Before picking up TOR, I recently acquired "The Burning Wheel" RPG (Gold edition), as I had read good things about its combat system. Whilst I would not want to replace TOR's combat mechanics with those of BW, I would consider introducing BW's concept of "Advantage/Disadvantage" based on relative weapon length.

I don't have the BW rules to hand so this is off the top of my head. The basic idea is that a man armed with a dagger is initially at a disadvantage vs a man armed with a spear, for the simple reason that he finds it hard to get within striking distance. To be able to strike, the dagger-armed man needs to duck or weave under the spear and get in close, at which point the tables are turned and now it's the spearman who finds it hard to strike, as his spear is too long a weapon for this range.

In TOR, much like other RPGs, there is really no difference between a short sword and a long sword other than relative damage. In reality, a short sword is just as deadly as a long sword, provided that the wielder can get in close and fight at his optimal distance.

Does anyone like the idea of making weapon length a bit more of a factor as an optional rule? If so, what would you suggest doing? It would have to seamlessly fit in with the existing TOR combat system or it wouldn't be worth adding.

Listing all TOR weapons in relative length order shouldn't be a problem. After that, there needs to be a penalty or bonus for being at the advantage or disadvantage. Finally, there needs to be a mechanism for turning the tables by getting in close (if you have the shorter weapon) or extending the range (if you have the longer weapon).

I would opt for one of the following.

Option 1: TN penalty/bonus to shorter weapon:

• Longer weapon uses the basic rules with no change.
• Shorter weapon receives a TN penalty to hit at the start of the engagement.
• A successful hit by the shorter weapon turns the tables and the shorter weapon now receives a TN bonus to hit.
• If the shorter weapon has a TN bonus (i.e. the wielder has got in close), then this is lost as soon as the longer weapon scores a hit.
• Close action (Forward or Open Stance): Test Athletics (or maybe Battle) vs TN 10 plus highest attribute of opponent. If passed, receive TN attack bonus if armed with shorter weapon.
• Leap Back action (Open or Defensive Stance): Test Athletics (or maybe Battle) vs TN 10 plus highest attribute of opponent. If passed, TN attack bonus of opponent armed with shorter weapon is lost.

Option 2: Parry bonus/penalty to longer weapon:

• Combatant with longer weapon receives a positive Parry bonus (e.g. +2) when combat is joined.
• A successful hit by the shorter weapon turn the Parry bonus into a penalty of same value (e.g. -2).
• If the longer weapon has a Parry penalty (i.e. the wielder has got in close), then this is lost as soon as the longer weapon scores a hit.
• Close action (Forward or Open Stance): Test Athletics (or maybe Battle) vs TN 10 plus highest attribute of opponent. If passed, longer weapon receives a Parry penalty.
• Leap Back action (Open or Defensive Stance): Test Athletics (or maybe Battle) vs TN 10 plus highest attribute of opponent. If passed, longer weapon removes Parry penalty and turns it into a Parry bonus.

Your observations have merit, and I think that they make a lot of sense; in a more realistic representation of combat, I think these rules have a sure place.

As i've said on numerous threads, I'm not for very many house rules on this system; especially those that complicate the system needlessly. I do play other RPGs that do have a more "grinding" combat system of rules etc, and I appreciate TOR is the opposite so many times throughout the course of the game.


That being said - if these were to be introduced at all - I see them as fitting into the game as a type of "Reward/Virtue" that is learned. Essentially a mastery over a weapon type providing the wielder slight combat advantages - the precedence of which is already set via virtues and rewards system.

Hi Geekdad

Usually I like similar modifiers in my homebrew systems, but I have some doubt adopting them in TOR. TOR is a bit less granular, more abstract about simulating combat.

That said, if you are bent on introducing such modifiers...

The main issue I see with your proposed system is the swapping of range/advantage:
“A successful hit by the shorter/longer weapon turns the tables and the shorter/longer weapon now receives a TN bonus to hit.”

Successful hits happens all too often in TOR and you can find the advantage shifting two times in a turn, making book-keeping difficult (or the whole range thing a bit schizophrenic).

Can I suggest something along this lines?

-A disadvantaged fighter rolls 1 less die on the attack roll.
-The range shift when the disadvantaged fighter land a Great or Exceptional hit.

Another issue: if you account for weapon's length, you have to determine the reach of Warg's and Spider's natural weapons...

One final nitpick: in TOR the knife's performance against armour is fairly poor, befitting the use of a such short blade at arm's length. But once “close and personal”, at grappling range, daggers and such weapons become fairly good at bypassing armour.
If you care for such things (my players usually do. They are knife-fanatics), you can have the armour roll be “fatigued” against a knife at grappling range. Beware, it's realistic but not much Tolkin-ish

but would be ideal for a Game of Thrones game.

What I see in your proposal would really work as an optional Combat task, which would be within the RAW, as applied under the Non-combat Actions example (LB 46). Any player thinking he should get an advantage for fighting with a dagger against an opponent with a spear is CRAZY unless he thinks he can get close enough to make it dangerous.

The Loremaster can offer him your suggestion in the form of a Combat task. I would change things slightly, however.

Forward Stance: Grapple Fighting
Any unarmed hero or hero armed with a dagger or short weapon engaged with an opponent wielding a long weapon (such as a longsword or spear), may attempt to close the distance to gain an advantage while fighting.

When it is his turn to take action, he should first make a roll of Athletics or Battle. The TN for the roll is equal to 10 plus his opponent's Attribute level. A great or extraordinary success is needed if the hero is engaged by multiple opponents.

If he passes, he can make an attack roll at +2 and gains a +2 Parry bonus. These bonuses remain in effect until he is hit by an opponent or suffers Endurance loss (the grapple is broken). If he fails, he may not make an attack roll this round.

Hi JamesRBrown,

Thanks for your suggestion. I'm all in favour of using the RAW to the full, such as turning this into a non-combat action, rather than having too many house rules.

However, the Parry rating in the RAW seems a strangely derived score to me as it is derived (going from memory) from just your Wits score plus a modifier for the size of shield you are holding. I guess the Wits component is supposed to represent dodging, ducking, and using your weapon to parry but that does not really do justice to the immense parrying capability of a long weapon.

The classic line-up of antiquity was the "Secutor vs Retiarius" line-up of the Roman Amphitheatre, as portrayed by these beautiful miniatures I've just found on the web:



Secutor literally means "Follower", which gives you a good idea of the nature of these line-ups. The three-pronged spear (trident) of the Retiarius would easily keep the Secutor's short sword out of reach, forcing the Secutor to look for ways of closing the range. No doubt each time he did so, the Retiarius would back up, perhaps laying his net down in the path of the advancing Secutor in an attempt to trip him. Thus the pair would inevitably end up moving around the arena, the Secutor pursuing the Retiarius in an attempt to get into sword range, and the Retiarius backing up, looking for a chance to trip his opponent and finish him with the trident.

To my mind, the Retiarius above would have a high Parry rating in TOR terminology despite lacking a shield, simply due to the length difference between the trident and the opposing short sword.

In TOR combat I would therefore think a spearman fighting a man with a dagger should have an elevated Parry score whilst he has the upper hand - and the onus is on the dagger man to pull off a non-combat action such as the Grapple you suggest (or some other title) to overcome this Parry advantage. Likewise, it is only fair that the fighter with the longer weapon have the opportunity to extend the range again using another non-combat action.

If you want to get truly realistic, fighters with longer weapons should have the option to use fighting techniques which reduce the effective length of the weapon temporarily (spear twirl for instance, or half-swording - although the latter requires a mailed fist and is thus a bit outside of the armour period of TOR).

Hi, geekdad, and well met!

I agree that weapon length should often be a significant factor in combat, especially in one-on-one duel contexts which are essentially Defensive Stance engagements (like the Retarius vs Secutor combat in your beautiful photo).
From my own combat re-enactment experience (in Regia Anglorum) I can confirm that when two equally-matched swordsmen are circling each other, feinting, blocking and parrying and looking for a narrow opening, even an inch of reach can make a tangible difference!

But in a hectic mêlée with uncertain terrain, multiple combatants and possibly other factors leading to one or more people going more aggressive, weapon length isn't so central a consideration.
So it doesn't bother me too much if a game system doesn't offer any effect for weapon length. And even in systems where I have gone Simulationist and introduced weapon length house rules,* I've preferred to save them for highlighting 'special' fights, rather than treating them as core rules to be applied for every exchange of blows in the system.

The main problem I found with introducing weapon length rules was the way players with a ninja-complex would (minmax and) expect superior Dex to allow them to invariably get into Close against wielders of long weapons for an automatic advantage.
Against less-skilled fighters (such as spearmen might often be) there is truth in this, but it comes from the difference in skill, not any inherent advantage of the ninja's tactics. Skilled spearmen -- or Retarii -- are perfectly capable of avoiding the basic errors that let people inside their guard.

(Hrm. Holding a long stick in one hand is very different from using both hands, being actually quite limited for parrying, and can be really susceptible to being beaten aside by a sword or shield. The skill here involves a lot more manoeuvring, both of yourself and of your weapon, to keep it always threatening rather than parrying as such. But the end result is still to prevent your would-be attacker from getting close enough to land a blow on you.)

So where was I? Oh yes: TOR.
TOR isn't intended as a Simulationist game for the weapons-nuts amongst us. It's deliberately not concerned with the combatants' exact s within the mêlée, just their overall attitudes to the fight ('Stances' -- which NPCs don't even get!), with presumed to be quite fluid over the roughly 30 seconds of a round.** So I don't think combatants should be locked into specific combat-ranges for the whole round, but the fight should be interpreted as ebbing and flowing in proportion to the skill-ratings of the combatants.

If someone wanted to use a Battle roll success to add a Success Die to an attack, saying that they attempt to close down their opponent and get inside their guard, that would be great roleplaying!
And I do like the idea of having weapon length differences represented by Combat Tasks (and special attacks for Adversaries), but I wouldn't personally bring them into every round of every fight.

Cheers!
--Os.

* E.g. MERP, with a modified version of the otherwise 'ninja-favouring' weapon length rules in Rolemaster Companion VI.

** This forum has seen some discussions of Engagement which I haven't followed closely, and which admittedly might have reached a different consensus on this...

So, is the idea then to give long weapons a Parry bonus? E.g., Spear +2 Parry.

That's not a bad idea (similar to Savage Worlds), but would require a rules adjustment, assigning weapons an additional statistic for Parry bonus (Savage Worlds even gives penalties to some weapons for Parry). I would suggest then, that the grappling Combat task be used to flip this advantage against the spear. As long as the grappled opponent continues to use a spear, the grapple fighter gets the +2 Parry. Of course, the target can always drop his spear and use his fists (not likely), which would negate Grapple fighting. But, you may get more brawling action this way, which we don't see much of. In fact, TOR has no explicit rule governing wrestling, etc.

If this were to happen, here are some obvious ideas based solely on weapon length...

Long Sword +1 Parry
Great Axe +1 Parry
Long-hafted Axe +2 Parry
Great Spear +2 Parry
Spear +1 Parry

Staves (if they were listed) would gain +1 Parry

An opponent with a long weapon would be harder to strike. So, to give long weapons a Parry bonus seems reasonable.

Therefore, to reverse this disadvantage, the Grapple Fighting Combat task would read like this:

Forward Stance: Grapple Fighting
Any unarmed hero or hero armed with a dagger, a short sword, or any short weapon, may attempt to grapple an opponent, making him more deadly.

When it is his turn to take action, he should first make a roll of Athletics or Battle. The TN for the roll is equal to 10 plus his opponent's Attribute level. A great or extraordinary success is needed if the hero is engaged by multiple opponents.

If he passes, he can make an attack roll at +2 and reverses any Parry bonus his target may have due to carrying a long weapon (his opponent loses the bonus and he gains it). These bonuses remain in effect until he takes Endurance damage. If his opponent drops his long weapon, the Parry bonus is also lost. While grapple fighting, the opponent also makes attacks at +2, unless he is using a long weapon.

If he fails the Athletics or Battle roll, he may not make an attack roll this round.

Thanks for your input again, JamesRBrown. However, I think it's length difference that is the key factor rather than length on its own. For example, a short sword should have a Parry bonus vs. a dagger, whilst two men armed with spears should get no Parry bonus.

You would need something like a weapon length attribute, as follows:

Shortest: Dagger
Short---: Short Sword, Axe
Average-: Sword, Great Axe
Long----: Long Sword, Spear, Long-hafted Axe
Longest-: Great Spear

If both combatants are armed with weapons of the same length, there would be no Parry bonus to either side, and no benefit from closing or extending the range through use of a non-combat action.

If the combatants are armed with different length weapons, the number of rows separating them on the table above would be the Parry bonus for the longer weapon (e.g. +2 for Long Sword vs. Axe), and non-combat actions would be useable. Perhaps a generic non-combat action could be used, called something like "Change Range" or maybe "Steal Range Advantage" (used to either shorten or extend the range depending on whether you had the shorter or longer weapon).

To keep things simple, I would also just hand the Parry bonus to the combatant who successfully changed the range, either through a lucky hit or a non-combat action. E.g in the above example, if the Axe man hit the Long Sword man, he now gets the +2 Parry bonus, as the Long Sword man is now too close to wield his sword effectively.

By the way, I can't claim any credit for the ideas in this thread - they are really just Burning Wheel re-interpreted for TOR.

[EDIT]

I've made a few alterations above, so apologies if you are reading this post.

I've just thought of one nice bonus feature of adopting the rules above. You now have a way of introducing "dirty" fighting techniques into combat. For instance, you could allow a combatant to temporarily use the butt or pommel of the weapon to attack with rather than its edge, thus mitigating against an opponent who had got inside your optimum range. Doing so reduces your opponent's Parry bonus by 2, but you only do half damage if you hit.

Geekdad, maybe there is something I don't understand in the mechanic proposed, but I feel compelled to reiterate my point:

successful hits are easy to achieve in TOR. If a simple hit is enough to negate the opponent's range advantage, one round in Forward stance is all I need to get at my preferred range.
Any Hero with Weapon Skill 3 can easily hit most opponents in Forward; once at close range the Hero can shift in Defensive stance and the poor Orc spearman is dead (opponents don't get to choose stance).

Have I missed something?

I would argue that if weapon length is a factor at all, then it would remain a factor even when two men of the same long weapons are attacking each other. By giving them both a Parry bonus, it just makes them both harder to hit. I envision two spearmen facing off and having to reach passed each others' spears just to hit. This would be more difficult as they could sweep to the right and left very easily and knock the hit off target.

OK, so in Forward Stance with skill 3 you are rolling the Feat die plus 3 Success dice against a TN of 6 + the other guy's Parry rating (modified by shield).

Say it's an Orc (Parry 3, plus 1 for shield). The TN is therefor 10. Pretty easy.

What if you are attacking with a dagger and he has a great spear? (he's a big orc). Now he gets a Parry bonus for weapon length of +3, raising the TN to 13.

I see your point. Even TN 13 is pretty easy to beat with 3 skill.

The solution would be to just ramp up the Parry bonus (+2 per length difference), so the Orc is now TN 10 + 6 = 16, a bit more of a challenge.

[EDIT]

Then again, as Forward Stance represents you being a bit reckless in the first place, maybe it's OK that you can get in close relatively easily and steal the Parry bonus. After all, if you get unlucky and miss, you are likely to be shish-kebabbed!

I think here we need to understand what the Parry bonus represents. It's not so much an actual parry but rather keeping the longer weapon between the wielder and his opponent, such that to get into range the opponent would have to literally skewer himself on his blade.

Do you remember that scene in the Lord of the Rings movie (part 1) when the Uruk Hai leader is skewered by Aragorn's spear? The Uruk pulls the spear into himself to shorten the range so he can get a last dying attack at Aragorn. Unfortunately for the Uruk, Aragorn twigs what he's up to and lops his head off before he can attack.

So, if you visualise the Parry bonus as merely keeping your opponent out of weapon reach, I think you will see what I'm getting at.

[EDIT]

Here's that Lurtz vs. Aragorn fight. It's actually Aragorn's sword he gets skewered on and he pulls it into himself as an act of defiance to get in Aragorn's face more than to attack, but hopefully the analogy holds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJf8puSIXTg

The problem is twofold: too easy for the Hero to choose the range, and too difficult for the opponent to escape from the Hero's clutch. Because the Hero choose the stance and can spend Hope to hit the opponent.

In the above example, the Orc has a +6 bonus to Parry for spear vs dagger. Target number 16 is still pretty easy for WS3 (the average roll is effectively 16). Once at close range the Hero change to defensive stance. Now the Orc has to attack against target number 18+Wits+Shield.
Barring Eye rune, the Hero is almost invulnerable.

If you ramp up the modifier to +3 per range it goes even worse: the Hero need a 19 to close the range, but he can spend Hope to raise his “to hit” roll. Then, it's Defensive Stance: the orc's target number becomes 12+9+Parry+Shield...

(BTW: the dagger is balanced by poor injury roll. The short axe becomes the real killer).

You reasoning is flawless. I can see now how Hope and Stance changes make the mechanic I was suggesting a bit of a non-starter.

I do still think though that beating someone with a spear when you only have a dagger should be pretty hard to pull off. Maybe I am over-analysing this? For simplicity's sake you could just rule that the longer weapon has the advantage, period. Even if the dagger man gets lucky and gets inside the spear man's optimum range, odds are that the spear man will be able to pull back to optimum range again, assuming he is still breathing!

A simpler variant, then, would be to give the combatant with the longer weapon a permanent Parry bonus, representing a swirling combat in which ranges change now and again but overall, the dagger man is still at the disadvantage. Instead of a Parry bonus you could also remove Success dice, representing the difficulty in achieving a hit when your opponent can keep your at arms length with the longer weapon, but it amounts to the same thing - reduced chance of hitting.

Well Geekdad,

I made my suggestion in the third post of this thread:

-A disadvantaged fighter (ie one fighting at wrong range) rolls 1 less die on the attack roll.
-The range shift when the disadvantaged fighter land a Great or Extraordinary hit.

This way no-one is ever sure he can change the range at leisure. Do you want to play the daring knife-fighter? Take your chances: at WS 3 you only have 1 chance on 6 to make a Great roll and close the range (being disadvantaged, you roll 1 less die).


Or take the simple way: “if you enter combat with an opponent with a shorter weapon, you got 1 die of Combat Advantage. You can use this die only against this opponent”.

Geekdad,

I've seen spear routinely overtaken with much shorter weapons in SCA combats; once you get inside, all you have to do is keep the spearman busy enough to not regrip for closer attacks. (and such regrips are usually less effective, anyway.)

I've never fought using spear, but I've fought against spearmen and as shieldman for spearmen.

Likewise, the greatsword, if you get in close, loses much of it's force, far more than the broadsword.

Now, it's not a chivalrous thing, but the trick to defeating a spearman is to simply survive his first attack, and rush past the spear-head, grabbing the haft if need be to prevent being hit, then skewer or bash with near impunity.

The trick is that initial rush: timing it and ensuring the spearman doesn't choke up the spear faster than you can get in to pounce.

Hi Aramis,

As you have actual combat experience of the effects of differences in weapon length (albeit for sport/re-enactment rather than the real deal) you are in an ideal position to come up with the best way to simulate this. Any ideas? I'm open to any suggestions, as I'm just going off theory and other combat rules such as Burning Wheel.

Hi Corvo,

Sorry for not commenting on your ideas until later in the thread. I do like the idea of a great or extraordinary success shifting the range. I also LOVE the idea of somehow powering up daggers when at "grapple" range. This is an aspect of weapon length house rules I have neglected so far - low damage for daggers being more of a game mechanic to represent shorter reach than a true representation of their lethality. I remember seeing a comment in a forum post once showing a picture of a massive combat knife, with the caption "d4 damage. Really?" underneath (or similar), and it's indeed true that RPGs have traditionally underpowered knives and daggers due to a simplistic simulation of how knives and daggers actually work in combat.

Really, Geekdad, it's not worth simulating the weapon lengths at the granularity given - a good spearman puts one in your face the moment you get to reach, and a bad one dies because he misses and you step inside and thump him.

BW's reach rules are a bit steep - they work, but they exagerate the difficulty differences for dramatic effect. (Yes, I do play/run BW.) The principle is sound - optimal range for a longer weapon is outside for a short one.

The advantages of reach with swung weapons are usually balanced highly with their disadvantages.

The real advantage of reach is thrusting past people. Allow a longer poking weapon to be used to add a 3rd man on a target.

Really, the only weapons at significant enough reach to be worth simulating the stab-past are pilae, javelins, spears and polearms. (Greatswords don't because they usually can't poke - but their major purpose was chopping spears and horses anyway...). And Pilae and javelins are too short to do so effectively.


The reach simulation


Very Short:≤1' Unarmed, small Dagger, Buckler
Short:1'-2.5' large dagger, Shortsword, shield
Normal:2.5'-4' "sword", axe, warhammer
long:4'-5' Greatsword, long-hafted axe, Javelin,
reach:6'-7' spear, halberd
long reach:8'+ pike

1. a reach weapon wielder may be added to a particular target in excess of the normal limit of ganging up; no more such extra reach weapons men may be added than the normal limit for the target. Spearmen can't be attacked when so striking, but take a +3 TN for the interposing bodies. (effectively, one stance bracket back.)

2. in cases of gross reach differences, such as dagger or shortsword vs spear or pike, or anything but a spear vs pike, or dagger vs greatsword, if you hit, you get a +2 protection. (If you have the long weapon, they're held at reach; if you have the short weapon, you've stepped inside).

Too late, I'm afraid.

I must once again state that for me personally the allure of TOR combat was that it was in fact so simple and does not include a bunch of if/then modifiers. This would be just another chart, game pace grinding situational rule that requires adjudication and complication.

If you were to do this - you'd then have to create another list/chart or expand it to include all the non-weapon carrying critters.

What parry rating do a wargs bite afford? What about a trolls fist? A crebains beak? a Spiders's mandibles, etc etc etc.


I do encourage nice tweaks and flavorful add-ons; but I'm more inclined to allow it to be a Vritue/Reward learned fighting style to spend xp on. That way it's always On or always Off, and there's precedence set in RAW to allow room for such customization and it's little tweaks that are earned and learned.

I am going back to my original proposal in dealing with any player who feels he can gain an advantage with a short weapon over a long weapon by getting close. Giving a parry bonus to weapons is not a good idea, especially when considering the Barding Cultural Virtue - Swordmaster (so scratch my ideas on that).

Here's how I think this would come down in an actual game. I think a player holding a dagger or a short sword facing off against a spearman might say, "I want to side-step the spear and rush at my opponent to grapple him. He won't be able to hit me as easily with the long weapon when I am right on top of him."

The Loremaster could say that maneuver will require the following task:

Forward Stance: Grapple Fighting
Any unarmed hero or hero armed with a dagger or short weapon may attempt to grapple his opponent and gain an advantage while fighting.

When it is his turn to take action, he should first make a roll of Athletics or Battle. The TN for the roll is equal to 10 plus his opponent's Attribute level. A great or extraordinary success is needed if the hero is engaged by multiple opponents.

If he passes, he can make an attack roll at +2 and gains a +4 Parry bonus if his opponent is using a long weapon. These bonuses remain in effect until he suffers Endurance loss or breaks the grapple. While grappling, enemies also gain +2 on attack rolls, unless they are using a long weapon.

If he fails, he may not make an attack roll this round.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I created a new optional Mastery called "Thwarting" for those who wish to increase their Parry rating, which you can read in my "Rules Enhancements" pdf in my signature.

Was I the only person to read the above and think.... Hey! Arms Law / Claw Law is making a come back!?!