Hi all.
I'm working on a new version of the tRoS combat simulator that you may have downloaded from the webpage. It's a prettier windows based simulator and should contain a lot more combat options and suchlike than the existing one.
Version One (almost ready) will be functionally much the same as the existing simulator but with more combat options (and it looks nicer).
Version Two will have armour, shields, and various weapons, plus all of the combat maneuvers (plus anything else the testers suggest should go in there).
Version Three (and this is a big maybe) may allow matchmaking across IP, so that two people can have a duel over the internet if they both have the software.
An alternate version three may allow battles versus a computer opponent, but don't count on it - the algorithm to even approximate any kind of intelligent decision making in the tRoS system will be a HELL of a task. I'm not sure if I'm man enough for that :-)
Anyway, what I would like is a couple of playtesters. I anticipate a new subversion (adding a couple of new features and fixing bugs) every few days to a week. I need a couple of people who can devote the time to playing with the thing and putting it through its paces, then getting back to me promptly each time with bugs, suggestions, ideas etc. Jacob is the third tester.
Any takers?
Cheers,
Brian.
::Stares for a long moment::
Well, that just blows me out of the water. I was working on a version as well, mostly because I enjoy using what little programming skills I currently possess, but that blows me away. Mine was to be another DOS-based version (I took Pascal 5-6 years ago in HS) but with more combat features.. Oh well.
Sign me up as a playtester. I have a fair amount of freetime, so I'll be able to play with it, and I'm usually very good about regular check ins.
I'll have free time in 10 days.
Quote from: BrianLHi all.
An alternate version three may allow battles versus a computer opponent, but don't count on it - the algorithm to even approximate any kind of intelligent decision making in the tRoS system will be a HELL of a task. I'm not sure if I'm man enough for that :-)
Brian.
I just read that again. And I thought about it.... and yeah, that would be icky. Conceptually, I know how to do it, but it'd be Hell to code, I think. Definitely not something to do until the simulator is done. I'm just talking about someone who would attack and parry... the other maneuvers would just be plain Hell to add on. However, if you want an AI that would be able to attack and parry/block, and could decide dice splits depending on a varying agression level, that I know how to do. The agression stat would be a 4-point scale ranging from "suicidal" to "Total defense", based on the difference of means & the Standard deviation around that. If you'd like that assistance, now or later, PM me. Otherwise, I won't clutter the Forge with evil statistical stuff :)
PS: sorry again about the review comments
OK, sounds good. Thanks guys.
Now I see why the previous simulator only had a subset of the crit tables! It took me about 5 hours and several hundred lines of code last night just to do the cut table, and that has only 7 body locations (times an average of 4 specific locations, times five levels of severity!). Thrust will be the same again, and then bash has all 14 body locations. Oh my! :-) Fortunately, version 1 (longsword, no shield) only requires cut, thrust, and one location of the bash tables (for counters that become pommel to the face).
Wolfen - you should have spoken to Jake about it, then he could have told you I was doing one, or could have told me you were :-) Oh well.
Nevermet - 1) stop apologising, they were fair comments. On going back and reading it, I could have done a far better review. I rushed it, and it suffered as a result. On the other hand, feel free to do a better one... *grin*. 2) Coding the algorithm is the easy part, it's designing it that's tricky (there are SO many variables to consider). If this is your forte, then yes, lets get together when I get to that part of the program and see what we can come up with.
V1 is basically done, except only has the cut tables. I'll try to do the thrust table over this weekend and get it out early next week.
Brian.
Quote from: BrianL
Nevermet - 1) stop apologising, they were fair comments. On going back and reading it, I could have done a far better review. I rushed it, and it suffered as a result. On the other hand, feel free to do a better one... *grin*. 2) Coding the algorithm is the easy part, it's designing it that's tricky (there are SO many variables to consider). If this is your forte, then yes, lets get together when I get to that part of the program and see what we can come up with.
Brian.
*grin* Apologizing is one of my few talents. *Glares up at the player who did my Chargen, shaking my fist angrily for not min/maxing me more*
As for the coding, cool.
I've got a quarter-assed version set up on Excel already of what would need to be compared. Basically, the AI i envision would ask itself how much of a percentage chance it wants to have getting hit, and acts accordingly.
I knew those 5 statistics courses would come in handy somehow.
Quote from: BrianL
On going back and reading it, I could have done a far better review. I rushed it, and it suffered as a result. On the other hand, feel free to do a better one... *grin*
While I would love to write a review of TROS for rpg.net, I'm not going to for two reasons.
The first -and more minor - reason is that I was clearly one of the "Pro-TROS" people in the very long TROS thread in rpg.net's forum. As I saw with the reaction to the Mechanical Dream reviews, this violates a perception of 'objectivity' that rpg.net readers appreciate.
The second, and IMO more substantive, reason for not writing a review is I agree with several of the concerns people here at the Forge brought up about the game and what needs to get emphasized better in the edition getting printed for August. I don't think it'd be very appropriate to write a game review that points out errors I know aren't going to exist in 3 months.
When the new ed. comes out, then I may write a review. Either way, though, I think Jake should find out how rpg.net's 'official' reviews occur (with free copies and whatnot). No shouts of fanboyism, and Driftwood should have confidence that their game is good.
Hi Nevermet
It is sad what happened about Mechanical Dream reviews on RPGnet, (I wrote one of the reviews). Just two comments -
First Conan McKegg, the other reviewer, is on the review staff at RPGnet and he also got slammed so beware - "official" channels don't necessarily work. He knew nothing about the game and was just impressed with it when he got it. RPGnetters seem to be very cynical at the moment about new games and they dislike any statement that the RPG is new or innovative.
Second, as for comments about impartiality I think its all about perception. Again Conan had not posted on RPGnet, had not followed the game and he was an official reviewer. It was all perception of the readers. I think your approach may be a good idea in waiting for the general release so you can look "impartial". I just think its a sorry situation where people who buy and like (or dislike) a game don't review it on RPGnet because of the negative reaction it creates but that is the state of affairs there at the moment (even the TROS review suffered from this a little) :(
Quote from: Nevermet
When the new ed. comes out, then I may write a review. Either way, though, I think Jake should find out how rpg.net's 'official' reviews occur (with free copies and whatnot). No shouts of fanboyism, and Driftwood should have confidence that their game is good.
Actually, I DID go the "right way," and left a free copy with one of RPG.net's regular reviewers at the GAMA show back in late March. The review was written by the beginning of April, and the way I wandered onto RPG.net in the first place was to see it, as it was supposed to go up within a week of it's being written. Alas, I never saw the review, and I've emailed the reviewer SEVERAL times trying to find out what's up (as well as follow up on an offer to write a supplement that he made). I'll withhold names for now, but he IS one of the regular reviewers.
Too bad, because it would have been a great review. The guy was really jazzed when I spoke with him. He had a really cool adventure idea, too.
Jake
That is a shame
and sorry for the presumption about the review copy. Didn't know you gave one out. My bad.
Gidday all.
The first test version of the combat sim is ready, but Wolfen and Nevermet - your email addresses aren't in your profiles. Email me at bleybourne@hotmail and let me know where to send it. I've just sent Jake a copy. (by the way - if anyone else is prepared to playtest for me, let me know).
The full cut & thrust hit tables are in there, as well as the following attacks:
Cut, Thrust, Evasive Attack, Beat, Stop Short
and the following defenses:
Parry, Counter, Full Evasion, Partial Evasion, Duck & Weave
As far as I am aware, I've covered all the possibilities in all cases (like, the bonuses of duck and weave, and when you get 5+ successes margin as the defender on a stop short, and botching when evading, and so on.
As soon as I get your email addresses, I'll send it off, have a play, try out everything, and see what works, what is broken, and what needs to be improved (plus suggestions on how to make it look nicer if necessary).
Over the next couple of days, I'll add expulsion as a defense, and half sword as an option for attacking and defending. I left half sword for last because it means implementing range rules, which I was leaving until I added the extra weapons etc in there. Within a week or two I expect to have armour, different weapons, half swording, range, and the other maneuvers that I didn't need to implement until I had the extra weapons (bash, double attack, simultaneous block/strike, etc).
Then after THAT, I'll start thinking about an AI that you can battle.
Brian.
Awesome. Just e-mailed you. I'm looking forward to checkin' it out..
As for future update priorities, I'm looking specifically for weapons and armor.. And I'd rather have the net interface so two people can fight each other over the net than AI.. but that's just me.
I'm psyched.
Posted. Let me know.
Whats happened to my playtesters?
I've had feedback from Jake, but nothing from the other guys. What's up guys? :-)
I'm just waiting for your feedback so I can send you the next revision! It adds the following:
* red/red initiative
* weapon choices (2-handed or 1-handed longsword is the only choice at the moment, but that'll grow)
* Shields (if using a 1-handed weapon, obviously)
* Armour
* New shield based maneuvers such as parry and block open & strike
* The bash tables have been done
Some changes, as suggested by Jake:
* die allocation to maneuvers defaults to zero instead of maximum, and you can't click "go" on the maneuver until you allocate some dice, so no more accidental all-or-nothing attacks
* Evasion has been fixed so it only gives its bonus the same exchange as it's used (i.e. in red/red initiative)
* The combat pool has been moved up and its color changed so its more prominent
I'm up to 9,000 lines of code and still going strong :-)
9000 lines, huh...
Brian, you da man...
I played with the last one you sent me for about half an hour yesterday just fighting myself...it was great fun.
Jake
Quote from: Jake Norwood9000 lines, huh...
Brian, you da man...
I played with the last one you sent me for about half an hour yesterday just fighting myself...it was great fun.
Jake
Yeah, but approx 6,500 of those are the hit tables :-)
After I got armour, helms and shields sussed out last night, I had my first armored vs unarmored combat. Man, was it fun.
Geralt had a 12 die CP, 2-handed longsword and nothing else.
Stefan had an 8 die CP, 1-handed longsword, full helm, large shield, plate on his torso, and leather sleeves and leggings.
They both had 5 for everything else
It was actually quite a long fight, and really interesting. When I started I thought the 4 die CP advantage would be the decider, but it was actually really hard as Geralt, because I had to assign enough dice to get through the armour (and forget attacking the torso or head, pretty much) but at the same time keep enough back for a defense just in case. Geralt/I felt very naked against such an armoured opponent. Basically, Geralt kept hitting very minorly, usually doing 0 damage attacks. He was trying to be careful that Stefan never had the opportunity to take initiative because if his die were low at that point it was good night. Stefan could afford to be a little more of a risk taker, because the armour and shield were damn good protection. Having a TN of 5 for blocking doesn't hurt either.
Partial Evasion and Full Evasion/Beat were Geralts friends, I can tell you!
Eventually, Geralt won. He had been chipping away at Stefan for ages with very little headway (Stefan had a Blood Loss of about 6 but kept making his blood rolls) and so Geralt went wild with a big 10 die cut to the upper legs (saving 2 for a 2-die full evasion and hoping that would be enough if it came to that) and Stefan botched his 6 die parry. The resulting wound (against leather only) gave Stefan 7 pain, which meant he had a CP of 1 from then on :-) It still took another 4 full combat rounds for Geralt to hack his way through the armour and bring Stefan down, but it was basically unopposed slaughter, and quite fun :-)
I have to say, it was a really stressful feeling going through that combat, being afraid of losing initiative and facing steel with no protection. This is one cool combat system.
Brian.
Neat. Sounds like some good fixes. (had some trouble the first couple of combats where I didn't notice the dice allocation choice on the attack...) Can't wait to try it all out..
As for feedback... Sorry, been out of the loop lately. Screwy work hours and some problems at home have been taking up free time. But hey, did a few combats, and noticed a few problems. Should I post those problems here, or should I just e-mail them to you? I'll e-mail you either way, but what I want to know is if feedback should be posted so that others know what has been suggested already, or.. whatever.
I'm happy for issues to be posted here if you like, that way we can discuss them etc and others can see what's been discussed/fixed.
Here's your feedback from your email, with my comments.
> First off, Counter. Most people don't do this, so it's not something
>you notice right away, but just to check the system, I did a full out counter
>in defense from a full out attack, all dice. I gained 3 from it, but it
>counted the CP as empty, and therefore ended the round, and THEN refreshed
>the dice pools, adding the 3 CP bonus then. This is, if I remember correctly
>when I posed this question to Jake, incorrect. If both opponents exhaust
>their CPs but one gains bonus dice (and it is not the 2nd exchange of the
>round) then he will gain an unopposed attack using those bonus dice. Not
>absolutely sure how you've got it coded, but it seems to me that simply
>moving the line which adds the bonus dice from the counter to a position
>prior to the line that checks for empty CP ought to fix the problem.
Yup, I missed that, easy enough to fix. It's presumably also going to be the case with block open and strike, which also gives bonus dice, so I'll make that change too. Well spotted.
As an aside, most people don't do counters? I do them all the time, it's a bloody good maneuver (although admittedly, not being able to pick where your counter goes can be frustrating if it heads towards their breastplate etc).
> Secondly, I either missed any rules declaring Evasion to have an
>activation cost, or this is a mistake. I'm not saying that it *is* a mistake,
>as I've managed to make a fool of myself by missing the obvious before, but
>if I am correct.. it's an issue which needs addressing.
Hmm.. are you talking about evasive attack, or full/partial/duck&weave evasion? Evasive attack does have an activation cost. The three dodges don't, can you give me an example of where it gave you an activation cost, because it shouldn't have. The only situation I can think of where you might have got that cost is if you had declared an aggressive stance, then thrown a white die and evaded the other guys attack, that would give you a +2 activation cost for being in the wrong stance.
> Thirdly, just for my preference, I would like to see the actual number
>inputted when calculating damage.
Which number? It gives you the margin of success, but caps it at 5 because the table doesn't go any higher than that (a margin of 5 is indentical to a margin of 15 in tRoS). That margin is after all modifiers strength, dr, toughness, armour.
> Fourth, though this is a minor concern, the ability to use Accuracy
>would be nice.
Sorry, that one goes in the too hard basket. I would have to look up the table several times (with the ability to shift up/down by two points, that's as many as 5 possibilities on some of the tables), and show you the results of all possible wounds, then allow you to pick etc. No, that one wont be happening, sorry. It's really something that only works in "real play" when you have the book in front of you.
>P.S. Playing around while writing this e-mail, I discovered a really, really
>odd bug! Stefan did a Duck and Weave, and Geralt declared a feint and
>thrust... Then when I was clicking to determine how many dice to spend, I hit
>no upper limit. I eventually hit with 24 24 extra dice for 29 total. I got 13
>successes to 3, for a margin of... 5. Then Stefan did not die. It just went
>straight to the next round of combat, where Geralt's CP is -45, but still
>gives me the option to attack with 1 die (or -45 dice). I opt to roll -45
>dice, and it doesn't allow Stefan to defend (despite having a full combat
>pool of 10). It rolls a single die, and fails, so Stefan still isn't
>scratched.
That one has been fixed. There was a bug where if you declared a maneuver, and only had one die available to assign to it, the die counter would allow you to put in any number you wanted. This is actually a minor flaw in the counter component where it screws up if the MaxValue and the MinValue of the component are the same (both 1, in this case). Tricky to get around without a lot of recoding in a lot of places, but it was incidentally fixed through fixing another issue - the MinValue of all die counters is now 0 (and it wont work if you don't change it from zero, so it avoids the problem of accidentally clicking on a maneuver before you assign the number of dice you want), and as a side bonus of that, the lowest MaxValue a counter can end up with is 1, while it's MinValue is always 0, so the bug with them being the same is avoided.
The 13-to-3 margin was 5 because that's as high as your margin can get, any higher is no different. The other screwy bits would have been because it can't handle a negative combat pool (in the normal course of events it can't get negative). Shouldn't be a problem now with the fix described above.
v0.99 is ready, but I'll do a 0.99b with that counter fix in there and send it off.
Brian.
Actually, on top of the 45 die issue, you were right that there was a (second) problem with feint-to-thrust. I forgot to change the "attacktype" variable from a cut (1) to a thrust (2) when doing a feint to thrust, so when it went to the damage tables, it was looking in the cut table for a thrust location, and because there isn't one (cut are only 1-7 and thrust only 8-14) it was returning nothing, that's why in your example Stefan was unharmed by the margin 5 cut-becomes-thrust attack.
Well done. It's stuff like that that I need/want playtesters for.
Brian.
QuoteAs an aside, most people don't do counters? I do them all the time, it's a bloody good maneuver (although admittedly, not being able to pick where your counter goes can be frustrating if it heads towards their breastplate etc).
Sorry. To clarify, most people do not do a
full out (all dice) counter on the first move of combat, or do a
full-out (all dice) attack, either. Counters are very useful, so they get used often, just not as described.
Evasion & Evasive Attack: Disregard, my mistake.
QuoteWhich number? It gives you the margin of success, but caps it at 5 because the table doesn't go any higher than that (a margin of 5 is indentical to a margin of 15 in tRoS). That margin is after all modifiers strength, dr, toughness, armour.
All numbers. Damage is calculated by the success margin, +DR (ST+Weapon DR) - TO -AV = Damage Level. I'd rather, just for my own sake, see it calculated out, like so:
Geralt hits Stefan with a damage level (successes(2) + DR(ST(5) +2= 7) minus toughness(5) and armour(0)) of 4...
As I said, this is just personal preference, but I'd like to see it included.
Accuracy: Aww...
Odd bug fixed: Excellent. Can't wait to see the updated version.
Progress report:
I have added a new checkbox beside "show die rolls" called "show damage calculation", since that was asked for. When checked, it will break down successes, damage rating, toughness and armour for each successful strike. Remember that any result above 5 is lowered to 5 though.
I have finished the major reworking I had to do with activation costs (my bad - I forgot that different weapons might have different activation costs for the same maneuvers, so I had hard coded them, such as 2 for counter etc). That took a lot of work, but now allows me to add some new weapons (pole axe and maul probably today, since they're the same length as the longsword). This work also means it's going to be easier to incorporate range, so I'll work on that over the weekend, and then I'll be able to add longer and shorter weapons.
I'm still not convinced about pugilism or grappling though. They probably wont make it, although we'll see.
Almost all the maneuvers from the book are in there now. I'm having problems with how to implement Simultaneous Block/Strike, but I'll work that out. One question for Jake though - with a bashing attack, the description (and common sense) seems to indicate swung attacks (i.e. to the same locations as cutting) but the bash tables have all of the thrust locations as well. What's the story? Can you swing a bashing weapon at any location I-XIV or only to the swing locations I-VII?
Brian.
Bash thrusts are for fists, jabs with the staff, etc.
Jake
Quote from: Jake NorwoodBash thrusts are for fists, jabs with the staff, etc.
Jake
OK, so in terms of the "available maneuvers for different weapons" tables, those count as thrusting attacks, not bashing attacks, they just roll on the bash table instead of the piercing one?
In other words, if a weapon has Bash (0) and thrust (1) then a bash thrust has an activation cost of 1, right?
yup
Cool, that saves me a lot of backtracking :-)
Well, there's good news and there's bad news...
Actually, it's all bad. I would tell you just how bad, but swearing in the forums will probably get me kicked. My car was broken into this morning, and my laptop was stolen. On it was the only copy of the source code for the combat simulator. Yes, I have a backup, but it's a week old and pretty much the entire program was done in the last week (except the interface and the cut tables), so for all intents and purposes, it's gone.
Yes, I will do it again, from scratch, but don't expect it really soon. I'm pretty discouraged at doing the same thing over, and besides, I'll have to wait until insurance comes through and I get my laptop replaced.
In the meantime, luckily the program was 99% done. I didn't get around to finishing range, but there are a few weapon options in there (Maul, Poleaxe and Longsword one or two handed), shields, armour, all the maneuvers except Toss, etc etc. In other words, it's quite usable and I think pretty good at simulating combat in tRoS as long as those are your weapons of choice. For a while at least, you'll have to make do with it anyway :-) I have suggested to Jacob that he throw it up on the page as is.
Sorry guys, totally out of my control. You wouldn't believe the day I have had, dealing with two insurance companies (car and contents), the police, the glass company, the locksmith (had to get my house locks all changed because he took my keys as well), cancelling all my credit cards (wallet), my cellphone, etc etc. Pretty fuc*ing bad day, as days go. To be honest, the *contents* of my laptop is the thing that pis*es me off the most, everything else is just stuff, and can be replaced, but on there I had the combat sim (a couple of weeks of really hard work, I took unpaid days off work to develop that thing!), all the writings for my 2 RPG campaigns (including NPC writeups and many many maps painstakingly drawn in CC2), some other software I was developing on the side, all the prep work I did over three weeks for a project that's starting soon. Some of it is backed up, but a lot of it isn't and I'm just gutted.
Anyway, rant over. I hope you all download the combat sim and give it a try. There's a lot of love gone into it and it'll be at least a little while before I go there again.
Brian.
Man, that blows goats, Rocky.
Well, thanks for your efforts, Brian. I personally appreciated them. Sorry I wasn't respondent with the updated vers. but so far, in my few attempts to tweak the system, I've found nothing wrong with it.
Oy, Brian!
I found something suspicious while fooling around with the simulator.
Both guys have a long sword and small shield, but no armour. When one guy whas hit in zone III, the damage calculation said that he had armour 6. Is that the shield?
Quote from: MokkurkalfeOy, Brian!
I found something suspicious while fooling around with the simulator.
Both guys have a long sword and small shield, but no armour. When one guy whas hit in zone III, the damage calculation said that he had armour 6. Is that the shield?
Yup. Shields are right from the rules, and I worked out the sizes the shield could cover using the guidelines in the book:
Buckler: AV4, covers left arm only (Zones 7 and 14)
Small Shield: AV6, covers left arm (7 and 14) and side (3) and chest (10)
Large shield (actually uses stats for medium shield in book): AV8, covers everything above, plus zones 11 and 4 (upper chest, left shoulder).
I don't have the code anymore, but I'm 99% sure that's the areas I had shields cover. Eventually I was going to add a tower shield also (large shield from book) with AV10 and covering a large chunk of the body - very tricky to get through.
Just a quick FYI to you all.
The backup I had of the lost combat sim source code wasn't as old as I thought. Basically, I should be back to pretty much where I was in a week or so of work.
At the moment, I don't have the book to refer to for adding in many of the weapons and maneuvers that are now missing, so I have been concentrating to a few other things folk asked for. The main one is range, which is now incorporated and working fine, so those of you who wanted short swords and arming gloves, or dagger vs. polearm, it's all in there now. (Admittedly, I had to make up stats for most weapons since I don't have the book to refer to, but those will be fixed when it arrives).
For the record - Dagger vs Polearm - forget it. Seriously. You just can't win on open ground. Hell, even if the dagger guy somehow flukes it and gets into range, the polearm guy can just do a full evasion, which resets the range and screws the dagger guy again.
Brian.
Grapple to trap/throw for the dagger guy?
Quote from: JaifGrapple to trap/throw for the dagger guy?
Grapple TN6 vs Full evasion TN4. It *could* happen...
On the plus side (for the dagger guy) the polearm guy has -5 dice to do his full evasion with I guess.
No - grapple is a defense as well as an offense. Use trap or throw not only to "parry", but to set up your next attack in preperation for the evasion.
Also, I believe grapple offense is at a TN of 5, defense at a 6. That's the numbers for a fist, anyway.
-Jeff
FYI and a request.
OK, the rebuild of the Combat Sim is coming along well. I have all maneuvers in there (even Half Swording), except Grappling (not sure how I'll do that one yet) and Double Attack (too hard basket for now, it'll come).
It has the following weapons (so far):
Longsword (1 handed)
Longsword (2 handed)
Short Sword
Dagger
Club (1 handed)
Club (2 handed)
Maul
Pike
... with more to come. Basically, it's easy adding weapons now, all the hard work has been done, so I'll just keep slogging at them and stop at about 15 or so I guess. That should be enough to satisfy most folk. For the record, Dagger vs Pike - forget it. Even when the dagger guy is heavily armored and with a large shield and the pike guy is "naked" it's pretty hard to win with the dagger. That +5 attack cost is *nasty*.
The defensive options are (and these now penalise your CP as they should):
pot helm/full helm
leather, chain or plate on chest, arms, legs
buckler
small shield
large shield
(arming glove - see below)
and probably will also include parrying dagger eventually, when I get double attack sorted out.
So, two questions. One for Jake and the other who whoever.
1) Jake, do the weapon length penalties on defense (for being at too short a range for your weapon) apply to evasions (full, partial, duck and weave) as well as parries etc? Or only parries etc? What about blocking if I have a shield? (e.g. dagger vs longsword with shield, dagger range, longsword parry would have -3 dice, but does block have -3? what about an evasion?). The rules read "all defenses get the penalty", but I'm just wondering - seems to me that a full evasion or block is not that different regardless of what I have in my attacking hand.
2) anyone, some of you wanted arming gloves as a defensive option. If they're in the book, I missed them. What are their stats?
[edit] Actually, one more question for Jake. You mentioned that you were changing feint so that rapiers could feint from a thrust. Can any other weapons feint from a thrust as well, or is it only rapiers and everything else can only feint from a cut?
Thanks,
Brian.
Brian-
I agree. Blocking is not penalized.
Jake
Quote from: Jake NorwoodFor an arming glove pay about half the price of one gauntlet (or 1/4 the price of the pair listed) and treat it as if if had the armor rating of chainmail (4).
This is from Jake, in a PM. I think he later bumped the AV down to 3 (though that might have been specifically for attempting to parry a swung blade) I can't find the message where I believe he mentioned that, though.
Anyhow, the way I've been using it.. ATN/DTN is equal to Fist, from the book. Damage is equal to ST-1, same as gauntlet/knuckleduster. AV is 4 for basic strikes to that region, and 3 if it is used in an attempt to parry a cut. Also, (though Jake may have something to say about this) attempting to parry a cut would have at least an activation cost of (2) or (3), success meaning that you parried the cut without injuring your hand. Failure would mean that it got past and hit the target, and.. tie would end up with the damage directed to your hand, instead. That's how I've been using it/would use it.
QuoteActually, one more question for Jake. You mentioned that you were changing feint so that rapiers could feint from a thrust. Can any other weapons feint from a thrust as well, or is it only rapiers and everything else can only feint from a cut?
A good question, and one I asked as well, somewhere. Feinting from a cut with a shortsword is almost as much telegraphing your feint as with a rapier.. not quite, but almost. Both opponents that I have used a feint on said that they should have expected it when I led in with a cut.