Quarterstaff damage

Do you have a problem with dual wielding giving you an extra attack as well, then? There is an argument that this should be taken care of with a single attack roll as well because you roll for the ROUTINE, not the individual blows. You would probably get a bonus to hit in game terms, but you should probably get a bonus to AC as well because of the extra parry available.

Balance vs flavour vs realism vs not over-complicating things is a delicate art...

 

Very delicate, indeed.

If the routine is the thing, then if you roll once, two weapons should do more damage...as both would then hit, correct? I don't like that much, because it's oversimplified to me.

I've got no trouble with two swings for two weapons - and the wielder choosing whether to parry with one of them, adding to AC & foregoing an attack. Or both, and getting an even better AC bonus & skipping both attacks.

I just don't like two bladed swords & double axes & staves being lumped in with the lot. A two ended weapon should not be like wielding two weapons. Even a guy with an assault rifle has to choose one form of attack over another...buttstroke, bayonet, or launch bullets. But even with this, I can see a whole lot happening in a minute's worth of combat. But for gaming purposes, it's got to be this way at the cost of "realism", otherwise the game becomes unmanageable.

 

Ah, I think I begin to see why you don't like the rule. You're right that a lot can happen in one minute, allowing for a variety of techniques. However, one round=one minute was a 2nd edition rule. In 3rd edition, one round=six seconds. (I'm not sure if that helps or hurts your point. )

 

I'm strictly 1st Edition, but I'm familiar with how long it is in 3.5. It's a segment (1/10 of a round) in the system I like. How I meant to say that (and so obviously didn't) was for the real life combat minute. My roots are showing. Still, 6 seconds is life & death in a gunfight, and would have made the point better, I think.

 

Good thing gunplay is thin on the ground in D&D. As far as the damage one could cause in six seconds...hell, even a braindead, noob wizard should be able to whip both ends of quarterstaff around for a couple hits (or perhaps better defined as "attempts"), though I would suggest a new line of work if said wizard is being used as a direct attacker. Keep in mind that they aren't swingin' for the fence here like with a bat or club. Rather holding it in the center, using their center of gravity as a fulcrum.

And just as a point of interest, there is no reason a real fight should last any longer than a minute, thirty seconds if trained and much less if the fighters are at all aggressive, unless the combatants are just sitting back, jerking each other off with taunts and hesitation or just rolling on the ground, playing grab-ass.

...all IMHO, of course (smirk)

 

Well, certainly fights CAN be over very quickly. However, if people are wearing protective kit, fights can (and did-eg Battle of Barnet) go on until someone falls over from exhaustion. Indeed, the plate armoured swordsmen at this battle supposedly worked in "tag-teams" so as to keep going longer. Even in something like fencing, which is my thing, being evenly matched can make exchanges go on for some time. Granted, extra aggression can bring a decision one way or another much more quickly, but if you want to continue to win fights (and in RL live for any length of time) you would be well advised to learn to parry and use footwork to help defend yourself! Whilst its easy to make a small but fatal error, if your defensive techniques are good and you don't make an exploitable error on the attack, there's no reason that fights can't go on for ages.

 

I'll admit now to having not once in my life fought laddened in armour and that, yes, a fighter needs to learn how to parry, dodge, block, fade, jam and so forth if they ever expect to be a) classed as decent or b) remain living for any length of time. But as far as the if wafting off the tactic of not making errors, exploitable or no? Well, that doesn't happen. ALL fights have exploitable errors, doesn't matter the level of skill. It just whether or not one's opponent sees them and takes advantage before one corrects oneself. Especially on the attack. The weapon itself, be it a fist, knee, shin, elbow, sword, staff, even my wild and swingin' cod, is ALWAYS exposed and exploitable...and if does happen to take longer than a minute or two, well, then you are playing by too many ethical rules.

 

True, but when I say, "exploitable error" I really mean an error that your opponent has the skill to exploit before you can correct yourself. The RELATIVE level of skill certainly has a bearing on this-if you are facing an opponent (weaker or) evenly matched in terms of skill it is much less likely that an error will be successfully exploited, assuming you are being cautious and don't open yourself up in a "death or glory" attack. "Death or glory" attacks tend, in my experience, to a faster resolution with more chance and less skill involved (though skill usually still wins out, particularly if you are the defender).

If someone is wearing plate armour, your opportunities to land a telling blow/meaningfully exploit his errors are vastly reduced, and inevitably the time to finish your opponent rises. Historically they are more in danger from fatigue and heat exhaustion than they are from your weapon (until they can't continue, at which point your weapon tends to be the agent that actually does the finishing, of course )

 

One on one, I'd take a fighter in leathers and a short stabbing sword with an edge over one in plate and carrying a big, reaching weapon anyday. More maneuverable. Better reaction speed. Greater visability. Longer endurance. That fighter gets behind the tank or inside his line of attack, it's over. Now en masse, different story and generally plated warriors didn't saunter into battle, but were mounted to ride over opponents and churn them into the mud. Thing is, get the armoured guy off his horse? He's nothing but a turtle waiting for the hot pot.

How the hell did we get on this topic anyhow...

 

Not really. Full plate sized for the wearer allows a surprising amount of mobility. It's heavy, but the weight is distributed over the entire body.

Your guy in leathers with a short sword? Has to 1) Close ground with someone using a much longer weapon without getting hacked to pieces on his way in. 2) Figure out how to get his short sword through the thick steel covering his opponent's entire body without, again, getting hacked to pieces. That leather isn't going to do much against a stout blow from a long sword and he's got plenty of places his leather doesn't even protect him besides.

 

another aspect of game balance vs realisim. All armours pretty much have the same max dex, the key factor is how the hips/upperleg protction is set up and more importantly how the shoulders are protected. with the complexity of the human shoulder joint creating an effective defencive device without imparing dexterity has been an issue for as long as body armour has been around. the last thing that as a slight impact is the with of the brestplate across the chest. anyway with all these factors you could have excellent protection with little cost to dexterity. medieval kings (some not all) who spent hours a day training in their armour could run, jump, climb and crawl in their full plate armour as well as anyone. they were the fighting elite. you could take a look at modern fire fighters as a comparason, with all the gear they use (or are atleast trained with) and the level of fitness they have to have (one of my fires who's a fire fighter can run faster and further than me in his full kit O2 tank included).

there was a stage when a new fighting style developed, I tryed reading a manual of it once but as it was in old english I found it to difficult. This fighting style used blutned longswords (sharp ones were a danger to the wielder) and very part of the sword was used - even the cross guard.

when wearing a fullplate style armour only bludgeoning attacks or piercing attacks to gaps in the armour were effective. with lead to the development of some polearms, maces and greatswords (greataxes weren't really a big part of western medieval europes warfare, the were more scandinavian, ottoman and in nations of the former USSR). depending on the type of helm that was being worn visablity was or wasn't an issue.

even a professional soilder in leather wouldn't be able to match an armoured foot knight for long let alone a mounted one for very long without the right weapons (polearms/heavy weapons) and if he wasn't lucky.