A More Detailed Medieval Weapons List

[Orladdin]

True.  Somewhat unusually for an RPG his system makes shields almost too good to pass up.

And that can be its own problem.  Expect nearly everyone to take one, which means their soak will be higher than their damage bonus which, in turn, means stalemate in combat.

[ways and means]

And that can be its own problem.  Expect nearly everyone to take one, which means their soak will be higher than their damage bonus which, in turn, means stalemate in combat.

I kind of like that it allows the sort of very close very long fights you see in movies, ones that last multiple scenes over dozens of exchanges.

[DFJunkie]

I kind of like that it allows the sort of very close very long fights you see in movies, ones that last multiple scenes over dozens of exchanges.

Having played SotC I can testify to the fact that there's a fine, fine line between "long" and "dull." 

[wolff96]

If I was going to do something more like D&D in FATE...

I like your armor system, except for shields.  For those I would probably just give a +1 to defense rolls (weapons/athletics), with no armor bonus.  I would make the "block ranged attacks" a Stunt.  Not everyone can get that shield up in time to block arrows. 

For weapons, probably something even closer to the D&D system... 
Unarmed = 0.
Simple weapons (anything a peasant could pick up and reasonably use) = Weapon 1.
Martial Weapons (requires at least moderate training) = Weapon 2.
Two-Handed Weapons = Weapon 3, but incur a penalty to attack or defense based on what seems appropriate.  (Axes hit like a truck, but it takes TIME to wind up that Greataxe swing...  so -1 Weapon Skill).
Two-Weapon Fighting is still a stunt -- adds half the off-hand weapon value to damage.

Any odd weapon feature from D&D (tripping weapon, long-reach, disarm) is an Aspect on the Weapon that can be invoked for a Fate Point, as normal.  Alternatively, it lowers the threshold for applying an appropriate maneuver on the foe by 1 or gives that same 1 as a bonus on opposed checks. 

So if you want to hold off a foe with a long-reach weapon (block vs. movement), the block strength goes up by 1 if you're using a long-spear.  If you're trying to disarm someone with a sword-breaker, you get a +1 to your Weapons roll to put that Aspect on the foe. 

[Sanctaphrax]

@crusher_bob: I don't think that sounds too promising. The complexity doesn't seem to justify itself, if you know what I mean.

@wolff96: I object to a few bits of your plan.

First, blocking an arrow with a shield seems no harder than blocking a sword with a sword. Why require a stunt?

Second, making shields add to defence instead of armour makes them better. And they're already really good.

Third, there's no reason ever to use a greataxe in your plan. -1 Weapons skill ensures that the greataxe will never do more damage than a longsword.

[AstronaughtAndy]

That combat system sounds super complicated. What if you just had a "Martial Artist" power that was Channeling/Evocation reflavored for stabbing people in the face?

[Sanctaphrax]

We've got something like that as Sponsored Magic.

TRANSCENDENT SWORDSMANSHIP [-4]
Description: Legends speak of heroes who fought dragons with nothing but sword and mail. These heroes fought creatures with nearly endless power and some of them actually won. Transcendent Swordsmanship channels the power of the heroes of old and uses it to do the impossible with swords.
Sponsor: Transcendent Swordsmanship is sponsored by the spirits, or perhaps the legends, of long-dead heroes.
Agenda: Transcendent Swordsmanship drives its user to destroy evil and to prove his own worth as a hero.
Evocation: Evocations cast with Transcendent Swordsmanship often resemble air or metal evocations, and they almost always emulate sword techniques.
Thaumaturgy: Transcendent Swordsmanship allows its user to cast rituals that tap into the legends of dead heroes, as well as rituals that summon spiritual warriors.
Evothaum: Transcendent Swordsmanship does not grant the ability to use Thaumaturgy with the speed and methods of Evocation.
Extra Benefits: A character with Transcendent Swordsmanship replaces his Conviction skill with his Might skill and his Discipline skill with his Weapons skill for the purposes of spellcasting.
Note: Foci made to boost Transcendent Swordsmanship spells are almost always swords. That being said, there's nothing stopping Transcendent Swordsmanship from becoming Transcendent Axemanship in the hands of a specific character.

Is that the sort of thing you want?

Or were you looking for something narratively nonmagical?

[AstronaughtAndy]

Honestly, I was just throwing out a half thought through suggestion for crusher_bob.

But that is pretty awesome.

[wolff96]

First, blocking an arrow with a shield seems no harder than blocking a sword with a sword. Why require a stunt?

Effectively, you're moving a trapping (avoiding ranged attacks) from Athletics to Weapons.  Granted, you need a shield equipped to do it...  So it falls into a kind of grey area.  I could see it either way, but decided to go with the weaker interpretation.  Especially since, as you note below, shields are really good in this system, regardless of implementation..

Second, making shields add to defence instead of armour makes them better. And they're already really good.

You're right, it is slightly better -- you've got a slightly better chance to make attacks completely miss, rather than be a weak hit.  I guess I prefer having them make you slightly less likely to get hit rather than just shaving a point or two of damage off of a successful hit.  It also avoids the awkward language around "well, in this one case, the armor stacks".   

Third, there's no reason ever to use a greataxe in your plan. -1 Weapons skill ensures that the greataxe will never do more damage than a longsword.

That's a really good point -- I hadn't looked at it that way.  Maybe using a big weapon leaves you slightly more open (-1 defense)?  I just don't like the idea of zero downside to the biggest weapons you can find.  There's a reason every single person on a real battlefield didn't run around with the biggest weapon they could swing...

[Sanctaphrax]

Effectively, you're moving a trapping (avoiding ranged attacks) from Athletics to Weapons.  Granted, you need a shield equipped to do it...  So it falls into a kind of grey area.  I could see it either way, but decided to go with the weaker interpretation.  Especially since, as you note below, shields are really good in this system, regardless of implementation.

IIRC, you can block anything with Weapons if the GM thinks your justification sounds reasonable.

A shield sounds like a good justification to me.

You're right, it is slightly better -- you've got a slightly better chance to make attacks completely miss, rather than be a weak hit.  I guess I prefer having them make you slightly less likely to get hit rather than just shaving a point or two of damage off of a successful hit.  It also avoids the awkward language around "well, in this one case, the armor stacks".

Pretty much all armour stunts use that language. Part of the reason I represent shields with stunts.

Also, taking stress doesn't mean getting hit in-character.

That's a really good point -- I hadn't looked at it that way.  Maybe using a big weapon leaves you slightly more open (-1 defense)?  I just don't like the idea of zero downside to the biggest weapons you can find.  There's a reason every single person on a real battlefield didn't run around with the biggest weapon they could swing...

-1 Defence could work, as could having Might restrict.

As could making hands into a resource, so being able to wield a shield at the same time is a big deal. Though that doesn't apply once people get Strength.

You could also use a more complex system, with tags and special weapon effects galore. That way, decisions are less easy.

[Orladdin]

Come to think of it, can I ask why you're changing the weapon / armor values at all?  What's wrong with how they are currently set up that you have to change it?  I think this is a case of "If it's not broke, don't fix it."  The other criticisms in this thread blow that direction, too.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Come to think of it, can I ask why you're changing the weapon / armor values at all?  What's wrong with how they are currently set up that you have to change it?  I think this is a case of "If it's not broke, don't fix it."  The other criticisms in this thread blow that direction, too.

The problem of shields again.  I want them to be good, to make sense, but not to be a "must have" sort of situation.  DFRPG has no rules for shields.  Some houserule it as armor, others have it provide bonus to defense, etc.  I think having a shield and armor is better than just armor.

I guess I should break that down:

A shield plus armor should be better than armor.
A shield should be the easiest way to boost defenses.
If one isn't going to use a shield, the offensive tradeoff needs to be worth it.
If one is using a shield and armor, one shouldn't be invincible.

For a modern game, shields are something which would be a major part of a character, so requiring the investment of stunts, etc. makes sense.  Treating it on a case by case basis makes sense.  In a fantasy game set in a medieval setting, shields (and armor) are going to be ubiquitous.  The combat system needs to reflect this.

Heavy armor requires training (might and endurance, but I'd allow a stunt to mitigate the restriction).
Heavy weapons require strength to use effectively (otherwise you'd have power but be slow and thus ineffective).

The mean would be towards one-handed weapons and a shield with light armor.  So we'd be looking at Armor 3 with Weapon 3.  That's a decent balance in my book. 

Investment in defense or offense would skew it, and more easily towards defense.  Since stunts to boost damage are easy to make and common, it seems reasonable that we'd end up with a situation where skills are spent on defense and refresh on offense.  This seems in line with what we see in DFRPG.

[wolff96]

IIRC, you can block anything with Weapons if the GM thinks your justification sounds reasonable.

A shield sounds like a good justification to me.

I agree that it's a grey area.  I would still require it to be a stunt, simply because I think it would require at least some training/practice to block any type of incoming projectile.  *shrug*

Also, taking stress doesn't mean getting hit in-character.

True.  And I understand where you're coming from in using them as armor.  I just prefer to give a bonus to the block/deflection.  I think the combination of it actually making you honestly harder to hit -- you have a wall at arm's length to block and deflect strikes -- along with not inherently being to block anything (using it as a stunt, above) makes it relatively 'balanced'.

As always, personal preference and tables differ. 

-1 Defence could work, as could having Might restrict.

Nice!  I like using Might to restrict, the same way as it's used for really heavy armors.  That makes them still be the big-damage, big-hit, but means they're not an automatic 'go-to' on weaponry.

As could making hands into a resource, so being able to wield a shield at the same time is a big deal. Though that doesn't apply once people get Strength.

You could also use a more complex system, with tags and special weapon effects galore. That way, decisions are less easy.

I think that would be the big trade-off for my table -- swing a huge weapon for extra damage or protect yourself better with a shield.  Not to mention the one character that would want to dual-wield weapons, but that's already covered by stunts. 

And we already use (as a house-rule) a complex system at our table.  It boils down to "does that make sense?" for any type of weapons.  So when a character grabbed a step-ladder to beat on a foe last week, he was able to get a small bonus for tripping up foes because, well, he tangled people's legs up in the rungs... 

Side note:  Highly comedic to watch a Blampire get beaten down by a Scion with Inhuman Strength and a Stepladder, breaking the ladder at the end of the fight to get the stake necessary for the finishing blow...  It felt very "Buffy".   

[Orladdin]

Side note:  Highly comedic to watch a Blampire get beaten down by a Scion with Inhuman Strength and a Stepladder, breaking the ladder at the end of the fight to get the stake necessary for the finishing blow...  It felt very "Buffy".   

Now, that is a take-out narration!