ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: InFerrumVeritas on July 15, 2012, 02:15:48 PM
-
I'm doing a version of FATE heavily inspired/completely converted from D&D for a friend of mine. He likes the aspects and classless character creation of FATE, but wants to play in his high fantasy dungeon looting sandbox.
So, because of this, I knew I'd need a much more detailed Weapons and armor list. Here it is if anyone is interested:
Unarmed 0 used with Fists skill
Gauntlets/Brass Knuckles 1 used with Fists skill
Dagger/Knife 1 small, can be thrown
Swords:
Shortsword 2
Longsword 3
Bastard Sword 4 requires two hands, but may be used one handed on horseback
Greatsword 5 requires two hands, Might restricts
Axes:
Handaxe/Throwing Axe 2 can be thrown
Battleaxe 3
Waraxe 4 requires two hands
Greataxe 5 requires two hands, Might restricts
Hammers/Picks:
Light Hammer/Pick 1 small, can be thrown
Heavy Pick 2
Warhammer 3
Maces/Clubs:
Baton 1 small
Club/Light Mace 2
Quarterstaff 2 requires two hands
Heavy Mace/Morningstar 3
Pole-arms:
Shortspear/Trident/Javelin 2 can be thrown two zones
Spear 2 reach weapon
Lance 3 requires two hands, may be used one handed on horseback, reach weapon
Halberd/Guisarme/Glaive 4 requires two hands, reach weapon
Flails:
Flail 3
Heavy Flail 4 requires two hands
Sling 1
Dart/Shuriken 1 thrown only
Bows:
Shortbow 2 requires two hands
Longbow 3 requires two hands, cannot be used on horseback
Greatbow 4 requires two hands, cannot be used on horseback, Might restricts
Crossbow:
Hand Crossbow 2, supplemental action to reload
Light Crossbow 3, requires two hands, supplemental action to reload
Heavy Crossbow 4, requires two hands, supplemental action to reload
Thrown weapons can be thrown one zone away (javelins two zones).
Other ranged weapons have a range equal to your Ranged Weapons skill.
Reach weapons cannot be defended against with the Melee Weapons skill unless target is using a shield (default defense with Athletics).
Weapons which require two hands cannot be used with a shield.
Small weapons may not use the Melee Weapons skill to defend against other weapons.
And the armor:
Light Armor 1
Medium Armor 2 Endurance restricts Athletics and other physical skills
Heavy Armor 3 Endurance and Might restrict Athletics and other physical skills
Light Shield 1, Weapon 1
Heavy Shield 2, Weapon 2
Armor Descriptions:
Light Armor is a category including padded hauberks, leather armor, and mail shirts. This armor is relatively easy to wear and doesn’t normally restrict movement.
Medium Armor is a category including heavy hide armors, scale, mail, and breastplates. This armor is fatiguing to wear. Endurance restricts your Athletics skill, and may restrict other physical skills. Endurance restricts a spellcaster’s Discipline while casting as well.
Heavy Armor is a category including reinforced mail and plate armors. This armor is very difficult to move in and incredibly tiring to wear. Endurance and Might restrict your Athletics skill, and may restrict other physical skills. Both of these also restrict a spellcaster’s Disicpline while casting. This means that if both your Endurance and your Might are lower than the restricted skill, you take a −2 penalty. If only one is lower, you still take a −1.
Shields are quite advantageous to use. They allow a character to use their Melee Weapons skill to defend against ranged attacks and reach weapons. Shields also provide an Armor bonus which, unlike most Armor bonuses, stacks with an Armor bonus from armor a character is wearing. They do not, however, stack with magical Armor bonuses, such as those from enchanted items. Shields may also be used as a weapon, but doing so means that you take a −2 on all defense rolls until your next turn.
-
Is it your express intent that this list significantly increase weapons values, particularly those already at the higher end of the spectrum?
-
Is it your express intent that this list significantly increase weapons values, particularly those already at the higher end of the spectrum?
He also significantly increases the Armour ratings especially for a shielded character so I find it balances out, the only weakness it has is makes toughness powers weaker unless the Armour stacks.
-
Not a huge fan.
Partly because of the weapon/armour value inflation, partly because you've made hands into a resource, and partly because the shields penalize defense when you attack with them, partly because of the bit where normal weapons can't defend against long ones.
I dislike the second thing because it means that I can't just arbitrarily give people extra arms. Suddenly that's broken.
I dislike the third because it doesn't fit with the rest of the game. I can't think of a single other thing that imposes a penalty to defense rolls.
And the fourth just doesn't make much sense to me.
On another note, you really should make it clear whether armour makes Endurance restrict Weapons.
PS: Have you considered giving weapons more stats? Like Armour Penetration or Accuracy or Parry?
PPS: Ranged Weapons and Melee Weapons are not distinct skills.
-
Too many extra rules. I dislike that.
I agree it is closer to realism, many different weapons should have varying degrees of efficiency and therefore damage...but this system decided a sword and gun do the exact same damage. Working within those parameters: the weapon 5 stuff and attempt at realism may be misplaced.
I figure the nastiest weapons of that era should be weapon 4. (barring siege equipment which may well be as powerful as many modern military weapons)
-
Perhaps you could give various weapons a bit more differentiation by way of bonuses to certain maneuvers/declarations, and/or by treating each weapon as an aspect. For example, perhaps polearms could allow the wielder a bonus to maneuver a held at bay aspect, and/or the ability to invoke the weapon aspect for a bonus against mounted targets. Bludgeoning weapons might grant a bonus to applying a stunned aspect to their target. (And so on.)
Note that the "bonus" granted could vary, depending on preference. It could be as simple as a +1 or +2 to the maneuver rolls. Or it could be as significant as being able to perform the maneuver as a supplemental action, assuming you hit with your attack action. My guess is that putting the benefits somewhere in the "weak to modest" range of stunts might work best.
Another option might be to grant special bonuses only to those trained in the particular weapon -- make a serious of "stronger" stunts that represent such training.
Note that none of the above is intended to be balanced for use in a standard DFRPG game, but could work for a more weapon-focused fantasy homebrew setting.
-
In the port that I'm doing, Toughness powers are rather different. Stress boxes are easier to come by. Again, it's based on D&D.
My reasoning with shields: I dislike the idea that a shield could be a single piece of equipment that does everything. That is, defend against anything, attack, and provide armor. Hence the penalty to defense if you attack with it. There's a stunt that prevents this.
I did consider other rules. Specifically:
Flails ignore armor bonus from shields.
Swords provide +1 bonus to defense rolls.
Hammers and picks ignore mundane Armor (but not from shields) equal to Weapon rating.
Axes inflict consequences one step higher.
On a successful attack, maces and clubs place “Battered” aspect of Weapon rating strength vs. Endurance.
Polearms block opponents’ movement equal to Weapon rating on a successful attack.
Whips gain +2 on maneuvers.
Daggers gain +1 on attacks. This stacks with the Weapon Focus talent.
This may be taken multiple times, but must apply to a different weapon group each time.
These have become stunts.
On Weapon values increasing: I want mundane characters to be on par with spellcasters. Spellcasting is easier and doesn't have Laws restricting it. Since mental stress is more common, it's even more potent. Stronger weapon values aids in this.
-
Too many extra rules. I dislike that.
Agreed. And, as stated previously, I have problems with the idea of hand-held weapons having the same weapon ratings as speeding vehicles.
-
Well since this is a medieval fantasy setting "speeding vehicles" probably aren't on the table.
OP said he's planning on giving out more stress boxes, and weapon rating are only meaningful in the context of how much damage it takes to get to those tasty, tasty consequences, so a Weapon:5 axe might not be that overwhelming in his hack.
[edit] Forget what I was saying about aspects instead of rules, those work just fine as stunts.
-
OP said he's planning on giving out more stress boxes, and weapon rating are only meaningful in the context of how much damage it takes to get to those tasty, tasty consequences, so a Weapon:5 axe might not be that overwhelming in his hack.
And in determining the number and magnitude of consequences that would need to be taken to stave off being taken out.
I suggest at least contemplating inflating the value of consequences to compensate for this. (2/5/8/11? 2/5/7/10? I don't know)
-
Too many extra rules. I dislike that.
Agree. I dislike this list
Have you consider taking a page out of Strands of Fate and just give each weapon and armor their own Aspect . You can then just invoked or compelled them while you're using them, just like normal Aspect. So if you‘re using a dagger, and you get into close combat with a great sword wielder, you might invoke their sword’s Huge Aspect to get a bonus to attack or defend against them.
-
I dislike the aspect fractal as a core of a system. It's a great way to address issues on the fly, but I prefer a simple rule.
I could remove the bit about Small and Reach weapons.
-
I guess I gotta ask, why make Combat more crunchy than needed?
-
As he mentioned up top, he's trying out a custom blend of D&D and Fate, combining Fate's classlessness and D&D's largely equipment-based system. Why? His player(s) prefer it that way. Regardless, thus the desire to have greater weapon differentiation.
-
Crunch is fun!
I actually like the idea of this project, it's just got flawed execution.
In the port that I'm doing, Toughness powers are rather different. Stress boxes are easier to come by. Again, it's based on D&D.
My reasoning with shields: I dislike the idea that a shield could be a single piece of equipment that does everything. That is, defend against anything, attack, and provide armor. Hence the penalty to defense if you attack with it. There's a stunt that prevents this.
I did consider other rules. Specifically:
These have become stunts.
On Weapon values increasing: I want mundane characters to be on par with spellcasters. Spellcasting is easier and doesn't have Laws restricting it. Since mental stress is more common, it's even more potent. Stronger weapon values aids in this.
It's become clear that the mechanical context here is entirely different from that of normal DFRPG.
If you want really meaningful feedback, you'll need to tell us what you've done to the rules.
Why not have shields provide armour only when you don't attack with them?
PS: I actually like that list of extra effects, though some seem iffy. If you're going to make weapons matter, why not go all the way?
-
Disclaimer: I didn't read more than the OP, so I don't know if this has been covered, but even if it has, it bears mentioning again:
If you are inflating weapon values, even if armor values inflate to match, you should realize you are making armor abosultely required to survive in your setting. You can mitigate this a little by increasing base stress track length, but it just increases the survivability of your tanks even more.
If you allow such a great increase in weapon/armor values, understand that the unarmored monk or lesser-armored rogue archetypes will not be able to survive against your iron-skinned dreadnaughts unless you add additional rules to provide them survivability. And not at the cost of refresh-- armor is (presumably) refresh-free.
[Edit:] Ok, now I've caught up. What I said above is still completely relevant. Additionally, characters that rely on unarmed or low-weapon-rating attacks will be simply unable to effect those in heavy armor without large FP expenditure or maneuvering; meanwhile those with armor/weapons can hack away at the unarmed/armored. Huge disparity.
Sure, if you're going for a world where everyone wears platemail all the time and carries the largest possible weapon to survive, this is the way to make that setting-- but it's not at all the classic D&D/Tolkien high fantasy setting.
-
To be fair, it does take quite a lot of maneuvering for an unarmed combatant to damage someone carrying a shield and wearing full armor.
I'm working in a way for characters with less armor to have higher defense rolls. Getting hit once will hurt a lot, but getting hit does hurt a lot of you're not wearing protection. The idea for the unarmored rogue is, simply, to not get hit.
Base stress track will probably be 4. Increase by 1 at Endurance 1/3/5 with additional minor consequences at 3/5.
Toughness powers will be priced as -1/-3/-5, not require a catch (although Catches will exist). The lowering of cost is due to the less utility of Armor.
EDIT: I know that costing refresh to be on par with a free option is problematic. That's why I have armor restricting Athletics defense rolls. I'm pretty sure I'll have it restrict Melee Weapons defense rolls, but not Melee Weapons attack rolls. This means that effective armor use will be an investment of either skill points or refresh (on stunts to mitigate the restriction).
-
Yes and no.
If an unarmed guy grabs the shield with both hands other people have lots of free shots on the shield bearer unless he lets go of the shield.
Heavy armor? Knock the dude in plate over. He might not be hurt but...getting up will take precious seconds whilst others could cut him down or the unarmed individual could wrest his weapon away from him etc.
Problem is with this system...any system really. knock someone down, they get right back up no problems. Grapple a shield the opposing roll to pull away might be easier than it would be IRL.
Can't get this stuff perfect and i think the rules will get overly complex trying to model it fairly. Best of luck to those who wish to do so though.
-
Base stress track will probably be 4. Increase by 1 at Endurance 1/3/5 with additional minor consequences at 3/5.
Toughness powers will be priced as -1/-3/-5, not require a catch (although Catches will exist). The lowering of cost is due to the less utility of Armor.
Extra consequences at 2/4 would probably be better. Throw people with even Endurance a bone.
I'm not so sure about that Toughness scaling. You've decreased the cost of Inhuman Toughness by 50%, but you've only decreased the cost of Mythic Toughness by 16 2/3. Since Mythic Toughness suffers most from this change (Inhuman Toughness was already competing with armour), that seems inappropriate.
-
Instead of dropping the cost, it might be worth considering scaling up the benefits of Toughness for your setting. For example, you might give each level an additional stress box (3/6/9 instead of 2/4/6) and update the armor ratings (1/3/5 or 2/3/4 instead of 1/2/3).
-
I really dislike the bigger==better weapon idea, especially because of the implication that all attacks you make with the weapon will be 'full force' style attacks. But most actual attacks aren't full force style attacks, because they leave you too open to a counter.
So, for example, two guys facing off in full (plate) harness and wielding pole axes does not look like them 'swinging for the fences' at each other. Instead, it looks like a very conservative staff fight, with for tripping. The whole point is to maneuver your opponent into a position where you can make a full force attack and they will not be able to counter it, because the counters put you into a very bad position.
So, one way of modeling this is that the stress meter represents how open you are to full force attacks, and when you run out of stress, you become out of position enough open to fight ending full force attacks.
Another possible way to model it is to use maneuvers instead. For example, if, on average, you'd expect to produce o stress from at attack, you are better off maneuvering and then attacking next round with the aspect in place.
-
I really dislike the bigger==better weapon idea, especially because of the implication that all attacks you make with the weapon will be 'full force' style attacks. But most actual attacks aren't full force style attacks, because they leave you too open to a counter.
So, for example, two guys facing off in full (plate) harness and wielding pole axes does not look like them 'swinging for the fences' at each other. Instead, it looks like a very conservative staff fight, with for tripping. The whole point is to maneuver your opponent into a position where you can make a full force attack and they will not be able to counter it, because the counters put you into a very bad position.
So, one way of modeling this is that the stress meter represents how open you are to full force attacks, and when you run out of stress, you become out of position enough open to fight ending full force attacks.
Another possible way to model it is to use maneuvers instead. For example, if, on average, you'd expect to produce o stress from at attack, you are better off maneuvering and then attacking next round with the aspect in place.
Interesting. I'll have to give this some thought. I did realize the folly of trying to model actual combat blow by blow some time ago (I fence and have done escrima, so I do have experience with tactical personal combat), but I get what you're saying.
I tried to penalize this by having large weapons be restricted by might and require two hands (meaning that you couldn't get a shield or a second weapon).
Yes and no.
If an unarmed guy grabs the shield with both hands other people have lots of free shots on the shield bearer unless he lets go of the shield.
Heavy armor? Knock the dude in plate over. He might not be hurt but...getting up will take precious seconds whilst others could cut him down or the unarmed individual could wrest his weapon away from him etc.
Problem is with this system...any system really. knock someone down, they get right back up no problems. Grapple a shield the opposing roll to pull away might be easier than it would be IRL.
Can't get this stuff perfect and i think the rules will get overly complex trying to model it fairly. Best of luck to those who wish to do so though.
This sounds like a lot of maneuvering. A maneuver to negate a shield bonus for a short period of time, or a maneuver to knock someone down (and a subsequent ally placing a block preventing him from getting back up) would be great tactics. But they aren't really hindered by my weapon or armor rules. Heck, having Might/Endurance restrict the attempt at getting up actually aids these actions.
-
I really dislike the bigger==better weapon idea, especially because of the implication that all attacks you make with the weapon will be 'full force' style attacks. But most actual attacks aren't full force style attacks, because they leave you too open to a counter.
I think you're misinterpreting the link between narrative and mechanics. Because an Axe has Weapon:3 doesn't mean that every time it's swung the person is "swinging for the fences." It just means that that's how much potential stress it can cause--but a low roll means it wasn't a very good swing, and a high roll means it was an attempted deathblow.
You'd use declarations and maneuvers to mechanically enforce what you're saying, and that's right in the RAW.
-
Also bear in mind that each exchange is 30 seconds. It's not a single exchange of blows, but the total outcome of half a minute of back and forth.
-
Also bear in mind that each exchange is 30 seconds. It's not a single exchange of blows, but the total outcome of half a minute of back and forth.
Where did you get this? The closest thing I can find to a definition is this:
Exchange (conflict only): The amount of time it takes in a conflict for everyone to take one action and defend against any actions that are directed against them—usually not longer than a few minutes.
Which implies to me, at least, that exchange durations vary widely, but at the core reflect a single "exchange" of attacks (though I agree that an "attack" might well consist of a combination of feints, thrusts, etc). In a firefight, for example, I imagine an exchange would only be a few seconds long -- long enough to duck out of cover, make a reasonable aimed shot or several poorly aimed shots with a semi-auto, then duck back. (In a car chase scene, exchanges might be somewhat longer.)
-
Exchange times are variable - pretty much have to be since FATE uses the exchange terminology for wildly different conflict situations. It can be seconds in combat, minutes in a debate, hours in a complex multi-day negotiation, or even years or decades to set up a darkhallow ritual.
-
Here's my brainstorming for a more detailed melee combat system:
People have 3 stats, that I'll call Breath, Balance, and Blood for the amusing alliteration.
--------------------
Breath represents how physically tired, out of breath, physically capable you are of doing fighting related actions.
Like swimming as fast as you can, melee fighting is something that uses many muscles in the body at once and can make you tired/ out of breath very, very quickly.
A disadvantage of armor is that it tends to increase the breath cost of actions. Well fitted armor generally doesn’t stop you from doing stuff, but it certainly makes you tired faster.
Being out of breath restricts the ‘size’ of maneuvers you can do. It’s much harder to make a powerful attack when you are gasping for breath, but you may be able to manage poking someone in the eyeball.
Starting breath would be based on your physical fitness/endurance stat, possibly with a modifier for how tired you are, in general.
----------------
Balance represents how well positioned you are to make and defend against attacks.
You generally have to use up balance to make attacks and to defend against them.
In general, the stronger the attack, the more balance you have to give up to make it.
Defense works the same way, the stronger your defense, the more balance you have to give up to make it. This is the advantage of armor, it allows you to make a weaker defense (which costs less balance) to mitigate the attack down to something you armor can take.
Being out of balance means that you are probably doomed, people can make powerful attacks against you, and you don’t really have any ability to defend against them. Also, you can’t really make attacks in return. So things like getting knocked down, or having your weapon pinned can really ruin your whole day.
People who don’t’ know how to fight generally have low balance scores, they have no idea how to attack or defend. Once you get to a modicum of competency, your balance score mostly stops going up, after all both you and the ultimate master stand in almost the exact same fighting stance. But as you get much better at combat, actions with a balance cost become cheaper to do
So, despite armor making your actions take more breath, it’s generally easier to defend yourself if you are wearing armor, because you don’t have to put as much effort into your defense.
----------------
Blood, this represents how wounded you are.
Small wounds generally reduce your breath, while large wounds can reduce both your breath and your balance. Some wounds bleed, which increases the amount of the penalty you take from them over time.
Being out of blood pretty much means you are lying around, waiting for someone to put you out of your misery. But maybe your friends will come along before that unhappy event happens, or your opponent will decide to take you captive instead.
Note that blood doesn’t necessarily show how close you are to death, for example a broken leg would give you grave penalties to balance, but you aren’t going to die from it in the next few minutes.
--------------
Damage
An attack can damage any of your three stats, or it can kill you outright.
Examples:
In general, fighting people with your fists and feet does mostly breath and balance damage. It’s hard to kill someone outright with your fists, normally you have to do something like beat them down and strangle them. Of course, some attacks, like say, gouging someones eyes out can do blood damage, but they tend to be rarer.
Certain attacks, like tripping someone or knocking their weapon out of line do almost all balance damage, the attack is designed to make following attacks easier, not to damage the target outright.
Same attacks, like getting trampled by a horse, are so massive that they do damage to all three stats.
---------------
Timing
There are four important times
1. when you decide to do something
2. when the other person can notice you doing that thing
3. when the thing actually happens
4. how soon you are able to do something else afterwards
So, a feint would be a move that looks like another move, but there is also time that it becomes obvious your move is a feint.
Interesting side effect: it also becomes possible for two opponents to kill each other by both committing to offensive moves that leave them no defensive options and land close together.
four things matter for timing
1 how fast you are able to get your body to move
2 how well you can notice something is happening
3 how fast your mind can process what it sees, and act on it
4 how light or maneuverable your weapon is.
-----------------
So, powerful attacks are generally a bad idea, for the following reasons:
1 They cost a relatively high amount of breath and and balance to make
2 They are well telegraphed, your opponent can see them coming, and has a lot of time to do something about them.
But, they are the attacks that do massive blood damage, or end the fight all together, so it’s the powerful attacks that we actually want to land.
How do we get our powerful attacks to land?
run the other guy out of breath and/or balance, so that even though he can see the attack coming, there’s nothing he can do about it.
Or use small attacks that do blood damage to bring him down that way.
Or exploit you opponents timing such that you can land an attack and there is nothing they can do about it.
-----------
So, sample fight:
--------------
Unarmored guy with huge axe vs unarmored guy with rapier:
Guy with axe: I wind up for a huge, powerful attack.
Guy with rapier: I see it coming, and have all the time in the world to put my sword into your eye before you axe can land.
Guy with axe: alas, I am dead! But you are no so fast with the rapier that you can act fast enough to prevent my axe from cleaving you in twain, even though I am dead.
Guy with rapier: whoops. Maybe I should have been a bit more conservative in my life choices.
-------------------
Of course, the really hard part ti figuring out timing, costs, and damage so that there are no simple paths to victory...
-
That's certainly a more granular and tactical approach to Fate combat. If that's what floats your boat have at it, but personally I like the fact that the system is fairly abstract and the player/GM can narrate outcomes to suit their particular taste in fiction.
Now, is it true to historical fact when the guy playing a barbarian describes how his massive axe? Of course not. Is it fun? Yep. The great thing about an abstract combat system is that it allows people to focus on the character concept and interesting description rather than picking the optimal mechanical course of action and sticking to it to the bitter end.
Now, if you want to provide some balance to top tier weapons (the way that D&D 3.X had simple, marital, and exotic weapons, with each weapon being roughly equivalent within it's class) you could maybe apply a defense and/or initiative penalty to big, unwieldy, but devastating weapons while applying a bonus to one or both for smaller, less damaging weapons. If you want to avoid "modifiers" you could say that "unwieldy" weapons take a supplemental action to ready, so if you want to attack continually with them you'll take a -1 to your actions going forward.
-
Funnily Big Weapons don't seem to be better here, I would much rather go with my weapons 3 longsword and a shield than a weapons 5 great sword.
-
True. Somewhat unusually for an RPG his system makes shields almost too good to pass up.
-
True. Somewhat unusually for an RPG his system makes shields almost too good to pass up.
And that can be its own problem. Expect nearly everyone to take one, which means their soak will be higher than their damage bonus which, in turn, means stalemate in combat.
-
And that can be its own problem. Expect nearly everyone to take one, which means their soak will be higher than their damage bonus which, in turn, means stalemate in combat.
I kind of like that it allows the sort of very close very long fights you see in movies, ones that last multiple scenes over dozens of exchanges.
-
I kind of like that it allows the sort of very close very long fights you see in movies, ones that last multiple scenes over dozens of exchanges.
Having played SotC I can testify to the fact that there's a fine, fine line between "long" and "dull."
-
If I was going to do something more like D&D in FATE...
I like your armor system, except for shields. For those I would probably just give a +1 to defense rolls (weapons/athletics), with no armor bonus. I would make the "block ranged attacks" a Stunt. Not everyone can get that shield up in time to block arrows.
For weapons, probably something even closer to the D&D system...
Unarmed = 0.
Simple weapons (anything a peasant could pick up and reasonably use) = Weapon 1.
Martial Weapons (requires at least moderate training) = Weapon 2.
Two-Handed Weapons = Weapon 3, but incur a penalty to attack or defense based on what seems appropriate. (Axes hit like a truck, but it takes TIME to wind up that Greataxe swing... so -1 Weapon Skill).
Two-Weapon Fighting is still a stunt -- adds half the off-hand weapon value to damage.
Any odd weapon feature from D&D (tripping weapon, long-reach, disarm) is an Aspect on the Weapon that can be invoked for a Fate Point, as normal. Alternatively, it lowers the threshold for applying an appropriate maneuver on the foe by 1 or gives that same 1 as a bonus on opposed checks.
So if you want to hold off a foe with a long-reach weapon (block vs. movement), the block strength goes up by 1 if you're using a long-spear. If you're trying to disarm someone with a sword-breaker, you get a +1 to your Weapons roll to put that Aspect on the foe.
-
@crusher_bob: I don't think that sounds too promising. The complexity doesn't seem to justify itself, if you know what I mean.
@wolff96: I object to a few bits of your plan.
First, blocking an arrow with a shield seems no harder than blocking a sword with a sword. Why require a stunt?
Second, making shields add to defence instead of armour makes them better. And they're already really good.
Third, there's no reason ever to use a greataxe in your plan. -1 Weapons skill ensures that the greataxe will never do more damage than a longsword.
-
That combat system sounds super complicated. What if you just had a "Martial Artist" power that was Channeling/Evocation reflavored for stabbing people in the face?
-
We've got something like that as Sponsored Magic.
TRANSCENDENT SWORDSMANSHIP [-4]
Description: Legends speak of heroes who fought dragons with nothing but sword and mail. These heroes fought creatures with nearly endless power and some of them actually won. Transcendent Swordsmanship channels the power of the heroes of old and uses it to do the impossible with swords.
Sponsor: Transcendent Swordsmanship is sponsored by the spirits, or perhaps the legends, of long-dead heroes.
Agenda: Transcendent Swordsmanship drives its user to destroy evil and to prove his own worth as a hero.
Evocation: Evocations cast with Transcendent Swordsmanship often resemble air or metal evocations, and they almost always emulate sword techniques.
Thaumaturgy: Transcendent Swordsmanship allows its user to cast rituals that tap into the legends of dead heroes, as well as rituals that summon spiritual warriors.
Evothaum: Transcendent Swordsmanship does not grant the ability to use Thaumaturgy with the speed and methods of Evocation.
Extra Benefits: A character with Transcendent Swordsmanship replaces his Conviction skill with his Might skill and his Discipline skill with his Weapons skill for the purposes of spellcasting.
Note: Foci made to boost Transcendent Swordsmanship spells are almost always swords. That being said, there's nothing stopping Transcendent Swordsmanship from becoming Transcendent Axemanship in the hands of a specific character.
Is that the sort of thing you want?
Or were you looking for something narratively nonmagical?
-
Honestly, I was just throwing out a half thought through suggestion for crusher_bob.
But that is pretty awesome.
-
First, blocking an arrow with a shield seems no harder than blocking a sword with a sword. Why require a stunt?
Effectively, you're moving a trapping (avoiding ranged attacks) from Athletics to Weapons. Granted, you need a shield equipped to do it... So it falls into a kind of grey area. I could see it either way, but decided to go with the weaker interpretation. Especially since, as you note below, shields are really good in this system, regardless of implementation..
Second, making shields add to defence instead of armour makes them better. And they're already really good.
You're right, it is slightly better -- you've got a slightly better chance to make attacks completely miss, rather than be a weak hit. I guess I prefer having them make you slightly less likely to get hit rather than just shaving a point or two of damage off of a successful hit. It also avoids the awkward language around "well, in this one case, the armor stacks".
Third, there's no reason ever to use a greataxe in your plan. -1 Weapons skill ensures that the greataxe will never do more damage than a longsword.
That's a really good point -- I hadn't looked at it that way. Maybe using a big weapon leaves you slightly more open (-1 defense)? I just don't like the idea of zero downside to the biggest weapons you can find. There's a reason every single person on a real battlefield didn't run around with the biggest weapon they could swing...
-
Effectively, you're moving a trapping (avoiding ranged attacks) from Athletics to Weapons. Granted, you need a shield equipped to do it... So it falls into a kind of grey area. I could see it either way, but decided to go with the weaker interpretation. Especially since, as you note below, shields are really good in this system, regardless of implementation.
IIRC, you can block anything with Weapons if the GM thinks your justification sounds reasonable.
A shield sounds like a good justification to me.
You're right, it is slightly better -- you've got a slightly better chance to make attacks completely miss, rather than be a weak hit. I guess I prefer having them make you slightly less likely to get hit rather than just shaving a point or two of damage off of a successful hit. It also avoids the awkward language around "well, in this one case, the armor stacks".
Pretty much all armour stunts use that language. Part of the reason I represent shields with stunts.
Also, taking stress doesn't mean getting hit in-character.
That's a really good point -- I hadn't looked at it that way. Maybe using a big weapon leaves you slightly more open (-1 defense)? I just don't like the idea of zero downside to the biggest weapons you can find. There's a reason every single person on a real battlefield didn't run around with the biggest weapon they could swing...
-1 Defence could work, as could having Might restrict.
As could making hands into a resource, so being able to wield a shield at the same time is a big deal. Though that doesn't apply once people get Strength.
You could also use a more complex system, with tags and special weapon effects galore. That way, decisions are less easy.
-
Come to think of it, can I ask why you're changing the weapon / armor values at all? What's wrong with how they are currently set up that you have to change it? I think this is a case of "If it's not broke, don't fix it." The other criticisms in this thread blow that direction, too.
-
Come to think of it, can I ask why you're changing the weapon / armor values at all? What's wrong with how they are currently set up that you have to change it? I think this is a case of "If it's not broke, don't fix it." The other criticisms in this thread blow that direction, too.
The problem of shields again. I want them to be good, to make sense, but not to be a "must have" sort of situation. DFRPG has no rules for shields. Some houserule it as armor, others have it provide bonus to defense, etc. I think having a shield and armor is better than just armor.
I guess I should break that down:
A shield plus armor should be better than armor.
A shield should be the easiest way to boost defenses.
If one isn't going to use a shield, the offensive tradeoff needs to be worth it.
If one is using a shield and armor, one shouldn't be invincible.
For a modern game, shields are something which would be a major part of a character, so requiring the investment of stunts, etc. makes sense. Treating it on a case by case basis makes sense. In a fantasy game set in a medieval setting, shields (and armor) are going to be ubiquitous. The combat system needs to reflect this.
Heavy armor requires training (might and endurance, but I'd allow a stunt to mitigate the restriction).
Heavy weapons require strength to use effectively (otherwise you'd have power but be slow and thus ineffective).
The mean would be towards one-handed weapons and a shield with light armor. So we'd be looking at Armor 3 with Weapon 3. That's a decent balance in my book.
Investment in defense or offense would skew it, and more easily towards defense. Since stunts to boost damage are easy to make and common, it seems reasonable that we'd end up with a situation where skills are spent on defense and refresh on offense. This seems in line with what we see in DFRPG.
-
IIRC, you can block anything with Weapons if the GM thinks your justification sounds reasonable.
A shield sounds like a good justification to me.
I agree that it's a grey area. I would still require it to be a stunt, simply because I think it would require at least some training/practice to block any type of incoming projectile. *shrug*
Also, taking stress doesn't mean getting hit in-character.
True. And I understand where you're coming from in using them as armor. I just prefer to give a bonus to the block/deflection. I think the combination of it actually making you honestly harder to hit -- you have a wall at arm's length to block and deflect strikes -- along with not inherently being to block anything (using it as a stunt, above) makes it relatively 'balanced'.
As always, personal preference and tables differ. :)
-1 Defence could work, as could having Might restrict.
Nice! I like using Might to restrict, the same way as it's used for really heavy armors. That makes them still be the big-damage, big-hit, but means they're not an automatic 'go-to' on weaponry.
As could making hands into a resource, so being able to wield a shield at the same time is a big deal. Though that doesn't apply once people get Strength.
You could also use a more complex system, with tags and special weapon effects galore. That way, decisions are less easy.
I think that would be the big trade-off for my table -- swing a huge weapon for extra damage or protect yourself better with a shield. Not to mention the one character that would want to dual-wield weapons, but that's already covered by stunts. :)
And we already use (as a house-rule) a complex system at our table. It boils down to "does that make sense?" for any type of weapons. So when a character grabbed a step-ladder to beat on a foe last week, he was able to get a small bonus for tripping up foes because, well, he tangled people's legs up in the rungs...
Side note: Highly comedic to watch a Blampire get beaten down by a Scion with Inhuman Strength and a Stepladder, breaking the ladder at the end of the fight to get the stake necessary for the finishing blow... It felt very "Buffy". ;D
-
Side note: Highly comedic to watch a Blampire get beaten down by a Scion with Inhuman Strength and a Stepladder, breaking the ladder at the end of the fight to get the stake necessary for the finishing blow... It felt very "Buffy". ;D
Now, that is a take-out narration! ;D