Index
General
Balance
Food
Economy
Weapons
Writing
PvP
Magic
Comments

Weapons

Diversity of Arms and Armor
Ceremonial Weapons (Shadwolf)
Balancing Existing Weapon and Armor Types
Battlefield vs. Personal Combat Weapons (Shadwolf)
Full Plate Acrobats
Controlling the Availability of Arms and Armor
Spears Rule
Maces are Not Slow
The "Adventuring Archer" Myth
About Archery (Shadwolf)
Big Weapons are Not Swung
Realism in Combat (Shadwolf)

Diversity of Arms and Armor

Weapons and armor are technological developments, no different from computers and software.  Like computers and software, they tend to get developed based on an "arms race" sort of mentality.  A new CPU comes out for the public?  There will be games developed capable of slowing down the new powerhouse to an unplayable crawl, creating a demand for a better CPU, etc. etc.  The development of weapons and armor was the same.  If no one had developed axes and falchions capable of chopping through leather and brigandine easily, there would have been no need to develop cut-resistant chain.  Fully articulated plate, and later fluted plate, was a response to crossbow bolts and the like; the arbalestier (crossbowman) itself was an improvement on the longbow archer, and would have replaced longbowmen entirely by the 15th century had the mechnaisms of the crossbow not been so expensive to manufacture.

In addition, the lack of effective communications technology prior to the 19th century meant that technological developments tended to stay regional.  The mastery of swordmaking in feudal Japan stayed right where it was, while the rest of the world putted along with their low-grade broadswords or, if they were lucky, a weapon manufactured by the master smiths of Toledo.  The Turkish-Mongol composite bow was never adopted into European technology, despite the fact that Subedei had destroyed about 80,000 Polish, Hungarian, and other troops, considered to be the best in the area, with a 20,000 man diversionary force armed with these bows, in a matter of days.  Neither does one see exotic weapons like the whip sword, patar, bagh nakh, han-kyu, etc., in the world of dark ages combat... that is, until fantasy gaming.

What does this mean for the the world of fantasy gaming?  In a typical swords and sorcery sort of milieu, weapons tables are filled to the brim with weapons of every possible description and era, and from cultures which may or not have been appropriate.  There are completely ridiculous inclusions, such as the availability of rejected weapons like the fauchard and the lucern hammer in a world that had developed the halberd.  Also included are weapons which may look cool and bizarre, but have absolutely no place on the battlefield, like the bagh nakh, kryss, etc.  Armor should technically be available based on the armor-defeating potential of weapons available at the time, yet we find a mixture of every possible form of personal protection, regardless of the fact that the "high end" weapons on the weapons tables are capable of defeating most armor types with ease.  There are exceptions, like buff coats for archers who are expected to die anyway in close combat, and maille and brigandine taken from the corpses of soldiers unfortunate enough to be wearing it when they were mercilessly killed, but a "trip to the armor store" should yield little more than the highest level of affordable personal protection available in that time and place, with a few lower end items for the cost-conscious killer.  There is simply no demand for anything else amongst the "elite" social class of "adventurers."  (This becomes apparent in games like D&D, where by second level all fighter types have bought plate mail.)

However, somebody put them in there, and so instead of repairing the damage, a designer will "tweak" weapons with arbitrary and ridiculous values for damage, speed, etc.  This leads to more inaccurate game interpretations of weapons, as one game relies primarily on the absurd tables and stats of its predecessors as source material.  Designers and developers, having implemented stupid ideas like "feathered Aztec armor" and "really little knife" in a world of articulated plate and estocs, want to give players a reason for wanting to use these inferior armor types, hence dumb ideas implemented to make it worthwhile.

As far as inferior classes of armor, the only reason an "adventurer" would have to use them include economic concerns (cannot afford to have a fitted suit of plate made for them), or dire straits (his plate set was destroyed or stolen, and that suit of brigandine can be thrown on if it's approximately the right size).  In the case of inferior or bizarre weapons, the only reason a wealthy character would have to use them would be economic or availability concerns, and in no case would a stupid weapon like a bagh nakh be carried onto the battlefield unless the player is attempting to roleplay a suicidal religious fanatic who fully expects to die horribly.

Ceremonial Weapons (Shadwolf)

Many cultures developed weapons to be used in certain rituals.  These weapons were designed to look dramatic and scary.  They were seldom designed with an eye to any actual functionality.  Battlefield weapons, on the other hand, were designed to be as cheap and functional as possible.  Thus, if a weapon looks really cool, it probably falls into the former category.  Bagh Nahk, Katars, Cestus, Kriss, Hunga Munga, two headed axes, flamboyant blades and several other weapons fall into this category.  These weapons are an exceedingly poor choice for combat.  You can add to this category weapons that have been popularized only in modern mythology and were never used for any form of combat (i.e. the whip and the grappling hook).  To give a better idea of how real weapons work, one of the most popular weapons in ship combat was the belaying pin, a short piece of wood with no spikes, knobs blades or other cool looking protrusions.

The big argument that can be brought up here goes something like "Yeah, but this is a fantasy campaign.  It's supposed to be over the top."  Well, consider this:  If your character is a professional fighter, he should act like one.  He should have some sense of what he is doing.  The truly fearsome oponent is the one with the sharp mind.  This is really what you are looking for - to be the cool guy, not the regular guy with the cool sword.

Balancing Existing Armor and Weapon Types

Okay, so let's assume that, defying all tradition in the fantasy RPG milieu, a designer has narrowed down the choices of available, practical weapons and armor to those that might logically co-exist on the battlefield together.  Starting with weapons, let's assume that you're using middle ages Europe as your model, and have narrowed down your choice of weapons to roughly the following:  dagger, falchion, shortsword, broadsword, claymore, mace, axe (the real "battle axe" which is more like a hand axe than something out of a Frazetta painting), spear, glaive (or similar simple polearm), short bow, longbow, light crossbow, and heavy crossbow.  Your possible armor types include an assortment of metallic helmets, leather (not really considered battlefield-worthy, but included along with fur and padded armor to appease the impoverished), brigandine, chain, back-and-breast plate, and fully articulated plate.  These choices and minor variations thereof provide one with a good variety of weapons to choose from, while at the same time making logical sense.

Now to make them have balanced appeal to potential customers, we must apply some of the zero sum balance concepts to the gamut of available gear.  This seems deceptively easy to do once you keep in mind the basic ideals of balancing all members of a set against each other using factors like speed, damage over time, etc., but the process becomes more and more complex depending on how realistic (and therefore complex) your combat system is.  Do you have differing effectiveness versus certain types of armor?  If so, you need to apply values for a factor like "+3 effectiveness versus chain" depending on how often a player will be likely to meet an opponent wearing chain.  Is one of your balancing factors the cost of the gear?  You cannot even consider this as a balancing factor unless you are reasonably sure you have your economy under control.  Do you have a system that efficiently compares weapon reach and entity position to give spears and polearms the advantage they should enjoy?  If not, implement one, or assign defensive bonuses to these weapons as a sloppy but almost accurate compensation.

The process of balancing requires nigh-infinite testing, and the likelihood is that you still won't have it perfect.  You can expedite the balancing act by adhering to 3 concepts:

The last bit about hiding the numbers, as it applies to balance, is a double-edged idea.  On the one hand, you give up the ability of sharp and objective players (all 3 of them) to give you charts and such showing why the broadsword is kicking everyone's ass, and concrete suggestions on how to change it.  On the other hand, if players are unaware that an axe does 3-9 and a falchion only does 2-8 (regardless of all else, players will gravitate to the highest damage numbers), you have a higher likelihood of players actually bothering to test the falchion, giving you a better overall view of weapon performance if you are diligent enough to observe.

There are some special issues to content with when dealing with items that are without doubt at the top of the list for armor and weapon choices.  Considering the varying effectiveness of the sword vs. spear vs. axe vs. whatever, the most glaring example of "historical imbalance" in the previous example is fully articulated plate vs. other armors.  Full plate gives better protection than any other armor type of its day, while affording excellent freedom of movement.  Assuming that we don't want to put all our balancing bets on cost (since we figure that the economy may be broken some day, for enough time for players to exploit), how can we deal with it?  Our game system or engine must be cohesive enough to reflect the realities of pre-gunpowder economics and combat, including such overlooked factors as long-term fatigue, encumbrance as more than a green/yellow/red line, hit location and variable effect, the effects of weather (someone in full metal plate will suffer more from heat and cold), etc.  In a relatively simple model (though still more complex than any currently marketed MMORPG model), the drawbacks of full plate may be as follows:

Keeping these considerations in mind, it is more than possible to limit the choice of practical equipment in a setting to the weapons and armor that would logically be in use simultaneously, yet provide balancing factors for each choice to insure that no one choice becomes supreme.  If there are other weapons and armor types included, such as ceremonial or purely gladiatorial equipment, it should be made clear to the players that these are not generally accepted battlefield accoutrements, and thus the referee/designer is free to assign them logical, substandard values in comparison to other weapons.  A player is then still free to charge out onto the battlefield with a trident and a huge scimitar with a jagged edge, but he should feel no surprise when some grunt with a spear impales him through the heart before he can react.

Battlefield vs. Personal Combat Weapons (Shadwolf)

One of the considerations of fantasy warfare has to be the specific role of weapons.  Some weapons were designed to be used by the individual while others were designed for use on the battlefield.  The mace, as an example was not a very effective weapon in single combat.  In essence, the mace was an optimized club.  As an individual weapon, clubs and their like were discarded fairly quickly in favor of better weapons.  With the rise of the shield wall and heavier armor types, a new weapon was needed.  The main combat was being conducted by the spearmen on either side of the wall, but this never lead to any great advantage to either side.  If you could break through the wall, however, and your troops had high speed close combat weapons, then you could quickly shatter the enemy phalanx and destroy them.  There were several contenders in this category.  The two most successful were the falchion and the axe.  Another was the mace.  The philosophy was simple:  You had all the weight at one end so a quick swing could deliver maximum force to the target.  This meant you could do enough damage to get through a shield or breastplate, but still be fast enough to get inside of a spear and kill the guy wielding it.

This raises the question as to why the sword was so popular.  The answer is simple.  A sword is almost as fast as an axe or mace and has better range.  It is also faster than a spear and has at least some range.  Spearmen will still kill swordsmen, and axemen can kill them if they can get into a close press, but the sword can fight against both to some extent.  The proper use was to keep a reserve of swordsmen behind your line.  If a breach formed in the shield wall, you could send in the swordsmen as a stopgap until you could reform the line.  If the enemy spear flanked you, they could help there too.  If cavalry got behind you and you couldn't set spears in time to stop them, the swordsmen charged in.  As a result of this, your swordsmen had to be well trained, well but lightly armored, and fast.  This meant that you were talking about elite wealthy troops.  Thus the swordsmen were the knights, Samurai, Cavaliers and the like.  In effect they were the fighter pilots.  The bombers do all the important work, but the fighters get the credit.  Same thing here - Axe and spear are your best weapons, but the guys in shiny armor with swords running up and down the field to all the hot spots are the ones that catch your eye.

Full Plate Acrobats

One of the bad ideas mentioned before in the name of "armor diversity" is the pervasive notion that plate armor turned one into a dexterity-challenged hulk who would be lucky just to raise his weapon arm.  In that same vein, chain provides less protection, so umm it must allow much greater freedom of movement, right?  Wrong.

A suit of chain was in fact typically lighter than a suit of plate (some 30 lbs. compared to around 65 lbs.), but a chain hauberk has terrible weight distribution.  All of the shirt's weight falls on the shoulders of the wearer, and on the wearer's head in the case of a hauberk with an integrated coif.  Think about wearing a jacket with 30 lbs. of lead weights hanging from it and you get the idea.  On the other hand, articulated plate is custom-produced for the wearer by a master craftsman, and weight is distributed fairly well.  Articulated plate keeps its shape in bizarre circumstances, too.  It is fully possible to do cartwheels in full plate if one is strong enough.  The same cannot be said for chain.

Controlling the Availability of Arms and Armor

There are non-cheesy methods by which game masters and designers can encourage the use of inferior types of arms and armor in a campaign without resorting to increasing their effectiveness unrealistically.  The realistic solution is to limit the availability of such items in the milieu to players, using rationales like expense, rarity of materials, difficulty to construct, requirements in social standing, etc.  This is fairly easy in a pen and paper setting, where the GM is regulating the activities of a small party of players in a world he has complete control over.  In the computer-driven game it becomes more difficult, and in an MMORPG it has not been done effectively to date.  This is because of the exploitability of a computer referee, and the inability of an MMORPG to control its economy effectively.  For now, we will focus on the MMORPG, as it is the most daunting of the environments to restrict, and its solutions may be applied piecemeal to other milieus.

The most widely-used barrier to the availability of powerful items in an MMORPG is expense.  Plate costs a lot, right?  This is also, coincidentally, the most useless concern in any MMORPG to date.  No MMORPG has ever managed to control its cash economy effectively.  If money is easy to get by killing monsters, players will repeatedly kill those monsters until they are millionaires.  If there is a craft-related way to make money, players will tailor and lumberjack for days in order to buy their keeps.  If money is just scarce all-around, players will dupe and cheat their way to riches, and the expensive advantages money will get them.  Controlling game economy is a whole other section.

Another barrier to powerful types of arms and armor craftable by player smiths is a high skill requirement.  Ditto here.  As long as players can see the numbers, they will quickly figure out how best to raise those numbers to grandmaster status or better, and then this information will be published on the web.  Shortly thereafter, someone will figure out a system for automating the process with a macro or bot, and (using Sphere as an example) you will soon have an unusually large number of clients connected who are making daggers endlessly for days.  Removing the numbers is a semi-effective barrier to this sort of nonsense, and is also covered in another section.

Requiring players to travel to some far-off location to get their hands on decent equipment is an overused and often cheesy method of arms control.  It also has a low rate of success.  In many cases, these sorts of provisos make no sense at all:  in a world where adventurers use about 12 towns as base camps, why then is all the plate mail coming out of one town?  A skilled smith capable of fitting and crafting plate or fine swords would do well to move into an area where there was no competition, or to sell his non-custom wares like claymores to travelling merchants who could then sell these items at a profit elsewhere.  (This never works either, as players will always find away to cheese their way into the cheap town, usually with magic if it is available.)  If the reason all these smiths are in one place is just because there are only one small group of smiths who can do it, then these individuals would most likely be pressed into the exclusive service of the local NPC monarch to give his troops the edge.  They would also be likely targets for kidnapping and assassination.

Worse yet, despite the fact that this "travelling to get your stuff" idea never ever works, it gets used again and again with respect to better and more unbalanced weapons and armor.  "Hey, there's this (super item) you can only get at the bottom of (some dungeon)!"  First of all, super items are bad.  (See the balance section.)  Second, what the hell are they doing at the bottom of a dungeon?  Third, it doesn't matter, as proven in EQ and AC... players will set up a camping conga-line at the spot where the crazy axe spawns, and so much for rarity.

The only conceivable methods by which this hyperinflation can be controlled are as follows:

Spears Rule

Spears have never really been given a fair shake in traditional fantasy gaming.  A spear is somehow not as romantic as the "long sword," despite the fact that it figured prominently as a heroic weapon in the mythos of many cultures, including the Norse and the Greek, two popular sources of RPG root material.  Historically, the spear was the weapon to field, starting with the Greeks (before that, the club was the primary implement of killing the other guy, while the spear was primarily for hunting).  Rows of tightly packed spearmen was a popular and standard tactic from the earliest phalanxes up through companies of Swiss pikemen and the bayonet charges of the 19th and early 20th centuries.  A spear is simple enough to put into the hands of the greenest peasant levy, and versatile enough to have entire systems of combat based around it (especially by the Chinese).  In a one-on-one fight between a spearman and a swordsman of comparable skill, the spearman is the odds-on favorite to walk away.  Yet in all forms of fantasy gaming from Dungeons and Dragons to the MMORPG systems of Asheron's Call and Ultima Online, the spear is disregarded as a decent weapon most of the time, and for good reason:  the weapon's game statictics are always lackluster, always less effective than weapons like the sword.  Why is this?

First look at the predominant advantage of the spear in realistic combat.  A spear in its simplest form is a dagger on the end of a pole.  This was a simple method of increasing the reach of the wielder, allowing him to strike at a longer distance than a dissimilarly armed opponent could counter.  The spear immediately puts an enemy with a smaller weapon on the defensive, while at the same time increasing the wielder's own defense by the virtue of being out of reach.  This is very important.  A swordsman or other enemy who wants to get to the spearman must first get past the effective range of the spear, which is daunting to say the least, as trying to slip in puts one at great risk of death or grievous injury, both paralyzing possibilities in mortal combat.  The advantage of superior reach led to longer and longer spears, eventually cumulating in the specialized awl pike at around 18 feet or so in length.

This strength becomes even more powerful when applied to mass combat.  A well disciplined line of spearmen all pointing at your line was a serious issue to contend with.  The concept of the spear phalanx was so central to mass combat that shieldbearers were enlisted to protect them.  A shieldbearer is a man whose only job is to plant a tower shield firmly into the ground in front of the spear line to keep enemies from penetrating the line.  The spear phalanx was the only tactic of its day capable of dealing effectively with a charge of heavy horse (archery could also deal significant damage to cavalry if they were not on the move yet).

The big problem with the misrepresentation of the spear in fantasy RPG's is that there are almost no systems that reflect the power of extended reach in pen and paper, and none at all in MMORPG's.  The best model of spear combat is in Shogun:  Total War, a strategy game.  Almost universally, the designers of fantasy RPG's, computer or otherwise, have a vision of dark ages melee combat that comes from watching two actors bash each other with pieces of aluminum at theme restaurants like Medieval Times.  In these cases, the winner is not the one who has a better intrinsic understanding of the attributes of his chosen weapon, he's the blond guy.

How then can the power of pole weapons be represented in simplistic engines and systems that don't track the exact x, y, z location of the striking surface?  Engines like the Turbine engine 1.0, and most certainly the UO isometric engine, have no ability to know or care about how many feet and inches an opponent is from his target.  A simple way to reflect the reach advantage in games like this is to assign defensive bonuses to the man with the spear.  The spear is, after all, primarily a defensive weapon, aimed at keeping the enemy far away from the wielder.  In a more advanced model, weapons and techniques could have "reach" parameters assigned, and defense modifiers assigned to the person with the greater reach.  A system like this would also allow for considerations like proper greatswords, pikes, and the absurdity of charging into a battle with a ceremonial punch dagger, but would represent an additional drain on resources and bandwidth, important considerations given current wide area networking technology.

Maces Are Not Slow

The historical mace was not a gigantic pole with a tremendous 20 pound ball of iron-sheeted lead at the end of it.  This was more properly a maul.  The footman's mace was actually a light weapon with all of its weight at one end.  It was designed to deliver a decent amount of energy to the target while being swung quickly.  Plus, it was extremely easy to use.

The mace has been in use since the Neolithic era, when someone figured out that a rock tied to the end of a club with sinew would be a nifty way to bash one's food source, or enemy.  It requires relatively little training to use, works decently against most types of protection, and doesn't require the wielder to worry about which way the weapon is oriented when it slams into the target.  It was popular as a hand weapon for shieldbearers backed by spearmen, in case someone got through the shield wall, and amongst cavalry, where its ease of use was appreciated while one was trying to stay mounted.

The mace, especially with developments such as the flanged head, was fairly effective against most forms of body armor, though never spectacularly so.  It did fairly well against boiled leather, cloth, and stuffed armors, although these armors were particularly well-suited to deal with impact weapons.  When flexible maille was developed as a counter to slashing weapons like the battle-ax and falchion, the mace was hardly slowed down by wire mesh.  When steel plate was used to avoid the unpleasant experience of having one's maille split by a stiletto, spear, or greatsword, the mace could still deliver a decent shock to the target, and with enough energy and a concentrated force like you would get with a flanged or spiked head, one might leave an extremely inconveniencing dent in the metal, pressuring the wearer until he could get it off, or even pulverize the bone and flesh underneath with transferred power.

Why then did the mace not remain the weapon of choice through the various eras of pre-gunpowder warfare?  Well, it was very popular, but never gained the romantic airs attributed to more aristocratic weapons like swords and lances, and it still wasn't very decent against the pre-eminent group tactic of the time, the spear phalanx.  The mace did okay against most types of personal protection, but didn't really excel against any of them, and an informed fighter would logically want to pick the right tool for the job based on what his target was wearing.  The use of the mace, or any short-handled weapon, carried with it the problem of reach disadvantage, a very important concern.  In addition, various advanced and complex treatises have been found relating to the use of weapons like the English broadsword, but to my knowledge there was no similar study of the use of the mace.  You swing, you hit.  Very straightforward and effective, but it doesn't lend itself well to fantastic notions about being a great warrior.  Nobody ever wants to be known as "Supreme Master of the Mace."

In any case, the mace of the typical fantasy game milieu perpetuates the myth that a mace is a huge, heavy, slow as all hell weapon, a label that carries with it slow speed ratings and weaknesses in game systems.  Only in a system where the effectiveness of a damage type vs. a particular type of armor can the mace really come into its own as a decent secondary weapon:  quick to swing, all-around effective, and easy to learn.

The "Adventuring Archer" Myth

The whole world loves archery, it seems, and at some point or another want to make an archer, a lone hunter who traipses through the woods and hills of his chosen milieu with little more than his bow of choice and about 14 million arrows, laying waste to the countryside.  To me, this idea has always seemed ludicrous.  I personally happen to like archery a lot, both the English and Kyudo varieties, but if I was a skilled archer and saw some guy running up to me with a dagger, I'd hightail it or grab my own dagger.  The thought of one man casually walking around a game world with a bow, fighting enemies toe-to-toe with arrows, and living is completely ridiculous.

The bow is, no doubt, an extremely useful and powerful weapon.  With the development of more powerful bows like the English longbow, the Mongolian composite, and the yumi, armor for the poor footman became thicker and stronger, as the bodkin (armor-piercing war arrow) sliced through maille even more effectively than a pick.  Even then, a good archer with a high-pull bow could send a shaft through an enemy's breastplate.  There were a lot of foot-pounds concentrated in that little spike.  However, the maximum damage you can impart to an enemy without striking a vital organ or somesuch is limited; people used to run across the field with several arrows sticking out of them, if they were lucky and brave (or stupid) enough.

The reasons the English didn't go to war with nothing but archers are many, and they're all good.  The bow took a long time to learn to use properly on the field.  It's hard.  Archers trained from childhood, and didn't do much else in the way of martial training.  They were valuable commodities.

Second, archers are demolished by anything that gets too close to them.  When an archer was confronted by a guy with an axe, two things could happen:  the archer was instantly killed, or his bow was shattered, then he was instantly killed.  Cavalry in particular was devastating to archers, and woe was the commander who let the enemy flank his archers with light or medium horse.  The best tactic for archers when faced with close quarters combat is to use the superior mobility afforded them by their lack of armor and run away as fast as possible.

Third, archers on the battlefield are used in large groups firing volleys, like musketeers.  Volley at the enemy when he's at optimal range.  This means at least enough range for the arrow to actually arch through the air (get it?  Archery) so it has maximum energy as it falls to earth.  Rip up the enemy as best you can while he's far away from you, and when he gets too close, let your infantry or heavy horse deal with things.  If your archers are fighting in close quarters with their pitiful daggers and hand axes, it's probably because you, their commander, are fleeing the field as quickly as possible and want to buy some time for yourself.

What does this mean for the fantasy RPG archer character?  Every one of these weaknesses has a direct impact on the realistic expectations an "adventuring archer" might have at the start of his career.  The proper use of the longbow or similar weapon should be extremely difficult, and unless the milieu is set in a time where technology allows for the mechanics required to manufacture a proper crossbow, one can assume that most of the character's life has been spent learning how to shoot.  An archer who tries to tank an opponent should realistically be quickly and unceremoniously destroyed.  An archer might be able to land a shot into the eye of a man 50 yards away, but when that man's pals start running for him while he fumbles to grab another arrow, he's got real problems.

There is one historical exception to the rule about archers being the meat of one's attacking forces, and this is horse archery, only ever successfully practiced by the Mongols and the early Japanese (plus some late bronze/early iron cultures like the Parthians).  Mounted archery, while extremely difficult to learn and use, was a great skirmishing tactic, with soldiers riding right across the front lines of enemy infantry, harassing them with arrows and staying at a (hopefully) safe distance.  However, the general principles are the same:  do not get close to the enemy, run away if he charges you.  For the Japanese, this meant leaving matters to your lines of ashigaru conscripts with yari; for the less territorial Mongols, they would typically feign retreat and continue pounding their opponents at a distance, only closing to finish with saber when the enemy was already beaten soundly.

Note:  It should be noted for anyone who wishes to use this as a model for their "adventuring archer" character that the Mongols used tiny recurve composite bows with a draw weight of about 160 pounds and an effective range of about 350 yards, compared to the more typical 50-60 pound pull/200ish yard range of the English longbow.  This technology was not available anywhere else in the world.  Under the genius of Temuchin/Chinggis Khan and his best generals (most notably Subedei), they utilized speed, mobility, and deception in a way the world had never even heard of.  They were considered superhuman in almost every respect by their terrified enemies.  The Mongols were an example of imbalance in real life combat, and their total dominance reflects this imbalance.  In a mixed fantasy setting, any GM or developer who decides that players can be Mongols would be required to impose very severe disadvantages to make up for this.  A historically accurate Mongol in a world of Teutonic knights might as well have a submachine gun.

Realistically speaking, then, the use of archery in a typical fantasy medieval setting should be relegated to support in group combat, or special circumstances like killing enemies across a river (who will probably hide to avoid this after shot number one).  The use of the bow is not uncommon for hunting purposes, and it stands to reason that a well-rounded "adventurer" would know how to fire one in the circumstances appropriate to archery use.  The "solo archer," then, is rightfully confined to his primary historical purpose:  hiding in a tree stand waiting for a deer to wander by.

About Archery (Shadwolf)

Archery was a devastating weapon on the battlefield, but only if used properly.  There is obviously a maximum range at which they can fight, but there is also a minimum range.  I the enemy is too close, you are not getting optimum power on you arcs.  Additionally, it is nigh impossible to pick a specific target and hit it while it's on the move in a battle.  No one who ever tried this tactic had any degree of success.  This is one of the reasons the English archers were so successful.  The English found that you did best by dropping volley after volley indiscriminately into the enemy ranks.  Once he began to close, you had to worry about hitting your own troops.  If the enemy got even a few men into the ranks of your archers, every infantryman would kill several times his number and a horsemen would resemble a scythe going through wheat.  Not only did they have the advantage over the archer in close combat, but he could not even fire back.

Of interesting historical note is the response to archery and, ultimately, to guns.  These weapons were best against heavily armored opponents.  The response was to create faster, more lightly armored troops.  These could rush in on the archers quickly with minimal losses and destroy them.  Terrain was a big issue as well.  There is an important concept known as the military crest of a hill.  If you place missile troops atop a hill, they can kill enemies at range, but anyone coming up the hill is sheltered from their fire.  The modern response is to place your troops slightly down the slope of the hill.  In the case of archers, this is often difficult to accomplish with any sort of discipline.  Gunmen can crouch or go prone with ease, but an archer has to stand on this uneven ground in some attempt at a formation.  When defending himself, he gains less advantage from the higher ground than a melee fighter would.

An archer as a solo character had additional problems.  A bow cannot be carried strung for any length of time.  Doing so weakens the arms of the bow.  Stringing one is a difficult process and cannot be accomplished in a crisis situation.  It is doubtful the enemy would stop and wait for a minute while you string your bow.  Additionally you can only fight targets that are at a significant range.  The common historical response for an archer to close combat was to throw your bow at the enemy to give you an extra second to draw a knife.  There are also several historical stories of archers attempting to use an arrow as a dagger.  Most of these stories end with a dead archer.

Big Weapons Are Not Swung

The nigh-universal image of the fantasy warrior with a greatsword is of a brawny hulk swinging a gigantic piece of metal around his head, cleaving hapless foes in two.  The UO animation for halberds is of someone holding the head over his shoulder and swinging it into the target.  As a result, these weapons have traditionally been assigned very high damage ratings because of the momentum that must have been imparted by such herculean swings, and very low speed ratings because of the effort it must have taken to lob around a giant piece of metal.

Long weapons like the greatsword and polearms were used because they offered the same advantage as a spear:  that of reach.  The greatsword in particular often lacked cutting edges altogether, and was used as a stabbing weapon.  The proper techniques associated with the use of polearms typically involved extension toward the enemy and some sort of use of the head, with relatively little movement.  The halberd, arguably the most successful of the ornate polearms, had no less than 3 distinct functions, including stabbing like a spear, hamstringing enemies like a scythe, and dismounting knights like a bill hook.  Among its purposes was not to be swung like a giant battleaxe.

The only way to accurately reflect the advantage of proper large weapon technique in a game setting is the same as for the use of the spear:  defense bonuses for the wielder.  This can be somewhat balanced by the consideration that since the weapon is not being swung for horrific amounts of damage, the damage rating of these weapons can be reduced to a more appropriate level.

Realism in Combat (Shadwolf)

Realism is a good thing.  If nothing else, it serves as a model of how things will develop.  It is useful to know which weapons really work and how they are used, but it also applies to the stuff you make up.  If you decide to use a bagh nahk even though it is a stupid, useless weapon in real life, and you decide to call it a nekode, consider the stats you give it.  If it is faster than any other weapon and does more damage in a given time and is easier to learn than any other weapon, why would anyone ever want to use a quarterstaff?