Multiple Attacks for Fighters

I really need to get back into the flow of posting here again. So here's a topic to start with: how many attacks per round should a fighter get in OD&D? Not talking about attacks against enemies of 1 hit die or less, but house-rules similar to AD&D's "3 attacks every 2 rounds" for 7th level fighters.

Attacks per round is an abstraction, of course, when using one-minute rounds. There are actually many attacks in one minute -- but we only roll once. If high-level fighters get multiple rolls, it's not because they make more attacks per round, but because they have a chance for more significant attacks per round.

I don't like the AD&D system, but I'm thinking of two other options:

1. Keep it as just one roll, but increase the damage: 1+1 dice of damage at level 4, 2 dice at level 8, plus another die of damage every 4 levels.
2. Fighters facing opponents of 2 dice or more get an extra attack roll if their level is twice that of their opponent, or two extra attack rolls if it's three times the opponent's level or hit dice.

Thoughts?

No Initiative Redux

I thought some more about not using initiative at all, as described in this post. Whether or not I decide to give in and dump d6-only weapons (probably won't,) I do think I've refined it even more.

(1) The side that attacks first announces actions first. If that side also surprised the other, they get to attack, then announce their next attack. If there's a tie (both sides charge, for example,) players get to choose whether to announce first or last. This order stays the same for the rest of the combat.
(2) Hasted actions all go first, then normal actions, then slowed.
(3) Actions are otherwise more or less simultaneous, even though one side announces first. If there is ever a question about interrupted actions, lowest damage goes first. If comparing damaging attacks to actions that don't do damage, roll a d6 for the action's pseudo-damage. If doing this for a spell, the pseudo-damage can't be higher than the spell's level.

There, sorted. Don't really have to bother with extra rolls or comparing Dex or anything else. I've dropped weapon length, although on a charge I would probably still resolve pole weapons first. Otherwise, all weapon length would do is allow a special action, "Move out of Reach". But that's worth a separate post.

The Simplest Initiative: Mostly None

I'm thinking of going back to using different damage rolls for different weapons.

Shocking, I know. I've been a strong supporter of 1d6 damage for every weapon because of its simplicity. But there's not just damage to consider. There's also initiative.

I scoff at most initiative systems. Honestly, why roll? Just give one side a free attack if they surprise the other, then do all the attacks at once, unless one attacker is Hasted or Slowed. If one person kills another, or attacks a spell caster, shortest weapon or lowest spell level goes first, so the victim's attack or spell may be interrupted. Only check this when it matters. (I tried always checking weapon length as my initiative system, but as simple as it was, even it had problems at the table. I sometimes forgot to ask. Fortunately, I gave the players the priority in those cases, anyways.)

But even this could be simplified. Use one of the really simple weapon damage systems: d4 for daggers, d6 for most one-hand weapons, d8 for broadswords, 2d6 for two-handers. Use the damage rolled as the effective speed. A 1-point damage roll goes first, a 12-point damage roll goes last. If checking for interrupted actions, all you need is the dice results on the table right now, or the spell level of any spell cast.

You never, ever have to keep track of initiative that way. It's very temptiing.

Crossbows... Shall Be Fired!

I’ll have more to say on the topic of random dungeon generation, but I thought I’d make a brief aside about crossbows. There’s an RPGNet forum thread about problems with the crossbow rules in D&D. I’m not going to get too far into it, but I’ll certainly note that crossbows ought to be more used, for the simple reason that, historically, it took less effort to train soldiers to use crossbows than to train someone practically from birth to be an archer.

But every scheme I’ve seen to make crossbows more attractive focusses on the numbers. Give ‘em a +2 for this, or more damage for that. That way leads to a focus on the system, an attitude I’ve ranted about before. If only there were a rule that was more like Shields Shall Be Splintered, which encourages shields to be more important without mucking around with numbers at all.

How about this:

Anyone can fire a crossbow at short range with no penalty, regardless of training.

Short and sweet. At longer ranges, crossbowmen need practice, because there’s more involved than “point and shoot”. But in the dungeon? Get extra crossbows for your hirelings, and for the M-U. Everyone can be useful.

Written with StackEdit.

Critical Damage

You know, although I've avoided damage scaled with level, I'm beginning to think I might allow it for critical hits. Fighters (and only Fighters) do double damage on a 20 that hits, or on any hit that’s 4 points above the target number. Heroes (level 4+) do triple damage, and Superheroes (level 8+) do quadruple damage. It's more restrained than the other scaled damage suggestions I've seen and keeps the extra damage from becoming routine.

It also raises the question of Fighter variants that do something else on a critical hit.

Written with StackEdit.

Weapon Damage Tables for Flails (and Others)

When I did the weaponless damage tables, I was think ahead to how they may be used for special weapons. For example, the flail. Either the two-handed grain flail or the one-handed spiked-ball-on-a-chain is both a weapon and a tool for entangling limbs or weapons of opponents. But do we need an actual table for either version?

Not really. The grain flail can use whichever table the attacker prefers: the one for two-handed melee weapons, or the Disarm Table, or the Trip Table, depending on what the attacker aims for. The spiked (military) flail is more versatile; when used to Disarm, Trip, or Immobilize a limb, look up the result on the appropriate table, but also apply the damage roll normally, looking it up on the edged (spiked) weapon table. I’d give the military flail this slight edge (ha ha) because of the longer chain, which can wrap around a limb or weapon and send the spiked ball hurtling at some part of the anatomy.

This trick can be used for any combo weapon, too. For example, there are a bunch of pole arms with different kinds of heads. Charles Taylor recently talked about the lucerne hammer, halberd, and bec de corbin, recommending treating them all as essentially the same – which, in pre-Greyhawk OD&D, means 1d6 damage. But all three can use either the polearm table or the two-handed melee weapons table, player’s choice, with the latter table being read as edged for halberd/bec de corbin or blunt for lucerne hammer.

Weapon(-Less) Damage Tables

Of course, the weapon damage tables do not need to be exclusive to weapons. Any attack that does damage could have a table linked to the damage roll… and even those that don’t do damage may use a damage roll anyways, just to use a table look-up to define an additional effect. What I’m specifically thinking of is various grappling, weaponless, or nonlethal combat maneuvers. I already use standard attack roll + 1d6 roll to see if a special effect occurs for grapple and other special attacks, so it’s really not much trouble for me to look back at my old post, maybe refactor/simplify it a bit, and redo the effects on a table.

Damage	Tackle/Takedown/Trip
1	No damage, repelled by defender. May lose footing.
2-4	No damage, may lose footing if tackling, but not if tripping.
5-6	Knock defender prone, plus attacker is prone if tackling.
7+	Knock prone, attacker remains standing. 1 point tackle damage.

A Tackle or Takedown is, basically, throwing your entire body at someone to bring you both to the ground, possibly for a pin; it relies on Strength. A Trip tries to make just the other person fall prone; it relies on Dexterity. If your relevant ability score is higher than the opponent’s ability score, you get a +1 on the “damage” roll. If your score is lower, then a result of 1 means loss of footing, even when tripping; the opponent basically outmaneuvers you. Even if the tackle or trip doesn’t knock the defender prone, it interrupts many kinds of actions, like spells.

Damage	Bearhug/Pin/Immobilize/Breakfree
1	No damage, no restraint, opponent may counterattack at +2
2-4	No damage, no restraint.
5-6	Restrain opponent/Break free from restraint.
7+	Crush ribs/Break free.

A successful attack roll on a pin means you've grabbed an opponent; the “damage” roll determines if you maintain more than a fleeting grip. A pin restrains or immobilizes one limb, to prevent using it; a bearhug partially restrains two limbs, giving a -2 to any rolls with those limbs, either to attack or to break free; it can also do 1 point of real damage if the attacker’s Strength is higher than the opponent’s, or crush ribs, which is treated as a generic crippling injury (Move 3 and -1 to actions until healed.)

An opponent trying to break free from either a pin or a bearhug doesn't make an attack roll, just the same 1d6 roll, which fails on 1-4. Until an opponent breaks free or is released, the attacker doesn't have to make an attack roll for further nonlethal attacks, just a d6 roll.

Damage	Choke
1	Opponent breaks free, may counterattack at +2
2-4	1 point of damage if Strength > Con.
5-6	Opponent passes out, coup de grace next round.
7+	Crush neck, unable to breathe.

Basically, choking is like a bearhug or pin aimed at the opponent’s neck. Potential damage is thus more likely; attacker does 1 point of damage if attacker’s Strength is higher than opponent’s Con. The real goal, though, is to make the opponent pass out from lack of air (only possible if the opponent needs to breathe.) An unconscious opponent can be killed automatically, if the attacker desires. An opponent with a crushed windpipe, assuming the need to breathe, will take 1 point of damage every round even if the attacker releases the chokehold, and will die at the end of the turn if not aided in some way.

Damage	Disarm Effect
1	Normal effect, may drop or break own weapon.
2-4	Normal effect.
5-6	Knock weapon/object out of opponent’s grip.
7+	Break cheap or weaker weapon/object, otherwise disarm.

This disarm effect assumes you are either grappling the opponent’s weapon hand or attacking the opponent’s weapon with a weapon of your own. You do not do normal damage, most of the time. More on this in a future post.

Weapon Damage Tables: Missile and Siege Weapons

Another one of the weapon damage tables for different weapon types. This time, it’s bows and slings. Although bows require two hands to use, they aren’t at all like two-handed melee weapons; they don’t get the knockback effect of a massive weapon striking with tremendous force. Really, they aren’t that different from the one-handed edged or pointed weapons, other than needing a few tweaks.

Damage	Damage Effect
1	Normal + weak/cheap bow string breaks, otherwise string weak.
2-4	Normal effect
5-6	Deep wound. Save vs. Adversity after combat or bleed to death
7+	Crippling wound, and arrow passes through, may hit another.

I decided that only a cheap bow string should break immediately. A standard bow should merely get frayed, which means the PC can either restring the bow or risk using it for a while; a second damage roll of 1 means the bow string breaks as the arrow is fired, although the arrow itself still strikes the target. We can apply the same effect to a sling, although a sling can’t be restrung, but requires much more serious repair. The stave of a bow itself won’t break as badly as a cheap sling unless the bow is really shoddy, in which case it probably also has noticeably reduced range.

But you know what? There is a kind of missile weapon that might act more like a massive, two-handed melee weapon: boulders thrown by giants or siege engines.

Damage	Boulder Damage Effect
1	Normal + weak/cheap siege mechanism breaks.
2-4	Normal effect
5-6	Knock prone/stun, plus bleeding from spiked spheres.
7+	Broken bones, Move 3 and -1 to actions until healed.

Giant-thrown boulders and siege weapon ammo are pretty much area effect weapons, anyways, so I didn’t give them the “pass through” effect of an arrow, although if you were rolling for a ballista or javelin flinger of some kind, you should feel free to apply results from either table, as you feel appropriate.

Note, also, that siege weapons and giants typically do more than one die of damage, so those broken bone results will be more likely.

Weapon Damage Tables: Spears and Pole Arms

Another one of those weapon damage tables. The two-handed melee weapons table I’ve previously posted only covered massive weapons that an attacker would swing with both hands. It excluded long spears and pole arms, which are used two-handed because of their length, not their mass.

Damage	Damage Effect
1	Normal effect + pointed weapon stuck in armor/flesh.
2	Normal effect, but smaller/weaker attackers are pushed back.
3-4	Normal effect
5-6	Severe cut from edged/pointed weapons.
7+	Crippling blow, Move 3 and -1 to actions until healed.

The main difference between this and the edged melee weapon table is the knockback effect when smaller or weaker attackers are charged by larger, stronger creatures. Note that this effect occurs on a 2, not a 1; setting a weapon for a charge does 2d6 damage, so a 2 is the lowest possible result. I didn't have room in the table for an overbearing rule, but basically any Low Strength warrior resisting a charge would roll a d6 if overrun by a large creature; on 5+, the attacker is knocked down and may take damage from large creatures.

The low damage roll effect is a stuck weapon. Low Strength characters would have to roll to see if they lose their grip; otherwise, take a round to pull the spear free. Cuts and crippling blows work the same as before.

Weapon Damage Tables: Massive Melee Weapons

Another addition to the weapon damage tables. You may have noticed that I restricted the previous two tables to one-handed melee weapons. Initially, that was just because I instinctively figured it would be interesting to differentiate the effects for two-handed weapons. But now, I’ve also decided that two-handed weapons should partially merge the effects of the other two tables. A two-handed sword has an edge, but it’s also just a massive weapon, excellent for making heroic, sweeping blows. So, here’s the two-handed melee weapons table, excluding pole arms. This is also usable by giants wielding one-handed weapons.

Damage	Damage Effect
1	Normal effect + Low Strength attackers may lose footing.
2-4	Normal effect
5-6	Knock prone/stun, plus severe cut from edged weapons.
7+	Crippled/Broken bones, Move 3 and -1 to actions until healed.

Follow the bleeding and crippled/broken bones rules from the previous posts. My two-handed weapons have +1 to hit, but do the standard 1d6 damage.

The “Low Strength” result is based on the idea that weak characters wielding two-handed mauls or great swords may, part of the time, wind up knocking themselves over trying to swing such a huge weapon. If that result popped up at my table, anyone with Strength 3 to 8 would have to roll 1d6; on a 5+, they fall down. I might increase the odds for low Dex, but high Dex would not eliminate the roll; at best, it makes falling likely only on a 6.

Giants using large weapons one-handed, of course, will not lose their footing.

Weapon Damage Tables: Blunt Weapons

A few days ago, I started thinking about weapon damage tables for different weapon types. You roll attacks and damage as normal, but look up the damage on a table for a possible special effect. The previous weapon table was for edged or pointed weapons; I probably should have started with blunt one-hand melee weapons, which is what I’ll cover in this post.

Damage	Damage Effect
1	Drop weapon unless using a strap. Otherwise, normal effect
2-4	Normal effect
5-6	Knock prone or stun one round from power of the blow.
7+	Broken bones, Move 3 and -1 to actions until healed.

Not as exciting as edged weapons, maybe, but the broken bones results would work much like crippling wounds, just without the external bleeding (yes, I realize there would be internal bleeding, but that’s not very exciting in an abstract fantasy adventure game.) A cracked skull would also cause confusion and loss of spells, while broken arms or legs would be unusable unless cared for by a leech.

Weapon Damage Tables

I had an idea that popped up in a dream a couple days ago. No, seriously. Not exactly a new idea: I dreamed I was using tables to determine weapon effects. Each weapon type had its own table. That’s been done before, but what was different here was that these were simple 1d6 tables, indexed by the damage roll.

Now, I’m not keen on a bunch of tables you’d have to use frequently, so I’ve never thought about writing tables like that. Instead, I use the damage roll as an ad-hoc test for special effects: a net immobilizes on 5+ damage, a flail or whip can disarm an opponent on 5+. But it occurs to me that I could use tables like that to introduce the exact same effects, as a teaching aide. And those who prefer tables to ad-hoc rulings could keep using the tables.

General Rules:

• 1 point of damage means something bad happens if some other condition is true.
• 2 to 4 points of damage is standard, no special features.
• 5 to 6 points of damage is a special effect.
• 7+ damage (not normally possible with standard weapons, except for spears set for a charge) may include an extra-special effect.

First example table is for one-handed melee weapons with blades or points.

Damage	Damage Effect
1	Cheap blades snap after doing damage. Otherwise, normal effect
2-4	Normal effect
5-6	Severe cut. Save vs. Adversity after combat or bleed to death
7+	Crippling wound, Move 3 and -1 to actions until healed.

The “bleeding” result would also apply to the crippling wound. I didn’t include the bleed time – it would be 1d6 hours, at my table – but bandaging or caring for the wound may stop bleeding. Crippling results are for generic torso hits; a crippling head injury would also cause confusion and loss of spells, while crippled arms or legs would be unusable unless cared for by a leech.

Many Levels, Many Damage Dice

JDJarvis asks on the post about reducing high-level fighter combat rolls to just 1d20 and 1d6: "Why not an extra damage die per level over 1?"

He don't know me very well, do he?

I'm pretty adamant about keeping damage dice under control. That's why I use the "all weapons do 1d6 damage" approach. Sure, I do allow 2d6 or 3d6 for spears and pole arms receiving a charge, and two or more dice for stuff like siege weapons or cannon. But the martial arts monk got only half a point of damage per level... for one weapon! Why on Earth would I give a full die of damage per level to anyone?

Now, I might not be too averse to one change in the combat rules for fighters. You may remember that I regularized the way I handle monster damage: creatures of more than 4 dice do the same damage as an ogre (1+2) and larger creatures do 1 die of damage per 4 hit dice. That's another reason not to let Heroes do the same amount of damage as a Purple Worm... but, conversely, it might not be too bad to make the benefit go both ways: Heroes would do the same damage as ogres, and Superheroes would do the same damage as giants.

Weapon Levels

Nope, this post is not actually related to the post on artifacts that level up. It’s a post on a possible combat house rule, even though I know my posts on combat infuriates everyone else who blogs about combat in D&D. But maybe it will be less controversial than weapon length vs. armor class, even if it kind of uses the same trick.

The crude weapon length, in feet, can be treated as the weapon’s level, by those proficient with the weapon. Fighters use either the weapon’s level or their own level, whichever is higher, when attacking. NPC mercenaries use the weapon’s level, when using one of their default weapons, or ones they are specifically trained in. Clerics, Magic-Users, and Thieves do not get this benefit. This is the main reason M-Us don’t use swords: in a 1d6-damage-only system, there’s really no benefit for an M-U to use anything other than a dagger.

An alternative would be to allow Clerics and Thieves to have the benefit only with weapons they've been trained on; mostly, the weapons they buy when first creating their characters.

There may be other factors affecting weapon use, such as minimum strength or height. But this looks like a simple way to add distinctions between weapons without a flurry of plusses or damage tables.

Reloading

Every once in a while, I think about guns in ordinary D&D. I'm not going to talk about general rules for guns in this post, because I've written about what I think about guns before and I'm not ready to review everything on that topic today. But I did have an idea about guns with a higher than normal rate of fire when using abstract one-minute rounds.

My general view is that a D&D character using a double-barreled shotgun or a revolver should still only roll one attack per round, with the number of bullets/shells used being a bonus on the attack roll. So, firing one shot from a six-shooter would be worth a +1, unloading everything would be a +6. Counting shots would be too annoying; after all, I've been considering rolling for number of arrows used by an archer at the end of a combat, rather than having the player deduct arrows as used.

So my solution is that there are only three kinds of attacks with a multi-shot gun:

1. Single shot, exactly as it sounds.
2. Half your shots, bonus = half the gun's capacity, round down (+3 for a six-shooter.)
3. All your shots, bonus = gun's full capacity (+6 for a six-shooter.)

Each of these takes one round. After one attack using all your rounds or two attacks over two minutes using less than the gun's full capacity, you have to reload to use the gun again, which takes a full minute.

The reason why this matters is because I was thinking: "What if I were running a pseudo-Western campaign based on Stephen King's Dark Tower series crossed with El Topo?" And it occurred to me that there would be a Fighter variant called "Gunslinger" which would have the reloading trick King described in The Gunslinger. Instead of having to reload immediately, Gunslingers can keep firing full loads every combat round, for a number of rounds equal to level. Thus, a 1st level Gunslinger would be about the same as any Fighter with a gun, but a 2nd level Gunslinger could hold enough bullets in the off-hand to keep firing for two rounds, reloading in the middle of firing. (Also, of course, Gunslingers would shoot multiple normal 1 HD opponents every round, but only when using the gun. A 9th level Gunslinger would be a horrible death machine in a town of ordinary citizens.)

Spear and Shield Summary

Time to summarize some thoughts on the great debate about using a weapon length/AC swap rule for melee weapons, but excluding spears from that benefit, as well as the +/-2 modifications for using certain weapons (including the spear) against a shield. In case anyone missed some posts in the debate (or the comments on those posts,) here are the links:

1. My thoughts on modifications to combat, and the responses
2. My follow-up and brief second follow-up
3. Charles Taylor responses about spears, shields and axes, and weapon reach

(Charles also has a post on confined spaces, not quite related to this exchange, but worth looking at. I had some thoughts on confined spaces a while ago, but forgot what I came up with, so I'm waiting a while to see if I can remember...)

Now, a great deal of the disagreement involved differences in the way we use words (like "block",) and possibly also they way we abstract combat (I'm a confirmed one-minute round, one roll to summarize the results of many combat actions GM, which might not be what Charles is doing.) Also, Charles seems to fall back on examples drawn from one-on-one challenges, whereas I'm thinking more in terms of melee in an enclosed space. This is why I talk about advancing/retreating and Charles talks about circling your opponent, which in my mind is something you'd never do if you're putting yourself between a crowd of goblins and your weak magician comrade. But we can skip all that; we're more concerned with the two main points of contention: (1) Does allowing two-hand swords to treat plate as AC 5 or 6, but not extended the same benefit to spears make the spear useless, or weaker than it should be? (2) Is the +2 bonus for ax/flail vs. shield illogical?

First, I'll respond to # 2, the easier point to deal with. The +2 for ax/flail, -2 for spear/bow vs. shield is, as mentioned, derived from an analysis Simon Bull did of the weapon vs. AC tables in Eldritch Wizardry and the AD&D PHB to simplify them. That's what my weapon-length swap rules were about: my own way of simplifying those tables, to produce nearly the same effect. So, although it does introduce a quirk where you can drop your shield when faced by an ax-wielding maniac and improve your odds, it does remain truer to the source. Note, though, that both I and Simon use Shields Shall Be Splintered, so the best response would not be to drop it immediately, but to sacrifice it to the first ax blow. And that's assuming you're only being attacked by people wielding axes, and not a mix of weapons.

(Incidentally, I've been reading Will McLean's blog about medieval matters, mostly because he posts excerpts of actual historical descriptions of armored combat. One of the things he found was that, historically, shields tended to be discarded after the first blow or two, mainly being used to block a thrown spear, very much as the Shields Shall Be Splintered usage would suggest.)

Anyways, Simon and I discussed the +2 ax/flail implication and came to the conclusion that reducing the mod to +1 (and -1 for spear/bow) wouldn't be too far away from the effects of the original weapon vs. AC table, but would correct this problem when using the tradition +1 defensive bonus for a shield (he actually uses a +2 bonus for the shield as a house rule, so he wouldn't have that illogical quirk.)

So, #2 is dispensed with: quirk eliminated. Now, back to #1. It's important to remember that, even if swords of 4 feet or longer get a benefit that the spear doesn't, the spear isn't any worse in terms of the attack roll than many one-hand melee weapons, and it's considerably better than a short sword when you take into account:

1. the reach,
2. any two-handed weapon bonus,
3. the fact that it can be used one or two-handed, even with a shield,
4. the fact that it can be thrown,
5. the fact that it does double damage on a charge,
6. the fact that it can be used from the second rank,
7. the fact that it can be used two-handed up close to block or push back an opponent.

In fact, spears are pretty versatile and ought to be considered as a second or third weapon option on an expedition. Just because it can't be used as an all-in-one answer to every combat situation doesn't mean the spear has been "nerfed".

In particular, I'd like to point to my comment about a spear being a "knife on a stick". There's two reasons I said that (not counting the fact that I'm not the first person to say that.) One is: the weapon-length/AC swap idea is basically using weapon length as a stand-in for weight of a melee weapon and the size of the danger zone. The other is: like a knife, the spear is best when it is aimed at a vulnerable spot ... but unlike a knife, the reach of the spear allows you to stab at an eyeslit or a weak spot in armor from a safe distance, perhaps even as the first blow in combat.

So, although Charles is definitely going to continue doing things his way and I'm going to do them my way, I hope he sees now that I'm not planning on making spears irrelevant.

Two-Handed Musings

Here's a thought about two-handed melee weapons, like the great sword. Like some people, I give a +1 attack bonus to anyone fighting with two weapons, rather than two attacks; the rationale is that you're trading the +1 defense you would get from a shield in your off-hand for a +1 to hit. Since the common argument about using "all weapons do 1d6 damage" is that it makes using a two-handed weapon a drawback rather than an advantage, why not give the same +1 attack bonus to great swords and the like?

This is better, for me, than increasing the damage of a great sword. Consider: an ogre does 1+2 damage. If you increase the damage of the great sword, you have to ask: is a man with a great sword equivalent to an ogre? If not, the most damage a great sword should do is 1+1. That's considerably less than most proponents of "variable weapon damage" would prefer.

Tangling Attacks

Obviously, we can select specific aspects of the whip as a model for a couple other unusual weapons.

Lasso/Lariat: Basically, a thrown weapon that "returns" to the lasso user. Has a longer range than a whip (50 feet is a good average.) The initial attack does no damage, but is a long-range grapple: targeting the entire body of a human(oid) allows a "bear hug", targeting an arm can partially immobilize it, targeting the neck allows choking. Targeting both legs (actually, targeting the body and allowing the loop to drop to leg level) allows a takedown; if the roper is on a horse or other mount, the victim can be dragged, doing 1 point of damage per round if the mount's Move is higher than the victim's Con.

Net: Can be thrown or used to tangle on successful attack roll. Tangling just one limb is possible, but only useful as an attempt to disarm or trip. Tangling the victim's entire body slows the victim until the net is removed, but on a 5+ (1d6) the victim is immobilized and unable to escape automatically. If the victim can draw a knife (5+ on 1d6,) the net can be cut away in 1d6 rounds.

Bolas: Mostly like a standard thrown weapon. Like a net, can be used to disarm or trip; tangling the body is mostly useless (no damage or impediment.) Aiming for the neck can cause 1d6 damage to the head if not wearing a helm and can also choke a victim; roll only once to see if the victim passes out, but otherwise the victim takes only 1 point of damage before removing the bolas.

Whip It

The way I figure it, the easiest way to implement a whip is to treat it like a thrown weapon that returns to your hand. You aren't throwing the entire whip, of course, just the tip. The length of the whip is the range. This length is not used for any weapon vs. armor comparison; whips are effectively no bigger than a short sword, for those purposes.

Whips, however, are made of leather. They are treated as edged weapons when used against bare skin, but as blunt weapons against any kind of armor. When used against metal armor, roll standard damage, but the whip only does damage on 5+, and only 1 point. If you must use a whip on a knight, you need to make a called shot at an exposed area.

Whips can also be used to grapple a limb, disarm an opponent, or strangle, using the grapple rules I posted previously.

Charles Taylor on the Spear

Those of you who were following the discussion on combat modifiers might want to know about about Charles Taylor's response on his blog. Actually, it looks like he's planning several posts; this is just the first.

I'm not going to do a point-by-point response. I'd like to see the other posts first, and I might do a summation response at the end.

I do think that "nerfed" is a bit strong of a word. Whether anyone agrees with my suggested rules or not, they don't really limit spears. I will mention, however, that two-handed weapons in general, ignoring weapon length, are a separate issue that I haven't dealt with. I briefly used the "roll 2d6 and keep the highest" damage rule for two-handed weapons. I may wind up sticking with that, but it's undecided at the moment.