FinalHavenLarp.com

Posted: **Sat Jul 19, 2014 6:05 pm**

its time we get down to the gritty nitty

suggested weapon size chart
naught - 1 foot = coreless throwing
1 foot - 2 foot = tiny (daggers, natural weapons)
2 foot - 3 foot = short (short swords, etc.)
3 foot - 4 foot = long (long, hand and a half, 2handed)
4 foot - max = x-long (pikes, pole arms, etc.)

as it stands now the current system is wonky (no consistency, some sizes are not listed) this one has been suggested and is easy as heck to follow as its in increments of feet, as well as brings up the size of small weapons to a SAFE combat length. (currently at best your charging half the time trying to use current tiny weapons)

also as far as shields go, can we just have a set size for large, medium, and small shields (as well as a bucker as there is one skill in the entire game that mentions them) that way it is easy for everyone to make and pick up shields on the battlefield. (currently if you pick up someone else shield you could be cheating based on size rules) it would also be easy for staff to check, you have a max size template and simple put the shield against it.

or if we are going to be complicated and base shields on a specific person, I think weapons should be brought in line with that and be based on a person to person basis (sounds silly doesn't it

) needless to say I think everyone needs to be under the exact same rules as everyone else and that its just too complicated to have mechanics based on individual people.

I recommend shields as follows (adjustments can be made obviously)

Heavy: 2 foot wide max, 3 foot tall max, 15 shield health base, increases armor category by 1. (medium becomes heavy, etc.)
Medium: removed
Light: 1 foot wide max, 1 1/5 foot tall max, 10 shield health base, does not increase armor category.

please discuss.

Posted: **Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:13 am**

its time we get down to the gritty nitty

too late...its been done and done and done...and fallen on deaf GM ears each time.

http://www.finalhavenlarp.com/phpBB2/vi ... ize#p65448

suggested weapon size chart
naught - 1 foot = coreless throwing
1 foot - 2 foot = tiny (daggers, natural weapons)
2 foot - 3 foot = short (short swords, etc.)
3 foot - 4 foot = long (long, hand and a half, 2handed)
4 foot - max = x-long (pikes, pole arms, etc.)

as it stands now the current system is wonky (no consistency, some sizes are not listed)

Your weapon size categories aren't specific enough (they need to codify grip, thrusting tip, striking surface based on type [sword/axe/mace or hammer], and overall limits)....and its been posted and suggested at least three or four times in the last 5 years. Those ones I posted before are based off guidelines, from other systems, that were actually tested for safety during LARP combat...by professionals that do that kinda thing for a living.

see the above link

this one has been suggested and is easy as heck to follow as its in increments of feet, as well as brings up the size of small weapons to a SAFE combat length.

oddly...your list doesn't include a "small" category

also as far as shields go, can we just have a set size for large, medium, and small shields (as well as a bucker as there is one skill in the entire game that mentions them) that way it is easy for everyone to make and pick up shields on the battlefield.

Nope, we would rather have the shields cover the same rough percentage of the player to make them as LARP safe, and fair as they can be without shield hooking and bashing and pinning and kicking....

(currently if you pick up someone else shield you could be cheating based on size rules) it would also be easy for staff to check, you have a max size template and simple put the shield against it.

Based on the safety checking of weapons I have seen recently, I doubt they will give doing so much priority.

or if we are going to be complicated and base shields on a specific person,

we don't, we base it on the user.....

I think weapons should be brought in line with that and be based on a person to person basis (sounds silly doesn't it )

sure as hell does, because its apples and oranges. If Travis uses my hammer it doesn't make him IMPOSSIBLE TO BE HIT...like if he used my shield. So yes, your suggestion is silly.

needless to say I think everyone needs to be under the exact same rules as everyone else and that its just too complicated to have mechanics based on individual people.

They are, everyone gets to figure the phys rep sized the same way...no taller than your shoulders while kneeling and no wider than your shoulders for non round shields. round shields can be no grater diameter than the users solar plexus when kneeling. If it wasn't that way travis could use mine and have room for a two car garage.

SEE...everyone under the same rule...

I recommend shields as follows (adjustments can be made obviously)

Heavy: 2 foot wide max, 3 foot tall max, 15 shield health base, increases armor category by 1. (medium becomes heavy, etc.)
Medium: removed

Light: 1 foot wide max, 1 1/5 foot tall max, 10 shield health base, does not increase armor category.

shields should ALWAYS increase size category (unless that restriction is lifted due to special item or if its a buckler, which should be the only 5 point shield) . I am even ok if heavy adds two levels. Shields in LARP combat are a HUGE advantage to the user.

Posted: **Sun Jul 20, 2014 6:51 am**

I don't think weapon and shield size rulings have any reason to change. Shields are fit to the person for fair game play reasons, as Kaylan said, and I feel like weapon sizes don't have anything really wrong with them, and seem pretty realistic, I would have to look over it again before I made a solid argument, but nothing is blatantly obvious.
Off Topic: I think it would be kind of boring to have super rigid weapon rules, then people would come in with mainly the same couple of weapons, and there'd be no diversity.

On a side note, y'all sassy as helllllll when you post at each other :p

Posted: **Sun Jul 20, 2014 12:02 pm**

I actually did have a small category but I changed it to "tiny" because that's how its currently written.

FH is at its core a simple system, and this has to be taken into account when designing every aspect of the system. when discussing any rules this is the first thing we have to pass, second is does the concept exist somewhere else in the system, its much more easy for consistency and clarity if everything follows the same idea. and finally its can you create it with given calls in the system, this is mostly for new calls but you have a better chance of something getting passed if it does not add a new call and simply reuses current calls to form a new skill.

shield is the only thing to act the way it does, its the only mechanic in the system to change based on the user, that means it has x amount of versions of it (x being the number of players at any given event) for obvious reasons this is not very consistent either.
shield is not a simple mechanic, as what is legal for one person is cheating for another with no changes taking place to accomplish this, simply picking up another persons shield can constitute cheating.

simply saying this is max shield size is simple, brings it in line with all other weapon rules, and removes the inconsistency and cheating that can occur with the current shield rules.

and yes weapon size can benefit one person more then another, a small person wielding dual short swords and using one defensively is going to block more of his own person then say a tall person, simply because the size covers more of his body, the only way to avoid this would be to have super strict, convoluted, and inconsistent weapon size rules. . .kinda like shield ^_^ its silly to say one thing needs to based on player size for fairness and another thing does not even though they are both combat physical representations.

as has been said a shield offers so much protection I think a max 1 foot by 1 1/5 foot size would still justify the purchase of a 20 point skill, in fact I would prefer to see all shields be smaller.

but you must remember, if a shield is small on you because your a big person, you also have more reach then a small person (your like what 7 feet tall?) so shouldn't they get a slightly longer weapon so they can compete with you fairly? you cannot have it both ways, either everything fits on a per person basis and is fair, or everything is static and fair. because the shield may cover less of you then it does me, but you have more reach then me, we are both at an advantage and disadvantage to one another, because we are under the same rules.

simplicity
consistency
fairness

-Ark

Posted: **Sun Jul 20, 2014 1:27 pm**

I actually did have a small category but I changed it to "tiny" because that's how its currently written.

I figured as much but it was more fun ta razz ya about it...

FH is at its core a simple system, and this has to be taken into account when designing every aspect of the system.

FH hasten been a simple system for year. started that way. Was that way when I first started playing. Its not now. Its not as detailed and intricate as CARPS, SHIFTED LANDS, NERO, or some others....but its getting there.

shield is the only thing to act the way it does, its the only mechanic in the system to change based on the user, that means it has x amount of versions of it (x being the number of players at any given event) for obvious reasons this is not very consistent either.

Its completely consistent, since everyone gauges shield size the same way. That, by definition, is consistent. It does not generate shield dimensions that are universal, because having it do otherwise would be unfair to one player or another. If we standardize sizes, they will be either to small for a player to be fair, or to big and therefore unsafe.

shield is not a simple mechanic, as what is legal for one person is cheating for another with no changes taking place to accomplish this, simply picking up another persons shield can constitute cheating.

soooo...don't use someone else's phys rep without ensuring it fits you. Grabbing it off the ground in combat, even with you suggested rules, could be cheating as well. In that situation it could have been discarded due to being destroyed. now you using a phys rep with no valid tag.

simply saying this is max shield size is simple, brings it in line with all other weapon rules, and removes the inconsistency and cheating that can occur with the current shield rules.

I've covered the fact that no inconsistency exists, and an even simpler rule is use your own phys rep only.

and yes weapon size can benefit one person more then another, a small person wielding dual short swords and using one defensively is going to block more of his own person then say a tall person

I get that your exaggerating to make a point, but its failing miserably. If a player like Travis or Mike grabbed my weapon, they are not at risk of having the "foes' they face need to use unsafe tactics to hit them. If they use my shield they are all but turtling and therefore fighting in an unsafe LARP manner.

as has been said a shield offers so much protection I think a max 1 foot by 1 1/5 foot size would still justify the purchase of a 20 point skill

that just supports my point, since such a shield would be nearly pointless.

because the shield may cover less of you then it does me, but you have more reach then me, we are both at an advantage and disadvantage to one another, because we are under the same rules.

Not even close. An extra in or two of reach doesn't imbalance, and create a safety issue, like a shield size that is too large due to standard sized shields.

Posted: **Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:02 pm**

you kinda picked at specific points to avoid the main point so ima re post.

you are okay with a per person shield system because some people are big and would not get as much benefit out of a shield compared to smaller people in a static system

BUT

are not okay with weapon sizes per person because tall people have a longer reach and have a range advantage over a smaller person.

you seem totally biased towards personal advantage and not a specific system, either you make everything per person so everyone has equal weapon reach and shield coverage in relation to one another. or you make everything static and give everyone various advantages and disadvantages within the system.

if your shield gets to be bigger in relation to mine because you happen to be bigger, then I think its fair that my weapon gets to be slightly longer compared to yours because you have a naturally longer reach then me, we both end up with the same amount of shield coverage and total weapon range, its only fair, complicated, but fair.

as I said you cannot pick and choose what works best for just you, it has to be fair for everyone. static or personalized, your choice.

static because its simple -Ark

Posted: **Sun Jul 20, 2014 2:13 pm**

It seems to me, as it always has, that perhaps if people spent less time considering what was personally applicable to their character, and gave more thought and consideration to what was best for the game as a whole... we might have a good system. The more chances to take out arbitrary and relative values, the better. We should either have an absolute system, or a relative one. A single instance that defies the otherwise cohesive vision of rule theory is BAD, regardless.

For instance: the wizard path and change to magic absolutely -screwed- MY character, Vaun. I supported the change, however, because it was what was best for the game to bring that system in line with the overall game mechanical system by which the rest of the skills and paths were constructed.

Posted: **Sun Jul 20, 2014 3:54 pm**

Ark, your argument that Kaylan has a bigger shield because he's a bigger dude then you, so you should get a longer weapon is silly. The reason bigger dudes (including me to an extent) have bigger shields then you is that they have more to cover, giving us a smaller shield would now put US at the disadvantage...and not just a little disadvantage, I have enough trouble covering my shoulders as is. Whereas as a small dude (which you most definitely are) is simply harder to hit, whereas a bigger person is just easier to hit in general...because...y'know there's more of them and stuff. Body percentage wise their shields should cover just as much of their body as yours does, which is why the rules work. If you give a static shield you have two problems, little people get massive bonuses and are fucking impossible to hit, which just isn't fair, and big people are stuck using shields that are too small for them and get hit all the time, which just ins't fair. Neither should be punished for their body.

Posted: **Sun Jul 20, 2014 4:40 pm**

if your bigger and require a bigger shield you have a bigger reach as well. see the Vitruvian Man
you get a bigger shield because you need to cover more, but still maintain your longer reach. so you and your smaller opponent both cover the same body size with your shield, and thus have the same legal areas to hit, but your total reach is over 6 feet with a short weapon because your bigger, and there total reach is only 5 and a 1/2 with a short weapon because there smaller.

the bigger person now holds the combat advantage because both have the same shield size relative to body, but the bigger person has a range advantage now too because the same rules that apply to shields to make them fair per person do not apply to weapons to make them fair per person and benefit bigger people.

the system as its stands now is giving mechanical advantage to bigger people = NOT FAIR

you don't get both, either have an absolute system, or a relative one, you don't get to pick and choose based on what benefits you. Grimm's post was spot on and a perfect post, and I recommend re reading it.

As it stands now the people I want to read and see this have done so.

EDIT: im also all for adding weight to shields based on category (heavy being the most, light being the least) multiplied by the size of the shield.

Posted: **Sun Jul 20, 2014 5:06 pm**

The real argument against standard shield sizes should not be that a smaller shield would give a larger person a disadvantage. The real issue is if a smaller person has a larger shield. It's not because it gives them a huge advantage, which it would, but it's not safe. A person using shield that is too big for them can cause dangerous fighting conditions. This is, as far as I know, the real reason shields are based off of the player's size.

Posted: **Sun Jul 20, 2014 9:27 pm**

you kinda picked at specific points to avoid the main point so ima re post.

I didnt select anything to avoid anything, I was simply replying to the items you posted

you are okay with a per person shield system because some people are big and would not get as much benefit out of a shield compared to smaller people in a static system
BUT
are not okay with weapon sizes per person because tall people have a longer reach and have a range advantage over a smaller person.

YUP, because they are as they are for reasons, not something arbitrary. Weapons size and construction rules are motivated by rules conformity, rules balance, and Safety(which is what amazes me that the ones you and your band were carrying were EVER allowed since they didn't even follow the rule on minimum foam thickness).
Shield size is about three things also.... play balance, combat safety, and combat safety. Even if they set static shield size, a small frame player could have a max shield that is to big to be used safely in LARP combat.
THAT is why they are based of the player. Comparing that to some small reach is laughable. any extra reach isn't going to potentially prompt a safety issue like oversized shields do.

you seem totally biased towards personal advantage and not a specific system

nope...im 1000% biased towards safety. Ultimately I don't care if things are fair and balanced from one class to another, since I don't think they are or ever can be.

Code: Select all

, either you make everything per person so everyone has equal weapon reach and shield coverage in relation to one another. or you make everything static and give everyone various advantages and disadvantages within the system.

No idea why you think that's should be the case. The rules on these separate issues are differed with cause. Approaching rules on these issues from the same paradigm would be like making the rules governing spell packet construction and character sheet design the same way just so everything is the same. Weapon phys rep specs, and shield construction specs serve different goals. hence why the path to that goal is different.

if your shield gets to be bigger in relation to mine because you happen to be bigger, then I think its fair that my weapon gets to be slightly longer compared to yours because you have a naturally longer reach then me, we both end up with the same amount of shield coverage and total weapon range, its only fair, complicated, but fair.

Thank you for illustrating you don't grasp why the shields are done the way they are. Mine doesn't get to be bigger BECAUSE I am, yours HAS to be smaller because if your using one my size, to hit you I have to wrap a hit to your back, knock you over, grab the shield, bash the shield to affect you. All these things are LARP combat UNSAFE. Top make sure that doesn't happen they have a max size based on the player to limit SMALLER players to coverage over the same body area percentage.

you keep bringing reach in like its even on the same level, and its just not.

as I said you cannot pick and choose what works best for just you, it has to be fair for everyone. static or personalized, your choice.

Anyone that thinks this is about me....is a fool or haven't been listening to my posts on the topic, ever.

I have posted OFTEN on topics that would hurt my PC, if I think the rule is broken. Just like I post on rules i think need changed or left alone that have ZERO affect on my PCs, like alchemy and wizard.

It seems to me, as it always has, that perhaps if people spent less time considering what was personally applicable to their character, and gave more thought and consideration to what was best for the game as a whole... we might have a good system.

I cant say if by people you meant the PC version of "you Brian". If that was the case see above; if not, 9 out of 10 times "people" are always going to think of themselves first.

The more chances to take out arbitrary and relative values, the better.

I can agree arbitrary is bad, but no clue why you think relative is automatically.

We should either have an absolute system, or a relative one. A single instance that defies the otherwise cohesive vision of rule theory is BAD, regardless.

Yeah, I still don't see why that is. Not every goal or problem is reached/solved the same way.

Code: Select all

 it was what was best for the game to bring that system in line with the overall game mechanical system by which the rest of the skills and paths were constructed.

I will never agree here, but that is for another thread.

if your bigger and require a bigger shield you have a bigger reach as well.

What's interesting is that you keep saying this, but its not always true. Add that on top of its irrelevant since it has ZERO to do with why shields are sized as they are and I see no grounds for your contention.

you get a bigger shield because you need to cover more, but still maintain your longer reach. so you and your smaller opponent both cover the same body size with your shield, and thus have the same legal areas to hit, but your total reach is over 6 feet with a short weapon because your bigger, and there total reach is only 5 and a 1/2 with a short weapon because there smaller.

sure...and they move faster...so now I want everyone to be weighted down so we all move with the same speed.....everyone prepare to be playing at a total of over 400 pounds from now on since I think Matt and Taki have slipped below me.

the system as its stands now is giving mechanical advantage to bigger people = NOT FAIR

I think this may well be one of the most preposterous contention to date Ark.

you don't get both, either have an absolute system, or a relative one

Why? There is no rule anywhere that states both cant be used, and no logic that states they cant both be used to solve different and unrelated issues in the best manner possible.

you don't get to pick and choose based on what benefits you.

so far only you and Grimm seem to have missed the reason behind the shield rule.

The real argument against standard shield sizes should not be that a smaller shield would give a larger person a disadvantage. The real issue is if a smaller person has a larger shield. It's not because it gives them a huge advantage, which it would, but it's not safe. A person using shield that is too big for them can cause dangerous fighting conditions. This is, as far as I know, the real reason shields are based off of the player's size.

Odd Ark...is he supporting the shield rules for his own advantage too? does he even use one as a wizard?

Posted: **Mon Jul 21, 2014 7:14 am**

Josh, I'd like to start off saying that I agree with the majority of the points that you have made...on the other threads

Though he is far more snarky than he needs to be or that is appreciated, I find myself agreeing with the underlying points of Brian's position. Both weapon sizes and shield sizes were originally written with safety as the primary concern. While weapon sizes could be revisited, as weapons are better constructed than they used to be, shields have to be based upon the relative size of the user.

Who would a large sized shield be based off of? Me? Whoever the smallest person is? What happens when somebody smaller comes to play? Do we keep reducing the size of the "large" shield? Shields need to yield valid target areas for the opponent so that they don't put themselves in dangerous positions trying to get hits on the person, such as by leading with the head to reach the ankle and so that it doesn't put the user in potentially unsafe positions just by carrying an oversized shield around.

Maybe the large sized shield isn't based off anyone; it's just small enough where anyone would be legal with it except for the smallest of people. The difference in advantage over how much of your body is covered versus the length of weapon is not close, which is just one of the reasons why shorter people should have longer weapons holds little water. We can't regulate body type. We can only make it the safest and fairest for everyone involved. If we continue to follow this path of arguments, eventually Brian will notice that your frame and size gives you an unfair speed advantage so shouldn't we make you walk--it's the only way my slow ass with my shorter weapon has a shot of hitting you...

Anyway, shield sizes are 100% a safety issue which is why the wonky guidelines are there. People should make sure that their shields fit into those guidelines--it was perceived by players and staff alike that shields may be bigger than allowed. We will be checking next event.

Keep up the threads of tough love and abuse and please everyone be respectful in their replies.

Thanks!

Posted: **Mon Jul 21, 2014 1:16 pm**

the shields have been fine so far as sizes.
Turtlng is a real problem as it has a chance to hit you in the face and feet. No good. could we smallify shields? probably. I don't think it's nessisary at this moment since it's easy to measure a shield. kneel and check.

I think if it aint broke....

weapons sizes could use some tweaking to make sure are they are consistent.

there are biggger bugs to swat right now.

Posted: **Mon Jul 21, 2014 1:58 pm**

Ovak Stonecrusher wrote:Keep up the threads of tough love and abuse
Thanks!

I yield to GM ruling, and will do!

-Ark

Posted: **Wed Jul 23, 2014 3:28 pm**

I feel like a rework of weapon sizes would be beneficial. One handed weapons are far too long in this game when compared to almost every other LARP out there. Obviously I have different recommendations on weapon sizes but I think it is MORE important to look as to how I came up with my sizes.

Averages of commercially available weapons.
Averages of about 10 other boffer LARPS. (Nero, FH, KANAR, Shifted Lands, Trials of Terra Nova, SOLAR, Knights Realms, CASTLE, Sharded, Kishar)

That should give you a pretty good starting point.

Of course I'm biased because I sell weapons and shields.

FinalHavenLarp.com

Arks thread of tough love and abuse #11 weapon/shield sizes

Arks thread of tough love and abuse #11 weapon/shield sizes

Re: Arks thread of tough love and abuse #11 weapon/shield si

Re: Arks thread of tough love and abuse #11 weapon/shield si

Re: Arks thread of tough love and abuse #11 weapon/shield si

Re: Arks thread of tough love and abuse #11 weapon/shield si

Re: Arks thread of tough love and abuse #11 weapon/shield si

Re: Arks thread of tough love and abuse #11 weapon/shield si

Re: Arks thread of tough love and abuse #11 weapon/shield si

Re: Arks thread of tough love and abuse #11 weapon/shield si

Re: Arks thread of tough love and abuse #11 weapon/shield si

Re: Arks thread of tough love and abuse #11 weapon/shield si

Re: Arks thread of tough love and abuse #11 weapon/shield si

Re: Arks thread of tough love and abuse #11 weapon/shield si

Re: Arks thread of tough love and abuse #11 weapon/shield si

Re: Arks thread of tough love and abuse #11 weapon/shield si