|
Post by Scott on Aug 25, 2007 15:24:24 GMT -5
This stat is mentioned, but not explained at all in AD&D. I've been tossing around some ideas to expand on it. Originally the stat described how much space was required on each side of the character to use the weapon, but as far as I know nothing was ever written to explain what happened if you didn't have the complete space required, or if there was crossover space with other characters' weapons. A man in armor using a long sword (SR: 3') would need about 8' of space total. For a house rule I'm thinking about this: The space required number indicated the minimum amount of free space (no weapon crossover, no walls or objects) needed to be able to use a weapon. For every foot of space short of the total space required down to the minimum a -1 penalty to hit and damage is incurred. For example a fighter could use a long sword in a 3' wide passage with a -5 penalty. If you have allies standing in your space required a 1 indicates a chance you have hit an ally.
Scott
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Aug 25, 2007 15:52:29 GMT -5
I have always taken it to mean if three fighters with longswords are abreast in a 10' wide hallway, they can all attack without any hindrance. But if one of the fighters had, say, a footman's flail (which requires 6' of space), then only two fighters could be in that rank. It's not stated or implied to be a radius -- I've always thought it was diameter. For someone trying to use a weapon with less than the space required, to hit penalties and/or chances of "friendly fire" would probably be in order -- such as, if you miss your target, roll to see if you hit someone else in your space at random.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Aug 25, 2007 16:09:10 GMT -5
AD&D doesn't give any explanation, just the number. When it was introduced in OD&D it had a bit more info, and it is described as the amount of space needed on each side of the character.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Aug 25, 2007 17:26:08 GMT -5
That would go against the way I've been playing it -- and seen others run it -- for years. I've always played it and seen it played so that three fighters with longswords could fight alongside each other in a 10' wide passageway, unless someone had a really big weapon or one that required a lot of space.
|
|
GT
Wizard
Duke of Indiana, Knight Commander
Posts: 2,032
|
Post by GT on Sept 2, 2007 12:18:34 GMT -5
Hmmm... I'd always considered space required to be radius as well, so as to allow a lateral sweep of a longsword for example. But page 97 of the DMG allows a minimum 3 1/2' space abreast per person, therefore allowing 3 characters in a row. In this case, any weapon with a space required of 3 1/2' or less could be allowed--no bastard swords, broadswords or two-handed swords allowed however! Frankly, I'm a bit uncomfortable with three longswords in a row in a 10-foot corridor. Measure off a 10-foot wide area, have three of your friends stand side-by-side (unarmored, no less) and give them each a 3 1/2' long broomstick to slash and thrust with... you'll see what I mean. I picked up a pretty neat bargain book at Barnes and Noble called "Medieval Combat" written and illustrated in the 1400s by Hans Talhoffer, translted by Mark Rector, that shows fighting technique used with swords and other weapons that is illuminating. ^__^
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 2, 2007 12:40:08 GMT -5
I was discussing this with Frank Mentzer a while back. Here was the post:
Me: "How do you use the 'space required' trait for weapons? ...in a melee in a 10' corridor, using the bastard sword would take up almost the entire hallway, so the user would have to be in the middle. Would his buddies have room to fight at his sides?"
Frank: "What you state is entirely true. One must thus be content with smaller weaponry when trying to present a two-across front in a 10' corridor. The standard longsword, with 3' required, fills the bill almost perfectly, with minimal overlap. If you explain the situation to your players, they in turn are perfectly capable of planning ahead, flanking a sword-wielder with a user of a more compact weapon. Both hammer and spear come to mind, and the former can often, with magical and strength bonuses, be quite formidible.
I apply the space limitations but with several grains of salt. Generally I allow overlap but within common-sense limits. A bastard sword strains those limits, and a full two-hander is 'way out of bounds.
I also use an individual initiative (d10) system, which is not btb 1e. If you do also, then keep an eye out for simultaneous swings by those in the front rank; only then does the space required present problems."
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Sept 2, 2007 12:42:11 GMT -5
And Gary added an example a few posts later: "Early D&D party marching order with weapons indicated:
1st Rank: 4 small demi-humans with shields and short swords for atabbing as did the Romans
2nd Rank: 3 elves with spears, thus able to attack along with 1st rank PCs.
3rd Rank: 4 bow/crossbow-armed human PCs firing over the heads of the first two ranks.
4th Rank:3 PCs 2 m-us and 1 cleric, mainly to protect against rear attack, but able to move up into the 2nd rank if needed.
5th Rank: 3 rear guard humans with shield and long sword used for thrusting.
Yes, the number of players for most sessions was in the range of 15-20.
Cheerio, Gary"
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Sept 3, 2007 20:15:10 GMT -5
Cool info. I notice Gary allows three humans with longswords to be able to fight abreast in the same rank, if they are thrusting rather than slashing. I assume he was referring to a 10' wide corridor. I think most people ignore these rules, although I don't think there is anything wrong with incorporating them. It would encourage the use of more weapons like spears or pole-arms, for example. I especially like how in Gary's example, the elves can use spears to attack over the heads of the smaller demihumans in the first rank.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Nov 23, 2008 9:08:32 GMT -5
I've been thinking about these rules again. I haven't really enforced them, but I think I'm going to give it a try. I still haven't decided on a penalty for lack of space required, though, so time for some brain storming.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Nov 23, 2008 9:16:15 GMT -5
Maybe -1 per foot lacking or crossover, and if an ally is in your space required, he will be hit on a 1.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Nov 23, 2008 10:03:58 GMT -5
The enforcement of such rules definitely makes other weapons such as spears and pole-arms more attractive for dungeon-type adventuring. I like the idea that if you roll a '1' something bad happens (fumble, hit a comrade if not respecting the space required limit, etc.). The other option is to simply not allow that weapon to be used if the space required is not available, or to reduce the damage that weapon would cause (so if you were using a long sword as just a thrusting weapon in limited space, maybe it would only do 1-6 or 1-4 damage).
How about a penalty for firing missile weapons into a melee your allies are engaged in? Such as a chance to hit allies if you miss your target. Example: kobolds missing with javelins having a chance to hit other kobold allies in melee.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Nov 23, 2008 10:25:58 GMT -5
I'll stick to the DMG rules for firing into a melee.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Nov 23, 2008 10:37:32 GMT -5
But I have toyed with the idea of slightly increasing the probability of hitting a single desired target in some situations. Haven’t settled on anything though.
|
|
Matthew
Evoker
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 18
|
Post by Matthew on Feb 11, 2009 19:56:57 GMT -5
That is some interesting information. I have been investigating Swords & Spells lately as regards spacing, and was trying to work out from that whether the scale made any difference to the space required between individuals (or the frontage they require).
A unit of ten men armed with long swords require ¨ú" (22.5 scale feet) of frontage to operate, but how they are arranged by rank and file is unclear. The same group armed with short swords require ¨ý" (18.75 scale feet). I was thinking that the "typical array" of 3 men that Gygax refers to in the DMG might also be typical of S&S, but measured in yards; maybe even 3¨÷ men per file, and 3 per rank.
It sounds here as though you could potentially get a file of nine or ten men on a 30' frontage in the dungeon, but I wonder if that is true outdoors? When you switch to wilderness scale in AD&D do scale feet become 9 per inch, that is to say 3 yards per inch? Does it affect spacing?
Hmmn. Say you have 9 models mounted on ¨ú" (22.5 scale feet) bases. Assuming 3¨÷ men per file, and 3 per rank, you would get 30 men to 202.5 feet. The space between each man needs to be at least 3 feet, so that is (31 x 3 = 93), leaving 109.5 for 30, or 3.65' per man.
Alternatively, every man needs a frontage of (6 + X) [where X is the space he occupies], which is 180', leaving 0.75' per man].
If they need 4' per side (for the battle axe or military pick) then the space required exceeds the space available unless there is overlap.
So there must be overlap, as an even distribution works out to 6.75 scale feet of frontage per man. Even a short file of three men works out to 7.5 feet, whilst a long file of five men works out at 4.5 feet.
I think precise calculations are of little help here. Even a minimum frontage of 6.25' for a three man file mounted on a ¨ý" (18.75 scale feet) base seems a hard sell to me.
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Feb 11, 2009 20:15:52 GMT -5
Here's some info EGG provided regarding space required"
In two places he mentions specific methods of attack, swords used for thrusting. Would you say limiting the attack options available would incur a penalty to hit? In an adventure, Gary mentions a penalty for certain weapons due to limited space, but it seemed more ad hock than formalized.
|
|
Matthew
Evoker
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 18
|
Post by Matthew on Feb 11, 2009 21:42:29 GMT -5
I think we are looking at two separate "types" of fighting being described when we are asked to think about "space required" for individuals in OD&D versus "formation fighting" in the dungeon.
The Gauls were supposed to have fought as individuals in the the "heroic" manner against the Romans, whose discipline and ability to fight as a group proved the more effective. The idea being that individual combatants challenge other individuals to combat (as also depicted in the Illiad).
When you have a formation like what Gygax is describing above, then room to move is much more limited, but offset by the advantage of having nearby comrades to help defend and attack.
So, the question is really should there be penalties for fighting in formation, rather than should there be a penalty for fighting in a confined space? The answer to that, in my opinion, depends on the characters involved. If they are trained to fight in formation, then, a long sword should be fine in that sort of space (close order is regarded as about 3 feet of frontage), but if they are used to individual combat then they should probably take a non proficiency penalty.
Gygax's comments about demihumans arrayed in a formation of four in a 10' passage and armed with short swords is absolutely in line with his comments in Spells & Swords about smaller demihumans being mounted on smaller bases. as long as they use shorter weapons. I think his reference to Romans in that context is probably to just give us the flavour, rather than literal imitation (as the Romans fought many ways, and favoured "open order" (6' frontage) during the late Republic (if I recall Polybius aright).
|
|
Matthew
Evoker
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 18
|
Post by Matthew on Feb 12, 2009 18:33:43 GMT -5
Had some more thoughts and did some more calculations on this subject today.
In Greyhawk there are four classes of weapon space:
1) Two handed sword, halberd, flail (6' either side) 2) Morning Star (5' either side) 3) Military pick, battle axe (4' either side) 4) Everything else
In Swords & Spells there are four classes of weapon space:
1) two handed sword (1.375" = 41.25 scale feet). 2) bastard sword, flail, morning star, halberd (1.00" = 30 scale feet). 3) military pick, battle axe, long sword, cutting pole arms, sling (0.75" = 22.5 scale feet). 4) dagger, hand axe, mace, hammer, short sword, spear, thrusting pole arms, pike, bow, crossbow (1.625" = 18.75 scale feet).
Of those, the bastard sword is a new addition, as is the short/long sword dynamic. 18.75 scale feet is also the minimum size a base can be for men.
Assuming a "standard" array of three men to a file, we get the following numbers:
6/10” = 18’ (6’ frontage) 8/10” = 24’ (8’ frontage) 10/10” = 30’ (10’ frontage) 12/10” = 36’ (12’ frontage) 14/10 = 42’ (14’ frontage)
Four of these numbers clearly correspond very closely to the figures given above, with the 36' being oddly absent. Since Gygax was working in eighths (presumably because rulers or tapemeasures that divide inches into tenths were commonly unavailable to him or his presumed audience) we can reconstruct his options:
1.500" = 45.00 scale feet 1.375" = 41.25 scale feet 1.250" = 37.50 scale feet 1.125" = 33.75 scale feet 1.000" = 30.00 scale feet 0.875" = 26.25 scale feet 0.750" = 22.50 scale feet 0.625" = 18.75 scale feet 0.500" = 15.00 scale feet
So, I would postulate at this point that Gygax went for the nearest approximations to frontages of 6', 8', 10', and 14'. It is not clear why he moved some of the weapons around the way that he did, and looking at Advanced Dungeons & Dragons some of the weapons have switched places again:
1) two handed sword, [footman's] flail (12' frontage) 2) halberd, morning star, cutting/swung pole arms (10' frontage) 3) military pick, battle axe, bastard sword* (8' frontage) 4) Everything else (6' frontage) [assuming the minimum]
* the bastard sword is marked 4'+, so could conceivably end up in 2); the long sword has also an offshoot in class 3) in the form of the broad sword (8' frontage).
Clearly these are not the frontages Gygax requires in the dungeon, since we have the above example that shows us that characters were permitted to fight in much closer order than Greyhawk implies. That he has split the broad sword from the long sword also suggests (given the barbarian in Unearthed Arcana) that by AD&D he envisioned the long sword to be more of a thrust sword than the broad sword, but one most also remember that the short sword is described in the PHB as any "cut and thrust sword" with a blade of 15" to 24".
Bearing all that in mind, it seems reasonable to see how he decided to allow fighters to stand three abreast with long swords in a 10' passageway (and I should ahve been clearer earlier that there is little difference in the technique used to thrust with a long sword from that of a short sword), and if Gygax was familiar with Vegetius (a fairly widely available text) he may have fallen prey to the thrust versus cut remarks therein.
Short Version: No non proficiency penalty on characters proficient in the long sword fighting in a three abreast formation.
Note on Historical Authenticity
Ploybius tells us that the Greek pike phalanx fought in closed order with a frontage of 3 feet per man (maybe 2.5 feet, depending on how we translate the spacial units). He also tells us that the Romans fought in open order with a frontage of 6 feet per man (maybe 5 feet). At this time the Roman army was probably fighting with a longer sword than is popularly considered typical, which Polybius describes as the "Spanish sword". Recent finds tend to be in excess of 24" blade length.
With that in mind, I think it is reasonable to say that in a ten foot passageway you could get 3-4 combatants fighting in close order and 2 fighting in open order. When considering very large weapons, such as the two handed sword, there should probably be only 1 allowed in a 10 foot passage, but bear in mind that the space required on the battlefield is equivalent to the space occupied by an ogre or troll. So if you allow two trolls or two ogres to fight in a ten foot passage, you should allow two characters with two handed swords.
If we imagine a 10 foot passage as a 12 foot passage things are somewhat easier:
1) shorts swords = 3' space (4 abreast) 2) battle axes = 4' space (3 abreast) 3) morning stars = 5' space (2 abreast) 4) two handed swords = 6' space (2 abreast)
Those would be the maximums allowed. If a character tries to use a weapon in an insufficient space it should probably get at least a −2 penalty to hit per class difference.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by edgewaters on Mar 9, 2009 12:35:28 GMT -5
This is brilliant. Another thing I never understood in the rules. I always thought of it as an awkward, unexplained complexity regarding reach or confined spaces and disregarded it, now it makes so much more sense. It's to do with frontage. No wonder Gary liked polearms so much. This makes them devastating. Actually it even makes the handaxe and the lowly spear a really viable pick if you have numbers.
If it's space to each side, you can fit 4 handaxes, short swords, or spears in a 10' passage - but a two-handed sword will not fit (needs 12'). This could really change weapon choices alot, the usual longsword might not be so great anymore and there'd be alot of encouragement to use other weapon types.
|
|
|
Post by rossik on Mar 9, 2009 19:09:11 GMT -5
sorry guys, i dont quite get it....
any one could explain it to me? maybe inless words, so i understand and then try to read the "complete" version of the text. please??
|
|
Matthew
Evoker
Master of the Silver Blade
Posts: 18
|
Post by Matthew on May 22, 2010 18:20:29 GMT -5
Rossik, basically, "space required" in the AD&D DMG weapon chart refers to the room required to effectively use a given weapon. It is never explained therein, but in the OD&D Greyhawk Supplement we are told it is the space required either side of the combatant to effectively use his weapon. What we are doing here is looking at the data in the OD&D Swords & Spells and various other comments made by Gygax to try and make sense of what was intended.
|
|