Right, so ONLY the characters strength score would affect this then? Not anything about the bigger the uprooted tree, the worse the pounding?
Size does matter!
At least it used to... and still does to the ones of us who couldn't let go of 4th ed. combat.
You mean the size of the weapon? That might matter, but it's reflected in the damage rating, right?
E.
Giant Blood gives +1 to Strength and Stamina, as well as raises the limit by 1 (i.e. +4, +6 with 2*Great Characteristic).
Well, I don't really have any rules suggestions, but....
From real life experience I can tell you for sure....its easier to block when your weapons/hands are high, than when they are low...
Anyone can quote any rule they wish for this, but its wrong...
Reason:
Bringing your weapon/hands up requires moving against gravity...takes longer.
Bringing your hands down goes with gravity..faster.
Apart of 4th ed. combat being that Size was added to damage and subtracted from defense. In effect making it easier to compare relative strenghts in combat. Then you don't have to wonder whether a larger person is just more bulkier of if he's using a bigger weapon than ordinary men - it was taken account for. Size on the other hand making it easier to hit a larger target then a smaller.
I agree - but that is only in the context of the Virtue. If you moderate you size by spells (as there is an example of in the core book) this doesn't entail any Characteristic modification. You might start doing the numbers, but I just find it much more simply to use size directly in the combat stats - which again is connected to the fact that we do use 4th ed combat rules. Should one of my players decide to have the virtue Giant Blood, well then I might have to reconsider (maybe reconsidering the bonuses). I really like the new ed. system of wounds (which also makes Giant Blood very different in itself) - not only does seem more real but it is also much easier to "make" the mechanics to story - describing in appropriate detail (according to the scene) the wounds and their state.
Ah, there you have it 
E.
Much as I prefer 5th ed in terms of rules and flavour, i can't help but miss the weapon ranges from 4th ed. Since I dabble in the martial arts myself (go ninjas!) i'm well aware of the advantage that range gives you. Taking a knife to a sword fight will see you bloodily dismembered and taking a knife to s staff fight, you basically only have the option to brave the staff wielders blows and try and get close. And when you do, he only has the option of getting away from you.
4ed modelled this really nicely and i'm thinking of house ruling it back in. Do you think i would need to redo the weapons stats if i decided to change the rules to incorporate weapon ranges again?
I don't think the weapon stats needs to be redone, as this plays on initiative, and longer weapons in 5th ed tends to have more initiative than the shorter ones. So the winner of initiative decides which range the fight will be on that round. But I'm not 100% sure..
E.
But say two staff wielders meet, one is giant blooded, while the other is small frame. Shouldn't the base initiative be higher for the biggest weapon. At least in relation to the smaller one?
We need to keep it simple, else we might stumble into the dark regions of d20. 
E.
Comments:
- Any weapon held in 2 hands will be faster than a weapon of equal length and weight held in 1 hand. Just try it with a stick. Bonuses on attack and defence, not damage.
- 2 weapons: One of the best known variants of this was the axe + sword/axe. Off-hand axe used to remove ones opponent's shield. A very offensive style.
- Guards - Basicly you're thinking off having offensive vs defensive stance. Best done with fatigue... (i.e. the rules allready in the book)
- Weapon lenght - Making good rules for this is very hard... In most cases the group combat rules work best... (might be worth limiting the bonus based on the lenght of weapon used - long spears really shine in formation fighting).
Yes, I've been giving it more thought, and you're right. The offensive and defensive guards are not really needed in the system. The rules can simulate this already.
I am very curious about how to do the two weapon fighting, though.
Also, I use a variation of the initiative rules. Instead of rolling initiative before the fight, I do it whenever two combatants meet in close combat, and not before they do. Since combat in Ars Magica is very narrative, we describe how the combatants close in on eachother (if one wants to flee, we compare quickness and load). Then, when they cross blades (or axes, spears etc) we roll initaitve for these two. This makes it faster, and more exciting, I think.
E.
I fully agree - it is actually amazing how many of the usual preconceptions of most roleplaying games doesn't "survive" a close encounter with real fighting. I've myself trained with a viking fighting group and it's been an eye-opener! An extra hand only gives more power if your chopping wood - eye to eye with an opponents that intends to kill you the advantage isn't really power - it's speed and maneuverability as well as firmer blocks.
And standing across from a shield the use of axes on a battlefield suddenly becomes much more apparent - pulling the shield or having more ease reaching over it. The pulling is especially lethal if you work well together with another fighter that can use the room you make where the shield should have been (spears come especially to mind)...
I stick with that as well.
I agree - even if the fighting in modern groups is very different from what real fighting must have been (e.g. having a designated target kill zone which excludes the head and lower part of the legs - which was rather "popular" targets in reallife fights) - in fights with two formations of more or less equal ability, the line that also includes a spear almost certainly takes the victory. Fighting one on one the spear has less of an advantage depending on the maneuverability, skill and luck of the opponents.
Personally our troupe has sticked to the 4th ed. combat rules but including the new and improved wound rules, the fatigue-boosted "stances" and dabbling a bit with the rules for group combat. Thus being biased I really can't comment much on what rules to implement into the 5th ed. combat, but one thing I would be missing more than laboring to find perticular guards or weapon combos would be the clear disadvantage of being outnumbered. I'd really miss those heavy penalties of being alone and cornered. Again speaking from fighting experience - fighting against several enemies isn't justfied simply by the increased statistical probability that one of them makes a hit (rolling well) simply because they are more aiming at you (rolling dice). If you are outnumbered you would have increasingly difficulties in parrying/avoiding the many attacks (thus not utilising you defense potential fully) - even worse if the attackers are trained and coordinated. Also, your basic urge to survive would make you less able to attack you enemies (thus not utilising your attack potential) because every attack entails at least a minimal opening exposing yourself. While your atttack might engage the weapons of the one you attack, any of his comrades have a fair shot at your exposed opening. This might somewhat be solved by having the opponents work in game mechanics as a group but it still doesn't do the danger of being alone and outnumbered justice...
An unorganised group is actually rather ineffective... Half the time they are in each others way... And organised groups allready have a very considerable bonus... And remember that all a group needs to do is make a slight wound - that will be multiplied with the number of people in that group... A light wound from 5 people is as bad as a heavy wound from 1...
What is a good idea however, is to allow the vanguard to change every round (thus making sure a fresh fighter is doing the damage).
Does anybody have any suggestions for aiming when there is no defense total?
For example, I am shooting at a still target, well within range who is unaware of me.
The combat rules say to compare attack total to defense total to determine a hit. However, if there is no defense total then the attack hits unless you botch. This doesn't sound overly accurate. I'd rather that there was a higher change of generating a miss. Perhaps by assigning a difficulty modifier...
Thoughts?
In my game, that's a simple shot. A simple shot is Dex + Bow against Ease Factor 6. 3 if you are really close, 9 if he is at the edge of bow range. This means a trained but not excellent marksman (Bow 2) with no bonus hits in a damaging way about half the time. This is sufficient for warfare, by the way, because in war peasant archers work in groups to pepper an area the size of a tennis court, they don't aim at particular persons. This gives them a bonus, and means they are treated like an area-effecting spell rather than a personal attack.
A skilled bowman (5) with a bit of Dexterity virtually always hits a target at extreme range in a damaging way. IMC, crossbowmen, on average, have a higher skill than bowmen, because the fire at specific targets.
That sounds abit strange... From everything I've heard, crossbows required less skill because you could just aim strait at your target, while a bow required you to aim at the sky (shooting in an arch).
An in a battle, everyone would just fire at the enemy ranks, rather than an individual - The only exeption would be snipers, trying to take out a commander...
Ok, you do have a point there. Crossbows have a higher Attack score, and so you can just point and shoot. What I was trying to get across is that this means that most peasants who train every Sunday for years get to a basic sort of skill with the bow, but crossbowmen both have an easier instrument to use, and tend to be members of elite forces, and so have more practice.
I've just phrased it badly. 
If you're going to introduce new combat rules, it might be a good idea to start the chronicle at a tourney, giving the players a chance to learn how the rules work. Even more important, it has a decent chance of exposing any anomalies without accidentally massacring the PCs. That is assuming you don't want the story to start with a bunch of grogs being slaughtered, which would also make a good plot hook.