and in the exact same amount of time can swing 1 with two weapons in one second.

1, 1, 1, 1, etc.
1, 1, 1, 1, etc.

mathamatics say that you just doubled your damage output. once again not talking about in combat practice, talking about the math the core of the game is based on.
the same goes for the deffence it provides, though this one is more based on player skill it still provides double the deffensive bonus of one weapon, as it should, you doubled what you are useing.

and i relise FH is a simple system, that is why in my description of two handed fighting i did not just say "make all hand and a half or larger swing +1 damage" but instead showed how we could make some skills in the game flexible or specificly target them.

i am not trying to make a discussion about what version of fighting is better then another, im trying to make it impossible for that discussion to take place, nothing should be outright better then another, and all options should have merit. so constructive advice is welcome on how to acomplish that.

[cole45]

the problem with your theory is that swinging fast with two weapons does NOT result in more damage. lets say non machine gunning is 2 damage every second.

that's about what you can call and understand.

you can reach that with a single weapon AND two weapons, making their damage output exactly the same. You are not limited by how fast you can swing but how fast you can go and have your target understand your calls.

[Wyrmwrath]

2WF over one weapon.
i am not talking about theoretical "well one fighter can do this and he might hit" etc, etc, etc. im talking about if you have one weapon, are dealing 1 damage every second

1, 1, 1, 1, etc.

Problem here is that just because you swing for one damage each second, doesnt mean your DEALING one damage a second.

now (your) given 2, and in the exact same amount of time can swing 1 with two weapons in one second.
1, 1, 1, 1, etc.
1, 1, 1, 1, etc.

Wrong again, just because you have two weapons, doesnt mean your swinging both at the same time, and even if your swinging em both chances are your not landing both or even one since doing so is akward and few can handle the agility needed to do so effectivly.
All two weapons really does is making the defender work harder to fend of your attacks since they are now coming form two directions.

mathamatics say that you just doubled your damage output.

once again not talking about in combat practice, talking about the math the core of the game is based on.

The problem is, the mathmatics your using are flawed because they do not take into account all the variables that are infact present and have an impact.
Also, the "core of the game(read combat system)" isnt based on math as your presenting it to be.

the same goes for the deffence it provides, though this one is more based on player skill it still provides double the deffensive bonus of one weapon, as it should, you doubled what you are useing.

also not accurate since the methods used to fight single weapon provide a smaller target profile than fighting two weapon does.

[GM_Chris]

the weapon size thing is a throw back from carps and was included in this book even though it does not have much purpose.

I would like more character with weapons which was the entire purpose of the weapon focus warrior skill which didnt work out.

[Wyrmwrath]

The purpose, in general in a LARP, for weapon size restrictions is to limit skills that would generally only be possible with smaller less damaging weapons from beingused with two handed axes (which have great reach and are harder to block) just because the boffers are lighter than real weapons. I have always felt the FH/WH size paramaters lent itself to weapon larger than they should be in each catagory.

I would like more character with weapons which was the entire purpose of the weapon focus warrior skill which didnt work out.
_________________
Chris

more character with weapons?

do you mean more PCs with weapons, or PCs with more and different weapons?

[GM_Chris]

More skills associated with particular weapons.

Traditionally 2-handed weapons were used to disarm pikes for example. Bigger weapons do more damage than smaller ones. FH doesnt lend itself well to the more damage but there could be surge type skills that could work.

[Ark]

More skills associated with particular weapons.

i very much would like to see this, but to an extent. while i am not so fond of limiting skills to a particular weapon look (pike ) i am inclined to link them to one of the two catagories in the core rules.

catagory 1 type
-blades
-headed
-polearms (needs to just be a size or longer imo)
-etc.

catagory 2 size
-tiny
-short
-long
-hand and a half
-2 handed
-etc.

I think Weapon Spec could have worked, your gaining offense, what do you traditionally loose? (-2 combat reflexes, or -1 life point, or restricted to light armor or less, etc.) there should be choices that develop your character, do you want base damage? do you want it to the point of being weaker to have it? sounds like a barbarian.

but im glad to see i have sparked interest, and hope something cool and fun can come out of it

[Wyrmwrath]

while i am not so fond of limiting skills to a particular weapon look (pike )

A pike isnt a weapon look...its a weapon and was designed as it was to serve specific funstions like all weapons. the only reason it isnt fully translated into FH is because there isntmounted combat and ya can use your weapon to drag someone in full plate to the groud and pile on like in real war.

But to simulate the way the weapon is supposed to work, limiting a skill to that weapon type is EXACTLY what needs to be done if the GMs decide to add tricks to weapons that were designed to have special functions in war/combat. I could see a pike having the vorpal root skill for a charge time, or an effect like the Artic Blast spell. while a hammer or mace might have a stunning ability similar in to charm pacify/calm