Knights & Knaves Alehouse

How do you use it?
Do you just not allow the weapon to be used if the space required area isn't met?
What about crossover area with another weapon's space required? I've been trying to put together some rules for space required, and any input would be appreciated.
Link to the previous discussion on my boards:
http://doomsdaygames.proboards3.com/ind ... thread=284

I usually impose ad hoc to hit penalties along with a fair dose of common sense, depending on the exact circumstances. I might also roll a "companion die" to determine if there has been a mishap of some sort or designate a certain range on the attack die as indicating such an event. I don't alter the damage die, as to hit penalties already effectively reduce the probability of damage.

I think it depends on the situation and the description the player gives. If he's in a narrow hall and wants to use his two handed sword I'll ask how. If he says swing it the sword hits the wall and the blow is auto lost. If he says he wants to stab with it like a spear, I might halve damage (espl. with large monsters, where the idea is a massive blow). If the area is too small to use a weapon (but close) it might be cool to come up with some sort of percentile chance of screwing up (hitting the wall) per foot or half foot (say 30% per foot below the limit the blow hits the wall and fails to work). I think a player should always have the ability to try, but should be informed that its too small an area (as they would know that having been trained in the weapon in quesiton).

The two-handed sword always comes up, but the space required rules would make something as common as two fighters using long swords in a 10' wide hallway quastionable. The space required is the ammount of space on each side that the wielder needs to use the weapon properly. That would be 6'+ for a long sword. There will be crossover space in the two long sword situation. It's the crossover area with other weapons' space required and characters that I'm really questioning. There will be two feet of weapon crossover space if you just use space required as a radius. If you include space for the characters using the swords, they will be in the other weapon's space required.
Should that cause a penalty to hit?
Is there a chance you'll swing and hit your comrade?

I would not be inclined to treat those numbers as literal space requirements, as that creates all sorts of problems in the abstraction of the general melee. If I don't miss my guess, the main purpose of the numbers is to determine how many figures can be deployed in the front rank of a unit relative to another differently armed unit.

The space required could also be interpreted as the room needed to fight effectively with a weapon, taking into account the physical need of a combatant to move in order to defend themselves. This presumes an individual style of combat that is different to fighting in close order, which has its own advantages and disadvantages.

One of the interesting consequences of taking the space rules literally is that a character with a two handed sword surrounded by dagger wielding kobolds would be unable to use his weapon, having been deprived of sufficient space by his enemies. Whilst there is some element of truth to that scenario, in the abstracted melee round where combatants are not precisely placed I find it less than compelling.

Long story short, I generally use non proficiency penalties when there is insufficient space, and if there appears to be a risk of accidentally injuring a comrade, I determine a probability of it occuring as circumstances warrant. I would allow three characters armed with short swords to fight side by side without penalty in a 10' wide passage, two characters armed with long swords, and one character armed with a two handed sword.

I use the space required figure when determining how many characters can stand abreast or what weapons can be used in a space. I allow "cross-over" space and don't count the size of the person (so two characters standing side-by-side in a 10' hall can use long swords, but not 3). If you don't have enough space to use your weapon, the general rule is that you can't use it -- I can't be bothered to come up with a system of incremental penalties. I might make exceptions on an ad hoc basis if I feel like it...

I never apply any more weight to the space required number than "Gee, that's kinda tight." As with others, it simply alerts me to potential ad-hoc rulings.

I noticed something interesting on this subject today. Reinforcing the 3 men abreast to a 10' passage idea in the DMG, is the note on p. 30 of the Monster Manual that:

A maximum of one human-sized attacker per 3 linear feet of exposed dragon (excluding tail) is possible. Thus, a dragon with a 15' long body, fully exposed, would offer opportunity for a maximum of 11 humans to attack it (5 per flank plus one at its head).

Now, this is dealing specifically with subdual attacks, but since those appear to be made with normal weapons, we can at least say that the minimum space required in AD&D is almost certainly 3', which accords with what is often said to be the space required for "close order" ancient and medieval foot formations.

I rule that all weapons wielded in an environment with insufficient space use the d4 for damage. Halberds, two handed swords et al become improvised heavy poking weapons still as destructive as a dagger.

kent wrote:I rule that all weapons wielded in an environment with insufficient space use the d4 for damage.

I like that ruling (a variant would be reducing the damage die by one step). I've also been considering applying a non-proficiency penalty when there's insufficient space to wield the weapon in the most effective manner. (Which means Fighters would be able to "adapt" to the space restriction better than other classes.)

Philotomy Jurament wrote:

kent wrote:I rule that all weapons wielded in an environment with insufficient space use the d4 for damage.

I like that ruling (a variant would be reducing the damage die by one step).

Heh, I tried that first and liked it but in the end preferred to ram the point home deepening the claustrophobia of dungeon spaces. In narrow cramped places I have made spears and short swords the kings of weapons with d6+1, even though they are d6 in open spaces.

Philotomy Jurament wrote:I've also been considering applying a non-proficiency penalty when there's insufficient space to wield the weapon in the most effective manner. (Which means Fighters would be able to "adapt" to the space restriction better than other classes.)

Would that mean a fighter would use up two slots to be able to use a two handed sword in tight spaces with full damage?

kent wrote:

Philotomy Jurament wrote:I've also been considering applying a non-proficiency penalty when there's insufficient space to wield the weapon in the most effective manner. (Which means Fighters would be able to "adapt" to the space restriction better than other classes.)

Would that mean a fighter would use up two slots to be able to use a two handed sword in tight spaces with full damage?

Hmm. Interesting option. I hadn't considered that. I was just thinking that the Fighter's non-proficiency penalty is low, compared to everyone else.

I think I like using the non-proficiency penalty. I also like the idea of using WP slots to be able to do certain things above and beyond. Very interesting indeed.

WSmith wrote: I think I like using the non-proficiency penalty.

Yes, I agree. I also rather like the idea of dropping the damage die by one step. Need to think further on this.

ScottyG wrote:The space required is the ammount of space on each side that the wielder needs to use the weapon properly.

I remember that from Greyhawk, but don't see it in the PHB. Did I miss it, or is the AD&D note elsewhere? I can see that 1' total (versus 2') would be pretty awkward even with a spear.

Of course, usually guys not in plate armor are going to have shields taking up 2'-3'.

On sort of a tangent ...

Swords & Spells doesn't specify whether, at 10 yards to the inch, its 10 men per figure are in a single rank or two. However, let us assume the second (which coincidentally makes the basing to the 1/72 figure scale mentioned at DMG p.10, but is hardly relevant given the change in ground scale suggested there).

The minimum 5/8" thus translates to 45" (114.3 cm) or almost 3.75' per file. (Half that, 22.5", would be just half an inch more than late 18th- and early 19th-century British Army regulation.)

The 3/4" becomes 54" (137.16 cm) or 4.5'.

1" naturally is 72" (182.88 cm) or 6'.

The maximum 1 3/8" (for two-handed sword) would be 99" (251.46 cm) or 8.25'.

Now, these do not exactly match even the OD&D specs. What really stands out to me is that the spaces are smaller than the 8' to 12' one might expect from Supplement I (except for those not given minimums there, so presumably fighting three abreast in 10').

They would, of course, be halved with just one rank. On they other hand, they would be 1.67x (closer to expectations from Supp. I) if a figure represents 3 ranks of 3 plus a "file closer".