The question of daggers (used in 3.5e pretty much only when being grappled) vs. longswords came up, and the fact that IRL a guy with a longsword can hit you before you close with a dagger... but once you're up against him (not grappling, but body-to-body, "sharing a square" in D&D terms) he can't do much with the longsword except maybe club down with the pommel while you hook him repeatedly in the gut. Excerpt follows:
However again we get back to the "abstract" nature of D&D combat. Just like a 5 foot step the "reach" of the weapon and wielder is an artificial construct to simplify combat enough to keep the game playable.
Right, but we do have a 10-ft. reach (most polearms and spiked chains) vs. 5-ft. reach (almost everything else) distinction, and the rule that the polearm guy who can hit you at 10 ft. can't attack you when you're only 5 ft. away from him (at least, not without feat investment and/or penalties; we'll see how the final rules address that).
I'm just wondering if it wouldn't make sense at the same time to have a 0-ft. reach category (daggers), at which a longsword-armed guy can't effectively strike at you. That would still maintain a high degree of abstraction (3 distinct bands based on 5-ft. miniatures "squares," instead of a continuous spectrum), but would add usefulness to daggers that we don't often currently see.
Thoughts?
|
Well, longswords could be used in close combat still. They'd be less effective though. I'd probably use the squeazing rules as the basis for how larger weapons would funtion at close range.
Where does the 0-ft range start? It is just with tiny and smaller of does something like a handaxe need to be in that range as well?
Where does the 0-ft range start? It is just with tiny and smaller of does something like a handaxe need to be in that range as well?
If you've practiced with tomahawks, you can get a pretty respectable reach with them; I'd be inclined to leave them alone. In fact, I'd make daggers, kukri, punching daggers, touch spells, and unarmed strikes be zero-reach (For the latter, this would explain why they draw an AoO unless you have a feat; monks and people with Improved Unarmed Strike could use unarmed strikes as 5-ft. reach or as 0-ft. reach weapons, at their option.) Short swords could also maybe function as both, much as spiked chains do for 5-ft. and 10-ft. bands now.
|
|
The problem isn't with handling 0 reach, it's in figuring out how you get into someone else's square. 3.5 handles this logic via grappling - you could, in fact, gut someone with a dagger during a grapple while they couldn't hit you back with their longsword. Pathfinder, however, has removed the "you enter the target's square" part of grappling, so I'm not sure how you would handle getting close enough to make this happen.
|
|
But the other issue is that you can use them in that close without penalty. If you're good with a tomahawk its at skin-level and arm length. So I wondered if there aren't weapons that can fill both categories of 0 - 5ft.
A sword needs some room, but any bladed weapon would work well against an unarmored foe...
Need more time to think
I'm leaving work now, respond more later
|
The main issue I have with this is that most people who have trained for actual fighting wit these weapons HAS trained on how do use them in these situations. you learn how to use the pommel of the weapon as a club in the backswing, or how to lif your arm to stab someone body to body with you (don't think you can do it? watch modern fencing - if nothing else, that would mean rapiers and elvish thinblades fit into 0ft and 5 ft catebories) things like the bladed scarf that could be whiped around or handled as a kubaton would also fit both (again look at the modern marital arts training chains, they are 3 feet of chain, plus a 5 inch rod at either end. Extend your arm and you can strike a target 6 feet away from you on average, but grasp the metal rods on the end to use them for eye gouges and other close quarters attacks) Kama are the same way.. they are usually on a rope that can be slung around (called 'flying kama') but can still puncture with no room whatsoever (instead of bringing it back roll the wrist)
Honestly I have no problem with daggers having reach as a skilled knife fighter armed with a 6-18 inch blade is plenty threatening. Further the attack roll (IMHO) represents a series of feints and strikes that culminate in either a physical hit or miss (although you could argue that HPs also represent close calls).
In my mind the dagger fighter is block, dodging and feinting with his/her dagger and when the longsword wielder swings his/her blade the dagger fighter is stepping up and thrusting into a vulnerable area (like eyes, armpits, crotch).
In contrast the longsword wielder is willing to kick, push, pommel strike, etc in order to keep the knife wielder from getting too close. If the knife wielder really wants to keep the longsword wielder from effectively using his weapon he either needs to try to disarm (if you are using disarming daggers like sais) or get in close and grapple.
When I trained in Kenpo, my Sensei taught me the correct distance to stand from my opponent. It's roughly so that his nearest target (head, chest, belly, knee, etc.) is roughly 1' past my easy reach.
When I trained in Tae Kwon Do, my intructor taught me the proper fighting distance was about 1' farther than my Kenpo Sensei had said.
When I fought in tournaments, I found most of my opponents preferred distances roughly 1'-2' past their easy reach. Execept Shotokan Karate guys. They hung back at about 4' outside my reach and they could peg me from there while I couldn't easily reach them at all. Phenomenal lunges, very suprprising the first couple times. And they were good at not letting me close the gap or keep it closed. I would say those guys had reach, even empty handed.
(none of that was grappling - my jujitsu days came later).
All of this is interesting discussion, but D&D has a myriad rules that disallow occupying the same square as another creature of your same size in melee combat. Changing some short weapons to 0' reach means we need to revamp all the rules about sharing spaces, blocking spaces, threatening spaces, moving through spaces.
Bah!
Why overcomplicate it like that?
If those Shotokan guys could peg me with a fist from 6' away, then a dagger wielding fighter can too, if he learns how.
Another thing to consider is where in your 5'x5' square are you standing? If you're using a longsword, or any other similar sized weapon, you may prefer to occupy the center of your square. If your opponent is doing the same thing, he may be near the center of his square. That means the squisy vital targets of your body are roughly 5' away from your foe's.
But if you use a dagger, you may prefer to occupy the front of your 5' space, putting you more like 3' away from your foe's vitals. That's easily reachable with just a lean or a simple lunge - without having to actually occupy your foe's defense perimiter (martial arts lingo for the D&D 5' square).
I just don't see a 0' reach rule being necessary, nor do I see it adding anything to the game but extra complexity.
I would like to point out that getting popped with a pommel of a longsword HURTS a lot... probably more than it seems like it should, plus such blows were a regular part of sword training (and for swords with pommels still are) just like basket bashing is.
|
|
I would like to point out that getting popped with a pommel of a longsword HURTS a lot... probably more than it seems like it should, plus such blows were a regular part of sword training (and for swords with pommels still are) just like basket bashing is.
agreed... and getting hit with a pommel was used as a diversion.. in the same 3 seconds (one round), as you are stumbling back from getting pommeled, a sword user can turn and cut... this being a trained continuation of the of movement of the first strike would constitute one attack. This may not be true with a Scottish claymore... but it is for an average longsword.
I guess what I'm saying is that with training (proficiency) a warrior would be able to find a way to use ever hand held weapon, including pole arms in body to body (0 ft range) situations. In fact I have had training in spear fighting while grappling (that was 10 years ago so I didn't think of it right away - it was interesting but more theory and less practice than most martial arts training I've had).
Fun stuff
Man, why do your posts always bring out the fanboy in me?
The difference your referring to is something I noticed too; it has to do with whether you're driving your strike through an opponent or lashing them with kind of a "whip" motion. (Tae Kwon Do puts a lot of emphasis on chambering and rechambering kicks)
I always had problems because I was uncomfortable with closing the distance, but I preferred to make thrusting motions. I didn't advance far in Karate, or it might have helped me compensate somewhat.
When my Sah Bum Nim switched me to Hap Ki Do it helped me to compensate by taking a more defensive stance. You can let opponents close the gap, believing that they're setting the pace, and then joint-lock or grapple at your leisure.
Interestingly, I've had the opportunity to fight people who use a number of styles; and some are very frustrating to use this technique on. Capoeristas spring to mind, because they're unpredictable. I might actually get to test out several new Capoeiristas soon, maybe even a Maestro, and I'm pretty amped about it. Karate & Muay Thai are both fast and strong, but only so-so as far as difficulty to counter. Jeet Kune Do is the one that surprises me. I would expect it to be very hard to read, but I've been very successful against it. I think it has more to do with the dependency of fighters on a given "style" more than it does with any inherent flaw in Jeet Kune Do. I'm hoping to close some flaws in my fighting by looking into a variant of Tiger Kung Fu.
And to pretend that this all has some bearing on the thread: I would say that depending on your martial arts style (whether you took a bunch of grapple feats) HtH is predominantly a 5' reach kind of deal. I'd like to see a feat that lets you get a grapple on anyone who attacks you while you're fighting defensively. (Does it already exist?)
|
|
Going to have to agree that adding in a "0" rule would bring almost nothing to the table and instead just staple another rule onto the game that doesn't really need to be there.
I'm all for trying to add LITTLE bits of realism to a game (how about options for rapier style swords to slash and longswords to run someone through which currently seems impossible >_> ) but this doesn't seem like the right way to take things.
Also, this isn't meant to deter the conversation but as an outsider looking in, this thread almost looks like a pissing contest of who knows what shaq-fu. Just saying.
Going to have to agree that adding in a "0" rule would bring almost nothing to the table and instead just staple another rule onto the game that doesn't really need to be there.
I'm all for trying to add LITTLE bits of realism to a game (how about options for rapier style swords to slash and longswords to run someone through which currently seems impossible >_> ) but this doesn't seem like the right way to take things.
Also, this isn't meant to deter the conversation but as an outsider looking in, this thread almost looks like a pissing contest of who knows what shaq-fu. Just saying.
Nayh, this is just comparing notes, the pissing contests are completely different.
Also, this isn't meant to deter the conversation but as an outsider looking in, this thread almost looks like a pissing contest of who knows what shaq-fu. Just saying.
I like the people in this thread, wouldn't piss on a one of 'em.
I do apologize for using "your" when I meant "you're".
It's bugging me but it's too late to edit...
Kuma, I like the idea of the defensive grappling...hmm...
I'm lazy. Feat it up and I'll send you an onigiri.