Okay, I just touch you and...you explode.

[Callan S.]

*snip*
Now, as to the strength compared to quality of the hit and such.
Why not just make it so that with each success over the margin, means 1 or 2 points of strength can be applied.
For example... my character has a strength of 7, but I only hit someone for 5 successes. I should then be limited to 5 strength, how this plays out in combat I do not know as I have not the time to playtest it.
This takes into account some of the strength was absorbed due to a parry(hence a hypothetical 5 successes instead of 7 or 8).

I guess that is all I can think of at the moment.
-Ingenious

GAHHHHHH!

Excuse me. This is a positive gah, after all.

I was going to respond to other points in your post which I felt...well, never mind.

Then you recreated my rule suggestion!!! All I've said is that each success lets you use up to 3 points of your strength and no more. You've just said the same thing but in your each success only lets you use up to 1 strength. Although I'd really recommend 3 per succes, or perhaps even 4, were both obviously working with the same principle now!!

YESS!!!! :) Ah, I love it when a thread comes together...or when I use a mangled A team quote!

[Ingenious]

And I did it all by myself too, without attempting what-so-ever to read your version.
After-all I am too lazy for that.

-Ingenious

[Deacon Blues]

Noon: Ohhhhh.  I must have missed that the first time.  My apologies for any confusion.

So the question is: how can TRoS simulate attacks at less than full force?  I actually started thinking about that question on my own terms, after posting my response.  My answer is two-fold:

(1)  An attack at less than full force is represented by fewer CP dice being thrown in.  Yes, you apply your full strength to a 1 CP attack, but your chances of doing critical wounds are significantly smaller.  And, if you're using a weapon that does a lot of minimum damage (like a greatsword), then ...

(2)  It's not easy to "jab" with a greatsword.  A greatsword needs a lot of momentum to be used properly; otherwise, it's not going to do any damage.  A "graze" with a greatsword still means that you got enough momentum going to heft a six-foot piece of steel from your shoulder / hip to contact a moving opponent.  That's a lot of acceleration; add that to the raw mass of a greatsword, and it's going to be a sizable cut regardless of how light the contact.

In other words, the "Strength" attribute does not represent your full exertion of strength - adding all 5 points of your Str 5 to each attack doesn't mean that you're exerting 100% of your Strength.  Your exertion is simulated by the expenditure of CP (do I slash with 4 dice or 9?) and by the base damage of the weapon, which has a minimum floor based on size and sharpness.

So I think TRoS, as written, already answers your concern.

[Ashren Va'Hale]

I side with the last remark. If you want to use your mod in your campaign, do it, play it to your hearts content. Even let us know how it went. But it really is a difference in perspective that I at least have not had a problem with and thus see no reason to modify the game mechanics at all.

[Callan S.]

Noon: Ohhhhh.  I must have missed that the first time.  My apologies for any confusion.

So the question is: how can TRoS simulate attacks at less than full force?  I actually started thinking about that question on my own terms, after posting my response.  My answer is two-fold:

(1)  An attack at less than full force is represented by fewer CP dice being thrown in.  Yes, you apply your full strength to a 1 CP attack, but your chances of doing critical wounds are significantly smaller.  And, if you're using a weapon that does a lot of minimum damage (like a greatsword), then ...

Ah, now, that's good, but it's not quite there. The CP applied DO have an effect, as you say, but its a binary effect, not a qualitive effect. Binary is great if you want all or no strength applied, with no gradient in between.

(2)  It's not easy to "jab" with a greatsword.  A greatsword needs a lot of momentum to be used properly; otherwise, it's not going to do any damage.  A "graze" with a greatsword still means that you got enough momentum going to heft a six-foot piece of steel from your shoulder / hip to contact a moving opponent.  That's a lot of acceleration; add that to the raw mass of a greatsword, and it's going to be a sizable cut regardless of how light the contact.

I'd like to point out that in my suggestion even one success means using 3 strength (and I'm begining to think four might be better). That plus the one success plus the weapons damage itself IS a nasty hit when it comes to a great sword. Perhaps not to all people, but certainly to unarmoured me in real life.

I'd also wonder if the menace in such a weapon that yes, if swung there is so much momentum it's nasty, but also, even if you slow it down, its enough like a club to just crack you that way too. So its not so much the jabbing ability, but the way such a large piece of steel can club rather than cut a foe.

In other words, the "Strength" attribute does not represent your full exertion of strength - adding all 5 points of your Str 5 to each attack doesn't mean that you're exerting 100% of your Strength.  Your exertion is simulated by the expenditure of CP (do I slash with 4 dice or 9?) and by the base damage of the weapon, which has a minimum floor based on size and sharpness.

So I think TRoS, as written, already answers your concern.

Currently CP expenditure has a binary effect on strength applied. Hit or miss, all or nothing. Of course, if you took the average of say one hundred 1 CP attacks, the average strength applied would be lower, for sure. But that really doesn't do it for me...especially when its usually only one or two blows in a fight that affect its outcome. In that sort of situation a binary effect sticks out like a sore thumb.

Ashren Va'Hale: I just wanted to talk about my idea with others *Callan walks away sadly, his little red popped balloon dragging in the dust behind him on a piece of string*

[Ingenious]

Well, if the big issue here is the gradient between no strength and every ounce of it, why don't we stop skirting the issue and come up with something we can mostly agree on? Even though I think this has already occured, with just one or two people.

Like most of us have come up with, each success means X strength gets applied. But how much strength per success? 1-2? 2-3?
We could do it in percentages I guess, even though I personally would not be using the whole variable strength...unless it is done by the player attacking, say for a tournament where the objective is hitting your opponent.. not killing him.

In the book, under skill tests I think and margin of success and such.. it says that five successes is 'flawlessly done' Yea, Table 1.2 on page 6.
Use this and apply damage accordingly. One success means that 1/5th of the strength is applied, or 20%. Two successes over the margin means 40%.. all the way up to 5 successes.. or full damage. Any additional successes can be used as additional damage.(See over-damage idea of Wolfen's if that makes a level 6+ wound) This takes into account the margin of success being absorbed by defensive manouvers.
But essentially, it just changes the equation of how damage is dealt.

Strength used=%of successes+#of successes+weapon damage.
Minus #of defensive successes and toughness and armor.
Playtest this to see if it works, if not.. tweak it.

-Ingenious
Oh, don't forget to round-down on the strength that comes out of the percentile.