Is there room for making swords behave differently: instead of being unbreakable, perhaps give them some special way to bypass armor? Despite the ever-increasing effectiveness of armor, sword did not become obsolete: other weapons like the pollaxe did become popular, and swords did change in style, but swords remained a widely used weapon among men-at-arms as long as armor was used.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v240/doorknobdeity/Armizare03.jpg

This image is from a recent translation and gloss (http://www.freelanceacademypress.com/armizare.aspx) of Fiore's Armizare, from late 14th-century Italy. Besides this, we see in Arthur repeated descriptions of knights knocking down their opponents and removing their helmets before delivering a fatal blow (currently modeled, somewhat clumsily, using the Grapple rules), and the mordhau technique, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordhau) which basically turns your sword into a big mace (by the mid-16c).

So there is sufficient literary and historical precedent to justify making this change, if you're so inclined; what would the mechanics be? A +5/-5 reflexive modifier that allows you to ignore a certain amount of armor (2d6?)? Something along the lines of the All-out Attack maneuver?

I would suggest some form of rule to mimic longsword fighting in armor, which is illustrated in many late medieval fencing manuals. Perhaps a longsword would get +d6 damage versus partial plate and plate armors when used in two hands. Otherwise it woud function as a regular sword.

Fulk

I think the suggestion for an in-between sized longsword is a good one.

One handed it would be the same as a regular sword. Two handed it should use the Greatsword skill and hit a little harder. It probably shouldn't get an extra d6 to keep the greatsword relevant. how about a d3?

Then I would introduce a new combat tactic - half-swording. Make it usable with longswords and greatswords. On a successful hit you deal an extra d6 damage versus plate armoured opponents (optionally dragons and whatnot as well).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-sword

I would like to see longswords and half-swording added somehow. The trick though is fitting it into a relatively simple combat system without getting carried away.

Another game that I have played, The Riddle of Steel, gives strong bonuses to defense for half-swording as well as increased damage versus plate armor. However doing so had some drawbacks because of weapon ranges in the game. Pendragon is more simple, so I'm not sure how to add this to Pendragon without unbalancing things some what.

The simplest thing would be to just give longswords +d6 versus plate armors when used with 2h-sword skill. This is more limited than the greatsword, which gets +d6 across all armors. It is also more or less equivalent to something like a warhammer getting +d6 versus plate. It also maintains some advantages to carrying a sword versus a warhammer etc, as time progresses--aside from just the swords don't break rule. It doesn't account for more power from using two hands though (as does your d3 suggestion).

I'm not against the idea of half-swording as a tactic, but most tactics in Pendragon have some drawback to them. So what would be the drawback for half-swording? If there is none, why not do it all the time versus an armored opponent and not actually worry about it as a tactic? Perhaps it would require a third sword related skill: half-swording?

I'm not really enamored of halfswording or any other specific tactic or stance, because 1) as Eothar said, it's not really in the spirit of the game, and 2) it's too limiting; I was thinking of a more general "hit the vulnerable points" tactic or maneuver that would be applicable to a wider variety of weapons than just the late medieval longsword.

I was thinking of a more general "hit the vulnerable points" tactic or maneuver that would be applicable to a wider variety of weapons than just the late medieval longsword.


You could just use the old double-feint maneuver from previous additions: rolls dex to half the armor protection (but not five +5 versus unarmored opponents). I always liked that maneuver because it gave a reason to place points in dex versus size.

NT

NT

Personally I'm not sure the game needs this. And I feel an extra +d6 vs plate armor suggested above is stealing the thunder from Hammer.

If I wanted to include half swording I would have it reduce plate protection to Norman Chain 10 pts level (because thats what the joints are?) - obvious drawback being you dont get the shield protection for yourself.

Personally I'm not sure the game needs this. And I feel an extra +d6 vs plate armor suggested above is stealing the thunder from Hammer.

If I wanted to include half swording I would have it reduce plate protection to Norman Chain 10 pts level (because thats what the joints are?) - obvious drawback being you dont get the shield protection for yourself.


I don't think game needs this either. I'd say that a high damage roll already represent getting a good hit in. Leave a niche for the Hammer, too. That being said, allowing half-swording with two hands making 1d6 vs. Plate might not be overly efficient, as you will forfeit your shield (which is bad). Especially if you require half-swording to be a Great Sword technique (which, IMHO, it is), thus preventing too much bang for the buck for the Sword skill.

Reducing plate armor to 10 is much more efficient than getting 1d6, by the way. 4 points from Partial, 6 from Full and 8 points from Gothic Plate (assuming you can even do that with Gothic)...

A couple of halfswording ideas:

1.) You could just give the option to use the pommel and guards as a war hammer when used two-handed (let's say your shield has been ruined).

2.) For using the guards as a hook you could maybe declare your intent to trip the player. Make a normal attack. Success means your opponent has to check Dex or be tripped to the ground while you're left standing. A crit means the opponent is thrown to the ground with no chance to save. A fumble means you're tripped instead, or drop your sword.

That said, I agree with the other posters in that it's not really necessary—the curve of 5D6 simulates that sometimes your attack will be particularly deadly (found a joint in the armor). But if you want it for color or just more tactical options...

T.

Giving the +d6 for half-swording wouldn't steal the hammer's thunder because...

(1) you can't do it on a horse.
(2) you can't do it with a shield

Historically, there was a reason that the longsword was used and that longsword techniques included specific tactics for fighting versus and opponent in armor. If you like that sort of thing...it's worth incorporating some rules for longswords. I don't think it unbalances anything because it's only useful in specific situations.

NT

So half-swording knight has same effect vs plate than one with Hammer, only theres drawback and limitation. Unless you can use sword skill without modifier to do this, I dont see this very appealing for the player.

I don't think every game mechanic has to be appealing from a min/max point of view. Some things are interesting for 'flavor' and roleplaying and cultural ideals. I like the image of the knight in plate fighting on foot with a longsword. I'm happy to give up the mechanistic bonus of having a hammer and shield for that image. Of course, just because the rule exists, doesn't mean you have to use a longsword.