3.0 -> 3.5 changes

[Jilocasin]

This isn't even about these rules themselves its about the pyscology of how hatred of a particular rule can cause people to be totally irrational

Heh, maybe just a bit. Honestly neither system bugs me all that much. The system where halflings make halfling sized rapiers and humans make human sized rapiers has actually always been easier for my brain to just intuitively grasp without needing to think about it. S sized rapier = appropriate for S sized humanoid flows in my head far easier than pretty much anything else I've come across.

[NineInchNall]

I have also done this and there are several things you are conviently ignoring. First the "strip" is based on the idea that when facing a single individual you can pretty much manuver to keep yourself and your weapon in line. If you do some historical fencing there is a sidestep designed to follow exactly such a move. What you are forgetting is that fencing IS fighting. Its a system for killing people. Now modern sport fencing has dropped a lot of the less pleasant elements in favor of creating a game. However, the techniques are not lost. We have the fight books. We know that cor-a-cor fencing stoppage would have been where your instructor told you switch to wrestling. I saw an illustration in one fight book on the "proper" way to poke somebody in the eye with an index finger.

This is true. My fencing master was quite adept at demonstrating the difficulty of gaining advantage from a sidestep, the importance of close-quarters techniques, and the difficulty in using a foil or epee against even a 4-foot stick.

Guy left me with bruises all over my right side after my first epee session. Jerk.

[K]

I have also done this and there are several things you are conviently ignoring. First the "strip" is based on the idea that when facing a single individual you can pretty much manuver to keep yourself and your weapon in line. If you do some historical fencing there is a sidestep designed to follow exactly such a move. What you are forgetting is that fencing IS fighting. Its a system for killing people. Now modern sport fencing has dropped a lot of the less pleasant elements in favor of creating a game. However, the techniques are not lost. We have the fight books. We know that cor-a-cor fencing stoppage would have been where your instructor told you switch to wrestling. I saw an illustration in one fight book on the "proper" way to poke somebody in the eye with an index finger.

Also, you do see the irony of the fact that you are talking about your experience fencing, and then are admitting that fencing is vastly different from real fighting?

[NineInchNall]

I think he was pointing out that fencing as practiced is not the same as fencing entire. Of course, that's trivially true, so meh.

[souran]

You do know that in the 1600s the average lifespan was between 35 and 45? So your "old swordsman" is probably in peak physical condition.

Astonishing. You are now arguing that people the age of Brett Farve are in "peak physical condition." Because we normally associate the hight of athletic performance to 35-45......

Also that 35-45 thing is wrong. People lived to about 50-60 but earliy life death was much more common bringing the average life expectancy down. Corrected life expecatancy was 45-60.

And yeh, nobles were taller and better fed than peasants, and had the free time to actually exercise. Around 50-100 pounds of muscle is going to win you quite a few fights.

You realize this means your all your red sonja bs is just that right? By arguing that athleticism is all there is to combat then "adapatable" fighting knowledge like a war veteran cannot be more useful than collected knowledge like fencing.

This is why the legendary peasant warriors were usually blacksmiths; strength-building exercise + enough income for an adequate diet = awesome swordsman.

Um, the onlyu legendary peasant warriors who were also blacksmiths come from norse myths and blacksmithing is a high birth profession on those cultures.

As for Musashi.... he made his living setting up schools and training warriors, so of course he'd say that skill as the most important thing for a warrior. If he admitted it came down to strength and speed and good diet and only a little skill, he'd have starved to death.

Except he didn't. He was a criminal after the death of Nobunaga until much later in his life. He was a wandering adventurer/duelist. He wrote the book of 5 rings while on a goverment pension in the care of buddist monks.

And as an additional note, you should remember that his most famous duel was won with an oar. I'm sure he would find your arguments silly.

The oar was crafted to be a few inches longer than the sword used by his oppoent (who was also known for using an oversized sword) he crafted it specificaly for the purpose of defeating that one person.

I think he would find your arguement that skill is worthless misguided at best.

Again, look at the logic here: K is arguing that skill is not valuable in fighting! By his logic fighters shouldn't get +1 to hit every level because thats pointless compared to strength and speed.

But honestly, I don't care. You give up, you can win the internet for today and be totally right or whatever else it is you need. I am off to go and buy a kendo sword to take to fencing practice.

[Jilocasin]

Getting into an argument about, or hell, just discussing, "what is fighting for realz?" on a gaming message board is one of the silliest things.

[ubernoob]

Most important passage of the Book of Five Rings:

When you are even with an opponent, it is essential to keep thinking of stabbing him in the face with the tip of your sword in the intervals between the opponent's sword blows and your own sword blows. When you have the intention of stabbing your opponent in the face, he will try to get both his face and body out of the way. In the midst of battle, as soon as an opponent tries to get out of the way, you have already won. Therefore it is imperative not to forget the technique of "stabbing the face". This should be cultivated in the course of practicing martial arts.

Fact: If you stab someone in the face, they tend to die.

[K]

You do know that in the 1600s the average lifespan was between 35 and 45? So your "old swordsman" is probably in peak physical condition.

Astonishing. You are now arguing that people the age of Brett Farve are in "peak physical condition." Because we normally associate the hight of athletic performance to 35-45......

Yeh, actually. He's in the NFL and doing a job thousands of men twenty years his junior can't. Says a lot about his physical condition.

Also that 35-45 thing is wrong. People lived to about 50-60 but earliy life death was much more common bringing the average life expectancy down. Corrected life expecatancy was 45-60.

I got my figure from an academic journal. Where'd you get yours?

And yeh, nobles were taller and better fed than peasants, and had the free time to actually exercise. Around 50-100 pounds of muscle is going to win you quite a few fights.

You realize this means your all your red sonja bs is just that right? By arguing that athleticism is all there is to combat then "adapatable" fighting knowledge like a war veteran cannot be more useful than collected knowledge like fencing.

No, my argument that physical conditioning still stands. That was just a genre-appropriate way to introduce the idea. Don't be so serious, dude.

And nice false dichotomy.

This is why the legendary peasant warriors were usually blacksmiths; strength-building exercise + enough income for an adequate diet = awesome swordsman.

Um, the onlyu legendary peasant warriors who were also blacksmiths come from norse myths and blacksmithing is a high birth profession on those cultures.

What? Fertility equals skill as a warrior?

Sorry, my argument has reason on its side.

As for Musashi.... he made his living setting up schools and training warriors, so of course he'd say that skill as the most important thing for a warrior. If he admitted it came down to strength and speed and good diet and only a little skill, he'd have starved to death.

Except he didn't. He was a criminal after the death of Nobunaga until much later in his life. He was a wandering adventurer/duelist. He wrote the book of 5 rings while on a goverment pension in the care of buddist monks.

He started schools when he was 22 and 30, spent his time in monasteries most of the time, and basically did a few duels between various wars.

It's pretty hard to not see his whole career as nothing more than an endless attempt at self-promotion aimed at keeping him employed so he didn't have to beg for food at temples.

The fact that he wrote the Book of Five Rings as an old man can easily be attributed to some attempt to gain glory after he was dead.

And as an additional note, you should remember that his most famous duel was won with an oar. I'm sure he would find your arguments silly.

The oar was crafted to be a few inches longer than the sword used by his oppoent (who was also known for using an oversized sword) he crafted it specificaly for the purpose of defeating that one person.

I think he would find your arguement that skill is worthless misguided at best.

Based on accounts I have read, he ran in and hit the guy with an oar, then ran away. Not a duel, but more of a drive-by clubbing.

Heck, all of his most famous duels seem to involve him making sneak attacks and running away before people killed him for fighting dishonorably.

I done a lot of fencing in the SCA, some kendo, a lot of saber fencing, some epee fencing, and I'll tell you that a few inches is not going to win you any fight.

Again, look at the logic here: K is arguing that skill is not valuable in fighting! By his logic fighters shouldn't get +1 to hit every level because thats pointless compared to strength and speed.

In fantasy and stories, skill is hyped. This is because it's not heroic for the stronger and faster and luckier guy to win.

The illusion of control and personal achievement is super important to hero stories. This is why DnD needs it's Skill feats and School feats and +1 per levels, because DnD is a myth-simulator and not a reality simulator

But honestly, I don't care. You give up, you can win the internet for today and be totally right or whatever else it is you need. I am off to go and buy a kendo sword to take to fencing practice.

Whoo hoo!

Who are you again?

[Count Arioch the 28th]

I feel bad. The only fighting style I can do well enough is that I'm pretty good at picking up something heavy and chucking it at someone. I'm pretty accurate with a table at about 2-5 yards. then I either charge or use the distraction to make my escape, depending on the situation.

[CatharzGodfoot]

But honestly, I don't care. You give up, you can win the internet for today and be totally right or whatever else it is you need. I am off to go and buy a kendo sword to take to fencing practice.

Whoo hoo!

Who are you again?

Apparently the kind of person who puts forward a bunch of reasonable arguments which are promptly ignored by a set of internet weapon experts so that they could shit all over him and wave their combat professional penises at each other. A story as old as the internet.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

But honestly, I don't care. You give up, you can win the internet for today and be totally right or whatever else it is you need. I am off to go and buy a kendo sword to take to fencing practice.

Whoo hoo!

Who are you again?

Apparently the kind of person who puts forward a bunch of reasonable arguments which are promptly ignored by a set of internet weapon experts so that they could shit all over him and wave their combat professional penises at each other. A story as old as the internet.

They were both internet weapons experts shitting over each other's arguments and waving penises mutually.

If you picked either side in the debate, you lose.

[Zinegata]

They were both internet weapons experts shitting over each other's arguments and waving penises mutually.

If you picked either side in the debate, you lose.

*sigh*

Nope, it's one medieval weapons expert arguing with a bunch of people who'd like to think they're experts - hiding the fact that they're actually citing irrelevant tangents like food availability as opposed to addressing the main point:

Most weapons were designed to kill in a very specific way. And using a spear like a club or a katana like a rapier is much more likely to get you killed.

And this really isn't about "skill". It's really about physics.

A Katana is mainly used as a slashing weapon because it has enough bulk and strength to take the impact. Try to use a rapier like a katana and you're likely to break the rapier because it simply does not have enough mass and strength to survive the impact.

Using a Katana as a stabbing weapon is also suboptimal. Because you're much more likely to hit and do a lot of damage with a slashing motion. Your "killing surface" for the katana while slashing is the entire length of the blade. Hitting him with only part of that length will wound or even kill an enemy. By contrast, if you go into stabbing more you're limiting your killing surface to just the tip of the blade.

However, the Katana is generally heavier than a rapier. If two people of equal strength try to stab someone else using a rapier and a katana, the rapier guy will get his jab in first (and it's possibly a killing jab), simply because the damn thing is lighter. Physics doesn't give a shit about your skill - given equal force, the item with less mass will move faster.

The fact is, "weapon technique" and "weapon skill" aren't some kind of mystical mumbo jumbo based on mysterious martial arts. It's an exercise in physics - particularly how to use a particular implement in the most efficient method possible in order to maximize the chance of landing a killing blow.

Of course, lots of people also "train" for techniques that don't take physics into account (i.e. Fencing). But the fact is, if you train with a weapon and understand its physics (i.e. Musashi understanding a long oar has more fucking reach than a katana. It's a simple function of weapon length), you stand a much better chance of winning against an opponent who has not, even if they have the "better" weapon.

Now, in a fantasy world, I would say you can handwave a lot of the physics by introducing magical items. Which is why Gandalf can use a "magical" wooden staff to fight off guys with swords. Otherwise, if this fight happened in real life, the guy with the sword will simply chop the staff in half. Metal beats wood. That's physics.

[CatharzGodfoot]

Whoo hoo!

Who are you again?

Apparently the kind of person who puts forward a bunch of reasonable arguments which are promptly ignored by a set of internet weapon experts so that they could shit all over him and wave their combat professional penises at each other. A story as old as the internet.

They were both internet weapons experts shitting over each other's arguments and waving penises mutually.

If you picked either side in the debate, you lose.

I've had just about enough of your false equivalency bullshit, Mr Arioch!

Just kidding. Carry on.

[Edit] Just to clarify that opaque statement, you're right that Souran is being an internet weapons expert. What irks me is that he made a number of good points which were ignored in favor of people comparing their knives. [/Edit]

[NineInchNall]

Why can't we just have more threads of the Count versus Crissa? Those were always good for a laugh. Instead we get crap where people are all like, "All elements in this set are equivalent," and then other people are like, "Nuh uh," and then I'm like, "Les sigh."

[Zinegata]

You cannot use a two-handed sword from horseback.

You lose the argument.

That is a historical fighting style. From all over the fucking planet (except, obviously, the New World). It isn't just in art:


It's also historical. Also: fuck you. If you're going to make blanket claims like that which are easily shown to be historically false, you don't know shit.

-Username17

*facepalm*

The two handed swordsman in this picture doesn't even have a fucking saddle & stirrups.

That's not historical. That's suicide.

The saddle & stirrups are not optional if you want to fight with both hands while on a horse. Because otherwise there's no way to control the horse or keep yourself stable. That's why the fucking Mongols were so successful: They had saddles & stirrups. That's what lets them shoot composite bows while on horseback.

Frank's being an asshole.

[K]

But honestly, I don't care. You give up, you can win the internet for today and be totally right or whatever else it is you need. I am off to go and buy a kendo sword to take to fencing practice.

Whoo hoo!

Who are you again?

Apparently the kind of person who puts forward a bunch of reasonable arguments which are promptly ignored by a set of internet weapon experts so that they could shit all over him and wave their combat professional penises at each other. A story as old as the internet.

Seriously? I just see a lot of sword fetishizing and some bored people arguing against sword fetishization. I mean, Venture Brothers has a whole bit about sword guys and how they go on about their swords.

Sword guys want to believe in stories about awesome nobles and secret sword schools with killer techniques and they don't want to even imagine that those nobles might be bigger and stronger than the peasants they fought or that those "swordmasters" did sneak attacks on their enemies and called it a "duel". They really don't want to hear that "codes of honor" favor nobles and screw peasants.

They'll flip the fuck out if you say that many swords are basically interchangeable. I mean, not foil/greatsword interchangeable, but that similar blades accept similar techniques. They'll blow a gasket and talk about physics and edges even though its pretty clear that some things work with heavier blades and some work with lighter blades and when you fight with dissimilar blades some weird shit happens (see also mixing martial arts, but not MMA). Watch Rob Roy for a good movie example where the light sword fighter kills all the heavy sword guys right up until the day a heavy sword fighter grabs the light blade with his hand and hacks the guy. Sure, it's only a movie but I've seen enough SCA fights go that way to see the truth of it. I've even seen actual Olympic fencers get ganked over and over by the simple tactic of the doubleteam.

I totally understand. I went through a sword phase for a few years, and then I went though a martial arts phase. The lure of the "secret martial art" or the "perfect sword technique" is very seductive, but after a while you realize that martial arts teachers are like religious leaders: they all promise that their thing is the best because they are literally selling it. Entire mythologies are created for the purpose of getting students into paying for training.

At best, there are surprising techniques that opponents can't adapt to very quickly because their art doesn't have an answer for it that is commonly practiced. Otherwise, it's all about trade-offs of strengths and weaknesses to specific situations.

But don't tell a sword guy that.

[Zinegata]

K->

You're seriously equating "training with your weapons = better chance of survival" with "sword fetishization"?

Sorry, but you're just being an ass because you're mad that you got conned and had a "sword phase".

Weapons analysis is very much a fascinating and valid exercise. Particularly in the field of academic historical discussion. A lot of our history has been about killing. And by simply analyzing the weapons of war we get a far better picture of why history turned out one way or another.

And the truth is this: All things being equal, a soldier with proper (not theatrical) training with his weapon is much more likely to defeat an opponent with equivalent weapons. Because if anything else, training helps make a soldier more familiar with his/her weapon, allowing them to know when to stab, when to slash, and when to run.

Agincourt would not have been won, for instance, if the English did not train their bowmen to fire ten shots a minute. You can't just improvise and learn to fire ten shots a minute. You have to practice and know how your bow works.

What you're railing against, is that some people are claiming that "My Kung Fu beats all other Kung Fu!". But nobody is saying that in this thread. All that's being said is that a trained warrior is ultimately superior to an untrained one.

[K]

K->

You're seriously equating "training with your weapons = better chance of survival" with "sword fetishization"?

Sorry, but you're just being an ass because you're mad that you got conned and had a "sword phase".

Weapons analysis is very much a fascinating and valid exercise. Particularly in the field of academic historical discussion. A lot of our history has been about killing. And by simply analyzing the weapons of war we get a far better picture of why history turned out one way or another.

And the truth is this: All things being equal, a soldier with proper (not theatrical) training with his weapon is much more likely to defeat an opponent with equivalent weapons.

And that's the problem: "all things being equal." Skill only matters when you have the exact same build as your opponent and you are fighting in the same style with the same weapons and luck plays no part.

Being stronger and faster means that even when people execute textbook perfect techniques, they don't get the win because the other guy is faster or stronger. (Now, modern fencing does it's best to take strength and build out of the equation.... I mean, foil fencing is barely a sport in my opinion.) Different weapons and styles also produce trump situations (watch MMA and how it always devolves to wrestling within 30 seconds).

Everything else is fetishizing. Any serious student of military history will tell you that wars and battles are not won by whose side has a sword that is two inches longer, but by politics and logistics. Slight advantages in weapon choice mean very little (and serious weapon inequalities like bows vs rifles is so disproportionate as to be pointless to analyze).

Weapon analysis is the worse kind of wanking. Go do some actual sword-fighting and come back and talk to me. (And for the record, I enjoyed my time with the various martial arts. Met some interesting women.)

[Juton]

Has this devolved into one of those insufferable Knight vs Samurai threads? Because if you look at organized warfare it is about how groups work together, it's never about how one Viking would fight one Ninja. Training and drill made a big difference, without it the man on your right could up and run, and that dooms your cohort/phalanx/shield wall.

Training and discipline matter, not how shiny your sword is.

[hogarth]

I keep checking this thread, hoping that there will be some more discussion of 3.0 vs. 3.5. Sigh.

[Zinegata]

And that's the problem: "all things being equal." Skill only matters when you have the exact same build as your opponent and you are fighting in the same style with the same weapons and luck plays no part.

That's a load of BS and you know it.

You can't have a unit of bowmen firing ten shots per minute without training or acquiring skills. Likewise you can't have pikemen advancing in formation without developing skills. Swordsmen won't know how to penetrate phalanx formations without acquiring skills.

Weapons training isn't about giving you an edge when "all things are equal". It's about letting you know how to properly use your own weapon. And if your weapon happens to completely trump the other guy, well, the other guy is screwed.

See Agincourt again. The English won in large part because they rained arrows on the French at a rate of ten per minute. They literally blotted out the sun. It wasn't fair to the French, who had to march under the hail of arrows. But the French wouldn't be marching under that hail if the English hadn't been trained to use their bow.

And note: The weapons used on both sides were roughly equivalent. Everyone was using man-powered weapons, although the French cheated and brought some cannon. In fact, missile troops in the periods prior to Agincourt tended to get massacred by cavalry until the English trained like hell and developed a very specific doctrine.

In fact...

Being stronger and faster means that even when people execute textbook perfect techniques, they don't get the win because the other guy is faster or stronger. (Now, modern fencing does it's best to take strength and build out of the equation.... I mean, foil fencing is barely a sport in my opinion.) Different weapons and styles also produce trump situations (watch MMA and how it always devolves to wrestling within 30 seconds).

It's pretty clear that all you're talking about is the bullshit theatrical combat you trained in. One on one fights in a ring aren't the norm in real battle.

Everything else is fetishizing. Any serious student of military history will tell you that wars and battles are not won by whose side has a sword that is two inches longer, but by politics and logistics. Slight advantages in weapon choice mean very little (and serious weapon inequalities like bows vs rifles is so disproportionate as to be pointless to analyze).

Wars are often won by the side with superior logistics, but most wars do not have this huge disparity in logistical strength. In fact, the concept of "economic wars" did not emerge until the Napoleonic period.

Battles by contrast ARE decided by how long swords are. And battles DO decide the fate of nations. In fact, battlefield victories have been able to make the logistically weaker power win wars over a stronger one.

Agincourt for instance was won partly because the English literally had longer lances than the French. The French who made it to the English lines were knocked down before they could even properly fight back.

Weapon analysis is the worse kind of wanking. Go do some actual sword-fighting and come back and talk to me. (And for the record, I enjoyed my time with the various martial arts. Met some interesting women.)

Nope, I have no interest in bullshit theatrical "sword fighting" just to impress the girls. Moreover, if weapons analysis is moot, then why not historical analysis? Why not economic analysis? None of them paint the full picture of how humans fight wars, so why bother with any of them?

In short, any form of analysis can be construed as wankery.

The truth is, you don't like weapons talk. And now you're just thread-crapping. That's being an ass. So I suggest you just sit in a corner over there and let people who want to discuss weapons in the real world to do so. Instead of coming to the aid of your partner in crime who's making bullshit arguments about two-handed swordsmen on horseback... on horses without fucking saddles and stirrups.

Because many of us do like talking about shiny swords, and the discussion hasn't devolved into stupid "Which is better" debates. All that's being talked about is "What is this weapon best for?"

[Zinegata]

I keep checking this thread, hoping that there will be some more discussion of 3.0 vs. 3.5. Sigh.

No Codzilla in 3.0? XD

[RobbyPants]

I keep checking this thread, hoping that there will be some more discussion of 3.0 vs. 3.5. Sigh.

That's kind of where I'm at. I liked 3.0, but it's been about six years since I've played it. If nothing else, it's fun to discuss the reasons for various changes.

Sadly, we stopped talking about that since somewhere on the second page.

[hogarth]

No Codzilla in 3.0? XD

I know 3.0 druids didn't have Natural Spell.

Hmm...and it looks like the 3.0 Divine Power (a.k.a. 3.5 Divine Might) was a little different (it gave you enough enhancement bonus to raise your Str to 18). Righteous Might was worse, too (no Con bonus, no DR, no natural armor). Anything else that you were thinking of?

(P.S. I'm sure many of you realise it, but there's a 3.0 SRD here: http://www.dragon.ee/30srd )

[RobbyPants]

No Codzilla in 3.0? XD

I know 3.0 druids didn't have Natural Spell.

Not in core, but I'm pretty sure Natural Spell was in Masters of the Wild.

I could be wrong. I'll have to dig out my old books.