Eclipse: Combat Resolution Mechanics

[Ben O'Neal]

Eclipse: Combat Resolution Mechanics

Combat resolution in Eclipse is fast and intuitive (it is, damn you!). You won't "miss" someone because of a poor roll, and you won't score a direct hit that barely leaves a scratch. Combat can be split into 3 main areas: melee, ranged, and magic (arcane, divine, psionic). Before we deal with melee combat, we need to lay down the basics, ie: character attributes.

There are 9 attributes, 6 of which are important for combat.

Power      -The physical force you can put into your actions
Constitution   -Life force, fortitude, hardiness, fitness
Speed      -How fast and nimbly you can move, smaller movements
Agility      -Flexibility, dexterity, larger movements
Crystal      -Memory and learning potential
Fluid      -Perception, analytical ability, logic, quick-thinking, complexity of thought
Flame      -Not applicable to combat
Beauty      -Not applicable to combat
Influence   -Not applicable to combat



Melee Combat
The important concepts for attacking in melee combat are speed and power –how fast you can strike, and the "oomph" you can put behind it. Attacks are made with only one roll, but this one roll is modified twice separately –first to determine the speed of your attack, and second to determine the power of your attack. The roll is always a d20, your attack speed is your speed modifier plus the speed modifier of any weapon you are using, and your attack power is your power modifier plus the power modifier of any weapon you are using. In practise, you will rarely be hacking away at an immobile opponent. Instead, every attack you make will be met with a defence. In turn, every attack made against you will be met with your defence (just try to do the defending with your weapon, not your face). So, all attacks and defences are made simultaneously, with both attacker and defender rolling their dice at the same time. I hope that made sense.

All weapons have 2 important numbers: speed mod and power mod. For convenience, I represent weapons using the format: WeaponName (+/-S, +/-P), where S = speed modifier and P = power modifier. Both numbers are assigned according to my logic of weight, length, design, and quality; in that heavier weapons will be slower to swing, but will pack more of a whallop, and a katana concentrates more of its force along a smaller surface area (the basis for things being "sharp") than regular swords. Weapons also have a "type": Slashing, Piercing, or Bludgeoning. Only Bludgeoning weapons deal fatigue damage, and many weapons have more than one type (a katana is both a piercing and a slashing weapon). "Type" is important against different armors.

The second crucial factor in combat is defence. Unless you are Arnold Schwarzenegger, you can't push a sword through a person's body like a hot knife through soft butter. That is, even a naked body provides physical resistance to being damaged. Scientifically speaking, the type of physical resistance your body presents is no different to the type of physical resistance that 6 inches of steel presents; all that changes is the amount of resistance. In Eclipse, this physical resistance is measured as "Toughness". There are 4 types of Toughness: Natural Toughness (NT), Armor Toughness (AT), Total Toughness (TT) and Blocking Toughness (BT). NT is what was described earlier, ie: the physical resistance that your naked body provides. AT is the physical resistance that armor provides, varying according to the materials it is made from (leather has a lower AT than steel). TT is NT + AT, or in other words, the resistance of your body added to the resistance of your armor, to give a total resistance rating, abstractly measuring the difficulty of pushing a sword through you. BT is TT +your attack power. Why? Well, BT is your blocking toughness, and this means that you've blocked with your weapon. When you block with your weapon, you are using your power and the weight of your weapon to push against the attacking weapon, and pushing against the attack is just another form of physical resistance. Thus, you add your attack power to your total toughness for an overall rating of difficulty of pushing a sword through your armor, your weapon, and your body.

Armor is recorded using the format: ArmorName (AT, S/P/B, SC), where AT = armor toughness, S/P/B = any additional AT against weapon types (S=slashing, P=piercing, B=bludgeoning), and SC = penalty to agility-based skill checks. I know that it is entirely possible to do cartwheels in full-plate, but possibility does not mean "no more difficult". Sure you can still do a backflip, but it's harder when your wearing 60 pounds of steel. As for the S/P/B part, I just figure that some armor is more effective at resisting certain types of attacks, like chain mail is great against slashing attacks, but not-so-great against piercing or bludgeoning attacks. For example, a suit of full-plate is (20, 4/-/2, -10), meaning it's AT is 24 against Slashing attacks, 20 against Piercing attacks, and 22 against Bludgeoning attacks, and wearing it means you suffer -10 to all agility-based skill checks (like Sneak, Acrobatics, etc.).

Thus we have 4 important numbers so far, which will help us attack and defend:

-Attack Speed = d20 +your speed mod +weapon speed mod
-Attack Power = d20 +your power mod +weapon power mod
-TT = NT +AT
-BT = TT +Attack Power

But this isn't enough to conceptualise combat. We need a dimension in which attacks can happen. We need time. Time in Eclipse is measured in rounds, each one round representing 4 seconds of in-game time (because 4 fits into a minute 15 times! How convenient!). During this time, we have actions. Actions are where it's at, where it's all happening, where it's going down. The round is only there to keep track of time. Every character in Eclipse has a number of actions per round available to them, given by 1 action per 10 speed points, and 1 action per 10 power points, following the logic that faster and more powerful characters can move faster in a given period of time than weaker and slower characters. For example, if I had a speed score of 23, and a power score of 39, I would have 5 actions per round: 2 from my speed score, and 3 from my power score.

We also have the ability to move around, so there are two types of movement in Eclipse: Dodging and manoeuvring. Both can be used defensively or aggressively. For example, with manoeuvring, you can "press" your opponent, by moving towards them. If they refuse to move back (or can't), then neither opponent can attack next action, or until distance has been restored (you're too close to get a swing off). You can "lead" your opponent, by moving away from them, causing them to take a -4 penalty to their attack power so long as you are leading. You can also "circle" your opponent, basically trying to get them or yourself to face a particular direction for whatever reason you can think of. Also, you can dodge, and the results of this are determined by you making a dodge roll (d20 +your acrobatics skill ranks +your agility modifier –any penalties that your armor might impose to agility based skill checks) opposed against your opponents attack speed. You can manoeuvre 5ft per action in any direction, or dodge up to 10ft per action in any direction.

Ok, so far we have 6 important numbers so far, which give us a variety of options in melee combat: attack speed, attack power, TT, BT, actions per round, and dodge.

-Actions per Round = 1 per 10 speed points +1 per 10 power points
-Dodge = d20 +Acrobatics skill +agility mod +armor penalty (if any)

The last thing we need to complete the basics is a mechanism for dealing damage. One of the big things I wanted when making Eclipse was a way to aim for someone's head and have it mean something. So damage is location specific. I also wanted wounds to hurt, meaning that they actually have some significant impact on combat, and you could never reach a point where an arrow in your head didn't kill you. So, damage is measured categorically, with 5 categories: fatigue, light, moderate, mortal, and fatal.

-- Fatigue is dealt by many different tasks, and follows a familiar hit-point system. You can sustain as much fatigue as your constitution score. When your fatigue is within 4 points of your constitution score, you are dazed, and suffer -4 to all rolls. For example, if I had a constitution score of 22, and I accumulated 18 points of fatigue damage, then I would be dazed, and all rolls I made would suffer a -4 penalty. If my fatigue ever reached 22, I would fall unconscious for 1 round +1 round for every point of fatigue above 22.

-- Light wounds are usually little more than a nuisance, but can become serious when many are taken. Light wounds are things such as bruises, small cuts, and light burns. For every 4 light wounds a character sustains to one particular body part (left arm, head, torso etc.), they suffer -2 to all rolls that use that body part (all rolls if head or torso).

-- Moderate wounds are more serious. Things such as deep cuts, broken bones, and serious burns constitute moderate wounds. When a character takes a moderate wound, they suffer a cumulative -4 penalty to all rolls. Additionally, they must pass a constitution check or fall helpless in pain. The TN for the constitution check starts at 10, and increases by 10 for every additional moderate wound sustained.

-- Mortal wounds are deadly. If a limb takes a mortal wound it is useless. Mortal wounds are things such as being stabbed in a vital organ, having a limb severed or crushed beyond repair, or taking a heavy hammer blow to the side of the head. When a character takes a mortal wound, they must pass a constitution check each round to continue fighting. The TN for this check starts at 25, and increases by 15 for every mortal wound taken. Failing this check means the character falls helpless in pain, or falls unconscious. Regardless of the results of their check, characters who have taken a mortal wound suffer -6 to all rolls, and will die in 3d6 rounds minus 1d6 rounds for every mortal wound they have taken.

-- Fatal wounds mean instant death. A fatal wound may only be taken to the head or torso, and things such as taking an arrow to the head, being exploded, being cut in half or burnt to a crisp are all fatal wounds.

So how is damage dealt? Simple, really. You take the attack power of an attack, and subtract the TT (or BT, depending if they blocked) of the defender. This will give you a number, which, if negative, means that the attack was successfully stopped by the physical resistance of the defender (but still probably made a dent and a loud noise!). If the result is positive, then you look at the damage table which I've given in the link at the top of this post, check which part of the body was being attacked, and look at what type of damage is dealt. If this doesn't make sense (or you hate subtraction), then an alternative (but mathematically identical) way of looking at it is to compare attack power to the targets TT and see which is higher and by how much.

In practise, this looks a little something like this (you'll need the Combat resolution tables from the link at the top of this post to follow along, also note that this example was generated "on-the-fly", by me just sitting here and rolling a d20 to see what happened):

Terron and Granger circle each other, swords in hand. The heavy steel boots of their armor clinking on the sandstone pavement with every step, disturbing the flowing river of dirt and dust driven by the strong breeze. "You're going to die someday Terron, might as well be today!" yelled granger, his voice muffled by the wind and the grill of his helm. "I see a grave being dug this day, but it shall not be mine!" Terron's voice hid no anger. "Come now, you are being foolish! You're sister was begging me for it. Oh, you should have heard her moan! What a delightful..." Granger's words were cut off as Terron's sword flashed towards his head.
Action #1: Terron's player has decided to attack first, so the GM asks him to roll his attack roll. Granger will attempt to dodge Terron's attack, hoping to take advantage of Terron's strike and gain a free attack. Terron rolls 18, and adds his speed modifier (+7) and the speed modifier of his weapon (a great-sword (-6, +12)) for a total attack speed of 19 (18+7-6). Granger rolls his dodge attempt, and rolls a 13. He adds his agility modifier (+4), and his skill ranks in acrobatics (14), but must subtract -10 from his acrobatic ranks because he is wearing full-plate armor. However, he has also taken the Dodge ability, and so gains +4 to all dodge checks, for a total of 25 (13+4+14-10+4). Granger's dodge check was 6 points higher than Terron's attack speed. Terron swings fast and true, but Granger ducks his head out of the way just in time, and Terron's blade strikes only air.
Action #2: Terron was first to attack, and Granger's dodge wasn't fast enough to gain him the upper hand, so Terron still leads the duel. As Terron steps to the right of Granger, he brings his sword back, attempting to strike Granger's legs. The GM asks Terron's player to again roll his attack, and Granger is going to attempt to deflect Terron's blade with his own. Terron rolls 3, and after adding his speed modifier and that of his weapon, his total is 4. Granger rolls 19, adds his speed modifier (+6) and that of his weapon (a longsword (-3, +5)) for a total of 22, more than enough to deflect Terron's sword. In fact, it is enough to allow Granger to disarm Terron if he chooses. As Terron tries to chop at Granger's legs, Granger deftly flicks the sword from his hands, and a sinister grin flashes across his face as he stares into Terron's eyes and raises his sword for the kill.
Action #3: Now that the tides have turned, Terron has a choice. He can stand there and take Granger's attack (not really very wise), he can dodge and attempt to dive for his sword, or he can attempt to dive at and grapple Granger (also not very wise given the circumstances and available options). So Terron chooses to dive for his sword. The GM calls for Terron's dodge roll, and Terron rolls 14. He adds his agility modifier (+6), his ranks in acrobatics (+11), and subtracts the necessary -10 from his acrobatic ranks because of his full-plate armor (Terron does not have the Dodge ability like Granger), for a total dodge roll of 21. Granger rolls his attack and gets a 2. He adds his speed modifier and that of his weapon for a total of 5. Terron's dodge check was more than enough to avoid Granger's attack and pick up his sword. Granger swings, and in an instant Terron is gone. When he looks up he sees Terron standing 10ft away with his sword raised. Granger shakes his head as they again begin circling. "You always did like to do things the hard way, didn't you Terron?" The wind howled through the grills in his helmet, and Terron was grateful Granger couldn't see the fear in his eyes.

Hehe, I love using Eclipse to generate combat examples. Anyways, the above example took 3 actions, and whilst I haven't given the statistics for Granger or Terron, just believe me that they both have 3 actions per round. So in terms of in-game time, the above exchange took one round, or 4 seconds (excluding the talking of course). Also, each action took me about 5 seconds to resolve, and about two minutes to write up. "But no-one even got hurt!" I hear you say. Don't worry, we'll kill one of them in a bit. First I have to talk about the two different forms of melee combat: Duelling and Heedless.

Duelling
When a character attacks first, that character is on the offensive. The defender can decide what to do based on the attacker's move. In the example above, when Terron attacked, Granger decided to dodge. He could also have decided to attempt to block, or he could have attacked in return (more on this below). In the second action, Granger did decide to block, and was fast enough to choose to disarm Terron and gain the upper hand (become offensive). In most cases, you can only deal damage when on the offensive.
This type of melee combat, where one opponent is on the defensive, and the other is on the offensive, is known as 'Duelling'. There is one other type of melee combat, known as 'Heedless'.

Heedless
Heedless combat is where neither combatant chooses to defend. Fighting heedless can be very dangerous. With every action, both opponents attack the other, hoping to attack fast enough that the other does not get a chance to hit in return. Any given fight can switch between duelling and heedless combat in the blink of an eye, and doing so can be an easy, if risky, way to gain the upper hand. For example, if you are on the defensive against an opponent who is clearly able to remain offensive, you can choose to attack in return instead of defending. This might allow you to damage them without being struck yourself, it might allow you both to hit each other, or it might simply leave you open for taking a hit (see the Heedless Resolution table).
If we pick up the duel between Terron and Granger, we will see an example of how a duel can become heedless (hopefully, assuming no-one dies before I can implement it).

As the wind howled and they circled each other, Terron watched Granger's shadow as it flickered and blurred over the flowing dust ocean. He knew there would be no real benefit from having the sun behind him, as Granger was wearing a full helm which would provide ample shade, but his training had kept him alive before, and he wasn't going to abandon it now. As soon as Granger's shadow was directly behind him, Terron launched a mighty swing with his great-sword that could cleave a man in two.
Round 2: Action #1: The GM asks Terron's player to roll his attack, and rolls Granger's defence. Terron rolls an attack speed of 12, and Granger rolls an attack speed of 16. Granger catches Terron's blade on his own and deflects the blow to his side, gaining the upper hand and readying to strike at Terron's torso.
Round 2: Action #2: Terron rolls his defence, as the GM rolls Granger's attack. Terron rolls an attack speed of 3, and Granger rolls an attack speed of 21. Granger can choose to disarm Terron or break through Terron's armor. He chooses to strike Terron, and his roll itself was 18, so his attack power is 34. Terron's AC is 30 (his base AC is 10, and he is wearing full-plate (AC=20)), but Granger is making a slashing attack, and full-plate armor has +4AC against slashing attacks. Terron is too slow to recover from his attack, but Granger's strike is not strong enough to cut through the thick steel of Terron's armor. Nonetheless, Terron reels from the blow as the ring of steel striking steel echoes in the wind. Granger still has the upper hand, and this time attempts to skewer Terron through his helm.
Round 2: Action #3: Granger rolls an attack speed of 13, and Terron rolls an attack speed of 17. As Granger lunges, Terron knocks his sword away and gains the upper hand, preparing a counter-attack against Granger's head.
Round 3: Action #1: Granger knows that being on the sharp end of Terron's great-sword is not a good place to be, and now that he is on the defensive, that is where he is. Granger risks 'going heedless' and attacks instead of defending, hoping that his superior attack speed will help him. Both Terron and Granger are attacking, so they are both fighting heedless. Terron rolls an attack speed of 18, and Granger rolls his attack speed of 4. This is more than enough to allow Terron to strike Granger without being struck in return. The GM asks Terron's player for his attack power, which is 42 (his attack roll itself was 17). Granger's head's AC is 30, so this is enough to deal an instantly fatal wound to Granger. The GM lets Terron's player describe the kill, and the player decides that Terron's great-sword cleaved Granger's skull in two, and the top half of Granger's head slides off just moments before his body collapses and sinks into the sea of dust.

So yeah, 7 actions, 2 and-a-bit rounds for one character to kill a roughly equally matched character (Granger was slightly faster and weaker than Terron, who was slightly slower and stronger than Granger). That's 14 rolls, in 7 die rolls worth of time. Not to forget that both fighters were armoured tanks. Don't mind me, I'm just bragging :)

That's pretty much the basics for melee combat. This post is long enough already, and I'm really tired (as if you couldn't tell already), so I'll come back to ranged combat next time, then magic combat, and finally, I'll put in a post on fighting multiple opponents. Even then, with all those posts, I won't have covered all the options in combat that Eclipse provides. That requires much of the social interaction mechanics, the full abilities list, and the list of all the magic items, including the ever-cool Taeon stones, but you'll have to wait till the play-test is finished for all of that neat stuff and more.

As always, I'm happy to answer any questions and accept any criticisms from anyone willing to throw them at me!

-Ben

[Ben O'Neal]

Doh! *slaps forehead* I forgot to put the link in for the combat tables. Here it is:

http://home.ripway.com/2004-2/66933/EclipseCombatTables.pdf

Also, I got annoyed with the whole NT, TT, AT, BT, crap, so now its just "Toughness" and "Block". No acronyms, just the words. Holds more meaning for me that way. So basically you just add up all Toughness ratings and that is your Toughness. When you block, you add your attack power to your Toughness, and this is called Blocking. Much more meaningful I think. And simpler to keep track of too.

I'm hesitant to give further explanations on melee comabt or to move to ranged combat until I've recieved some sort of indication that someone, somewhere, understands what I've given so far.

So even if you just post to say "what the hell are you on?", I'd appreciate knowing that someone is finding what I post on combat to be at least a bit useful/provocative.

-Ben

[Bracken]

Doh! *slaps forehead* I forgot to put the link in for the combat tables. Here it is:

http://home.ripway.com/2004-2/66933/EclipseCombatTables.pdf

Also, I got annoyed with the whole NT, TT, AT, BT, crap, so now its just "Toughness" and "Block". No acronyms, just the words. Holds more meaning for me that way. So basically you just add up all Toughness ratings and that is your Toughness. When you block, you add your attack power to your Toughness, and this is called Blocking. Much more meaningful I think. And simpler to keep track of too.

I'm hesitant to give further explanations on melee comabt or to move to ranged combat until I've recieved some sort of indication that someone, somewhere, understands what I've given so far.

So even if you just post to say "what the hell are you on?", I'd appreciate knowing that someone is finding what I post on combat to be at least a bit useful/provocative.

-Ben

I got most of it, I'll read through it again, but a couple of things I thought up:

Is your ability with a weapon only based upon your attribute and the weapon's speed/power mods? I.e. Does skill have some factor, such as with dodge?

Could you post a detailed example with the appropriate rules for multiple attackers against a single opponent? I suspect the system handles well 1 on 1 duels but I still think things will slow down with 2 or 3 attackers fighting a single character. I am curious to see how you handle a character staying defensive against some characters while going offensive against others (you alluded to this in an earlier post).

How do you charts work against larger than normal foes (say a giant or a Troll, or evan a Dragon) Doesn't seem to make much sense that an attack would have the same chances of keeping a large creature on defense the same way as fighting a normal sized foe. How about fighting small creatures?

Again overall, the system has some interesting aspects. I'm curious how the system handles extremes.

Bracken

[Ben O'Neal]

Is your ability with a weapon only based upon your attribute and the weapon's speed/power mods? I.e. Does skill have some factor, such as with dodge?

I've been considering allowing a skill to increase ones duelling effectiveness. Originally, as you may or may not know, Eclipse used levels, and the way everything scaled would have meant that a duelling skill would allow a character to deal a fatal wound to all but the mightiest opponents even if they rolled a 1. Hell, as it stands now, if they play their social cards right, they will soon become almost as effective (not quite, but almost). After all, Eclipse isn't solely about combat, and their are other ways to make yourself a totally kickass swordsman.

But is there still another reason that I am hesitant to include a "swordsmanship" skill, and that is that in my research I have discovered that formalised techniques for duelling were not invented until after firearms became the dominant weapon. To give a brief summary of why, it had something to do with armor becoming more of a hindrance than a help, in that it wasn't very effective anymore for avoiding bullets, and when people were shooting at you, you typically wanted to be able to run without fainting from heat and exhaustion. So people stopped wearing armor, and thus things like broadswords and longswords became less effective at killing than the smaller and lighter weapons like sabres and rapiers, and now that no-one really bothered with armor, it became important to develop ways to kill someone without being struck in return. Believe it or not, knights were the tanks on a battlefield because they could just stroll through hacking people apart left and right without much fear of being damaged themselves, due to the incredible strength and large blades needed to bust through their steel shell. They weren't, as a rule, especially skilled swordsmen.

Eclipse is set in the early days of firearms, so there are guns, but they aren't as effective as we now know them to be, and armor is being made stronger than ever before to deflect bullets as well as swords (historically, the advent of firearms did provoke new methods for making tougher armor). But the time period isn't up to the "trained with a blade" period yet.

Of course, Eclipse is a fantasy game, so I may yet change my mind and include a swordsmanship skill and similar skills (for other weapon types probably).

Could you post a detailed example with the appropriate rules for multiple attackers against a single opponent? I suspect the system handles well 1 on 1 duels but I still think things will slow down with 2 or 3 attackers fighting a single character. I am curious to see how you handle a character staying defensive against some characters while going offensive against others (you alluded to this in an earlier post).

Yes, but not right now, because I didn't bring my d20 with me. I'll type up the example tonight and post it tomorrow if I get time.

How do you charts work against larger than normal foes (say a giant or a Troll, or evan a Dragon) Doesn't seem to make much sense that an attack would have the same chances of keeping a large creature on defense the same way as fighting a normal sized foe. How about fighting small creatures?

Ok, Eclipse has 8 size categories, each one roughly twice the size of the last (in terms of one dimension, like twice as tall, or twice as wide, not twice as heavy). I can't remember all of them right now (I'm at uni and don't have my notes), but I can remember the bigger side: medium, large, huge, gargantuan, collosal, tremendous (like, seriously fucking big). For every 2 size categories larger than you an opponent is, they have one level of Damage Reduction. If you are medium, a huge creature will have one level of damage reduction against your attacks, and a collosal creature will have two levels of damage reduction. Damage reduction means that if the table says you deal a fatal wound, you instead deal only a mortal wound. Two levels of damage reduction would reduce a fatal wound to a moderate wound. You cannot, with a sword made for a medium-sized creature, deal a mortal (or fatal) wound to a colossal dragon. Your weapon just isn't big enough to do this.  Conversely, because you are four size categories smaller than the dragon, you have damage increase from its attacks. If the damage table would say that a dragon deals a light wound to you, you instead take a mortal wound. They are big and heavy and sharp at five of their six ends! The "correct" response when one sees a dragon is "Run for your lives!!!"

As for "keeping them on the defensive", such a thing is only possible when fighting a creature that wishes to defend itself from you. A dragon usually has no reason to defend against your puny little sword, so it will fight you "heedless". When you attack, it says "screw blocking this little fool with his toothpick, I'm going to squash him instead". Many other creatures will fight you heedless too, like anything too dumb/unable to defend, like wolves and other animals. Your only options are to run/dodge furiously/not-pick-a-fight in the first place. Well, you do also have the option of standing your ground and trying to kill the damn thing, but in the case of a creature like a dragon (which, by the way, are not the biggest/meanest baddies on the block in Eclipse), that option is usually a stupid one. Also, packs of wolves always have Concert Fighitng as a rule, so you might want to avoid them too.

When I have my dice I'll give an example of multiple-foes-on-one-opponent fights, and an example of a big creature fighting a smaller creature

Again overall, the system has some interesting aspects. I'm curious how the system handles extremes.

Of course, extremes are where a mechanic is always truly tested. I just wanted to get the basic foundations down first and introduce concepts slowly.

[Bracken]

But is there still another reason that I am hesitant to include a "swordsmanship" skill, and that is that in my research I have discovered that formalised techniques for duelling were not invented until after firearms became the dominant weapon. To give a brief summary of why, it had something to do with armor becoming more of a hindrance than a help, in that it wasn't very effective anymore for avoiding bullets, and when people were shooting at you, you typically wanted to be able to run without fainting from heat and exhaustion. So people stopped wearing armor, and thus things like broadswords and longswords became less effective at killing than the smaller and lighter weapons like sabres and rapiers, and now that no-one really bothered with armor, it became important to develop ways to kill someone without being struck in return. Believe it or not, knights were the tanks on a battlefield because they could just stroll through hacking people apart left and right without much fear of being damaged themselves, due to the incredible strength and large blades needed to bust through their steel shell. They weren't, as a rule, especially skilled swordsmen.

Yet their were Acrobatics schools where all the master fighters went to do flips and learn how to Dodge? Your degree of skill in a weapon represents training and ability, and while in Middle Ages warriors were not taught the same techniques and manevers they were in later ages, they certainly did train and and develop their abilities in melee (and Missile) weapons.

As for "keeping them on the defensive", such a thing is only possible when fighting a creature that wishes to defend itself from you. A dragon usually has no reason to defend against your puny little sword, so it will fight you "heedless". When you attack, it says "screw blocking this little fool with his toothpick, I'm going to squash him instead". Many other creatures will fight you heedless too, like anything too dumb/unable to defend, like wolves and other animals. Your only options are to run/dodge furiously/not-pick-a-fight in the first place. Well, you do also have the option of standing your ground and trying to kill the damn thing, but in the case of a creature like a dragon (which, by the way, are not the biggest/meanest baddies on the block in Eclipse), that option is usually a stupid one. Also, packs of wolves always have Concert Fighitng as a rule, so you might want to avoid them too.

So there is no penalty to attack heedlessly if knocked defensive from an attacker's hit (I realize that you never implied that there was a penalty, I just thought their was one). This seems a bit strange. The character that is well armored and has a high speed will NEVER defend, he'll keep attacking heedlessly and hope his armor will protect him. This doesn't a) seem all that realistic (many well trained fighters let their opponent swing first and counter an exposed area) and b) doesn't really do much for a fighter who managed to knock his opponent into defense.

Ravien, have you ever seen an RPG game called Warlords? There are some simularities between the systems (both use d20's, although that's the only thing the game shares with the d20 system in terms of mechanics, and both have mechanics to knock a character to offense and defense) although Warlords seems to be a bit more influenced by RoS (by their own admission). Perhaps you are just both being influenced from the same source. Just curious.


Bracken

[Valamir]

But is there still another reason that I am hesitant to include a "swordsmanship" skill, and that is that in my research I have discovered that formalised techniques for duelling were not invented until after firearms became the dominant weapon. To give a brief summary of why, it had something to do with armor becoming more of a hindrance than a help, in that it wasn't very effective anymore for avoiding bullets, and when people were shooting at you, you typically wanted to be able to run without fainting from heat and exhaustion. So people stopped wearing armor, and thus things like broadswords and longswords became less effective at killing than the smaller and lighter weapons like sabres and rapiers, and now that no-one really bothered with armor, it became important to develop ways to kill someone without being struck in return. Believe it or not, knights were the tanks on a battlefield because they could just stroll through hacking people apart left and right without much fear of being damaged themselves, due to the incredible strength and large blades needed to bust through their steel shell. They weren't, as a rule, especially skilled swordsmen.

I'm sorry Ravien, but this is simply not remotely true.

First of all the period where knights wore full suits of platemail into battle was very brief.  Most of the suits of armor you see on display in museums were for tournament use.

For most of knightly history, knights wore mail or at most partial plate.  While armor is highly effective it in no way shape or formed rended anyone immune.


Secondly, your logic behind the abandonment of armor is completely false.  Gunpowder had virtually no direct impact on the use of armor on the battle field.  The rise of professional standing armies controled by centralized nation states led to the abandonment of armor on the battle field.  Armies grew dramatically in size and it became the exclusive right of the central monarch to raise them.  Central monarchs had better things to do with their money than buy armor for soldiers, especially since the soldiers were no being drawn from the under classes and their lives were deemed eminently expendable.  

The largest impact gunpowder had on armor is that it was far easier to train soldiers to use a musket than it was to use a bow or a pike that as the weapons became more reliable they allowed armies to grow even larger.


Third, while it is true that the abandonment of armor on the battle field meant less need for heavy anti armor melee weapons, this has nothing to do with the rapier which was never a battle field weapon.  The sabre did become the preferred cavalry weapon largely because it faced un armored opponents, but those opponents were unarmored mostly because it was far cheaper to replace them than outfit them in armor.  Many period cavalry also carried anti armor weapons like the estoc for when they encountered armored heavy cavalry (which did not disappear from the battle field for a good long while...long after the rise of firearms)


And finally, the idea that knights were not skilled swordsmen is pretty unreasonable.  These are warriors who rely on their arms and armor for their own life and the continued prosperity of their family.  To suggest that they weren't skilled in their own craft is a pretty untenable assertion.

As for the existance of written manuals, that's hardly indicitive of whether or not there was a well established training technique.  There aren't any 12th century "How to be a blacksmith" manuals either but we are still unable today to duplicate much of their skill.

Sorry, I really hate to derail your thread, but if you are attempting to create a reasonable set of mechanics for combat, and the above is an example of what you are basing your mechanics assumptions on, you'll want to do a lot more research.  Taking the above as your baseline will not lead you to very reasonable mechanics.

[Bracken]

Armies grew dramatically in size and it became the exclusive right of the central monarch to raise them.  

I don't mean to hi-jack this thread, but Valdamir, what % of the population would you say represent's a Feudal nation's combat force in the 13th century. (Feudal and non-Feudal). I was guessing 2%. Is this about right, or should it be higher/lower.


Bracken

[Ben O'Neal]

Valamir, firstly, let me say that what I wrote was not "my logic", but instead was a summary of what I found in an encyclopedia, under the section on armor. It covered types of armor, their uses, development, cultures, history, famous smiths, and eventual decline. My information also came from the section on fencing, which was very detailed in providing the historical development of swordsmanship and the evolution into the art of fencing. It was a fairly decent encyclopedia (sorry, I can't remember which one for reference), in that it gave clear, concise, referenced explanations and histories for all the information it provided. I'm sorry that you disagree with the encylopedia, but that's not my problem. But after reading this encyclopedia, my personal opinion is to conclude that gunpowder did have a major impact on armor, not because I trust it more than I trust you, but because it makes sense and fits well with explaining the decline of armor use. This is not to say that the rise of a central monarch and the resources required to outfit an army were not factors, but that they were factors, in addition with guns, and in addition with a number of other factors which I don't know about.

I don't wish to get into a "my dick's bigger than your dick" debate, so please do not interpret this as my being defensive or stubborn. I am simply presenting what I know, where I learnt it from, and why I believe it. I am open to evidence to the contrary though, so if you could please provide me with evidence to the effect that medieval warriors trained and practiced their skills as most people imagine they did, then I'd be happy to hear it. But I'm sorry, "your idea is unreasonable, thus my idea is correct" is a falacious argument.

Yet their were Acrobatics schools where all the master fighters went to do flips and learn how to Dodge? Your degree of skill in a weapon represents training and ability, and while in Middle Ages warriors were not taught the same techniques and manevers they were in later ages, they certainly did train and and develop their abilities in melee (and Missile) weapons.

On the other hand, this argument is tenable. Considering the areas that I do allow skills in, it seems reasonable to create skills for fighting with different weapon types too. So presto, fighting skills are in.

So there is no penalty to attack heedlessly if knocked defensive from an attacker's hit (I realize that you never implied that there was a penalty, I just thought their was one). This seems a bit strange. The character that is well armored and has a high speed will NEVER defend, he'll keep attacking heedlessly and hope his armor will protect him. This doesn't a) seem all that realistic (many well trained fighters let their opponent swing first and counter an exposed area) and b) doesn't really do much for a fighter who managed to knock his opponent into defense.

Well, it doesn't quite work by "knocking" an opponent into the defensive. Picture the duel in The Princess Bride between Wesley and Montoyez. Offense and defence come from (as far as I can see), one opponent simply responding faster than the other. I imagine that this is the same principle at work with larger weapons, because responding faster usually means whacking their sword earlier in its swing, and from here, you would get the "knocked" into defensive bit. But my mechanics need to deal with all sorts of weapons, from rapiers to quarterstaffs to axes and spears, so I need to work with underlying general concepts.

Why does this sound strange? If I were hella fast and covered in steel, I'd only ever think about defending when faced with a worthy opponent. Otherwise, why bother? I can cut them up before they can even hit me, and even if they do manage to hit me, I'm covered in steel. Despite what you may think, plated steel armor is actually a rather effective defence. Don't believe me? Go into your backyard and hold 10 newspapers against your chest. Now ask someone to hit you with a broom (in the chest, of course). You'lll notice that it barely tickles. That's what its like hitting solid steel with a steel-tipped quarterstaff really really hard. It's not just the thickness of the steel, it's also the concavity, and some really good armor was fluted for added resistance (fluting helps distribute the impact along lines of strength).

Ravien, have you ever seen an RPG game called Warlords? There are some simularities between the systems (both use d20's, although that's the only thing the game shares with the d20 system in terms of mechanics, and both have mechanics to knock a character to offense and defense) although Warlords seems to be a bit more influenced by RoS (by their own admission). Perhaps you are just both being influenced from the same source. Just curious.

No, I've never heard of Warlords, but I'll keep an eye out. As a side note, I developed my combat mechanics months before I even knew the Forge existed, and thus months before I had ever heard of TRoS, so no, I wasn't influenced by TRoS in any way. The only work I've really done on Eclipse since coming here is in the rewards/chargen/ and social interaction mechanics.

I don't mean to hi-jack this thread, but Valdamir, what % of the population would you say represent's a Feudal nation's combat force in the 13th century. (Feudal and non-Feudal). I was guessing 2%. Is this about right, or should it be higher/lower.

Whilst I don't really mind you posting stuff like this (so long as it doesn't happen too often), I've seen Ron get quite strict with people doing this, so you might want to keep such posts for private messages in the future, if only to avoid the Wrath of Ron!

Ok, so now that I've dealt with the comments, here are the examples I promised yesterday (ok, I just realised that because I typed this up last night on my PC, and I'm now posting this on a Mac, it's gone and made all the apostophes into stupid looking "i"'s. You'll have to bear with this text mutilation cos I ain't going through the whole thing to change every damn one back).

Ok, I hope my posts so far have made sense, because I will be depending on the concepts Iíve already explained when I expand upon them. First up, facing multiple opponents alone:

As Iíve stated, every character has a number of actions per round. In the duel example I gave in the first post, both combatants had the same number of actions per round (3). The consequences of opponents having a different number of actions per round are similar to those for a character who is facing multiple opponents, in that the person with the least actions will, by the end of the round, become ìoverwhelmedî. When a character is overwhelmed, they have run out of actions that round, and are still facing opponents who have actions available to them. Iím hoping my terminology is helping to conceptualise what happens, because I donít think I can give a better explanation of ìoverwhelmedî without simply resorting to synonyms. As is usually the case, an example should help clarify what I mean, and how things work. Weíll need to establish the combatants first. Letís say we have our hero Bob, and he is fighting 3 orcs. I want him to stay alive for a while, so heís gonna be wearing full-plate, and heíll be pretty tough. Here are the important stats for this example:

Bob: (Iím including his attributes so you can see where his combat stats come from)

Power:      24 (+12)
Constitution:   19 (+9)
Speed:      20 (+10)
Agility:      18 (+8)

Actions per round:    4

Weíll give him a great-sword (-6, +12) just cos itís a big kickass weapon. Weíll give him full-plate (20, 4/-/2, -10) cos heís a tank, and weíll give him 14 ranks in his Acrobatics skill.

Attack Speed:      +4
Attack Power:      +24
Dodge:         +12

Toughness:      30
Block Toughness:   54

Orcs: (Orcs donít exist in Eclipse, so Iím just gonna make one up and give his combat stats)

All three orcs are gonna have the same stats and theyíll all have simple longswords (-3, +5). They are all wearing studded leather (5, -/-/2, -2) that covers only their torsos. They all have 5 ranks in Acrobatics.

Actions:   2

Attack Speed:   +4
Attack Power:   +12
Dodge:      +8

Toughness:   15 (10 for everywhere except their torsos, which are 15)
Block:      27

Pre-Fight Commentary
You may have noticed that the highest attack power an orc can roll is 32, and Bobís Toughness is 30, meaning that the best these orcs can hope for is to deal light wounds, and then only if they roll 18+. You may also have noticed that if Bob rolls a 1, his attack power will be 25, which is 10 points higher than the Toughness of the orcs, meaning he will deal an instantly fatal wound if he merely touches them, and even if they manage to block, he only needs to roll higher than 3 to damage them at all. I have absolutely no problem with this, because Bob is Hardcore (tm) and orcs are crap.

Itís a sunny day in Pleasantville, and Bob is out picking flowers in a meadow for his mum. The birds are chirping, and the sun is shining brightly, reflecting the sky clearly in Bobís polished suit of armor. Bob never leaves home without his armor. Or his great-sword. You never know when you are going to be attacked by hordes of orcs, flooding over the mountains like a writhing sea of death! His mum thinks he reads too much fantasy, thinks Tolkein is evil, but Bob knows. Bob knows that Tolkein wrote those books to warn him, to warn Bob about the evil that is out to get him. Theyíre everywhere you know, hiding in the dark, watching, waiting. Mumís friend, the Talking Doctor, says that Bob is skit-zo-fenic, or something, but mum doesnít know that the Talking Doctor is really a black Nazgul in disguise! Bob looks at the bouquet in his hand, gives a curt nod of satisfaction, and turns around, to face 3 dirty orcs standing there grinning at him, licking their lips and thumbing their twisted blades! With nary a moments hesitation, Bob flings aside the bouquet as his huge sword leaps into his hands. His battle cry is met by the snarls of the orcs, and he swings his mighty blade at the closest one.
Round 1, Action 1: Bob is attacking first. He rolls 6, for an attack speed of 10. The orc he is attacking rolls 5, for an attack speed of 9. This allows the orc to block Bobís attack, so Bob checks his attack power. His roll was 6, so his attack power is 30. Because Bob didnít call his attack (ie: name the target body part), the GM must assume that Bob was just hacking at the largest target: the torso. So the orcs Block Toughness is 27 (it would be 22 if Bob called his shot to any other body part that was not protected by the orcs studded leather armor). According to the damage table, this is only enough to deal a light wound. The GM marks down that the orc has one light wound on its chest, and describes the action: Bobís heavy blade and strong swing push through the orcs block and armor, but only enough to leave a minor cut. Nevertheless, the force of Bobís blow pushing into the orc makes it stagger back.
Round 1, Action 2: The orc standing nearest the first orc steps forward to hack down at Bobís head. Bob rolls 10, for an attack speed of 14, and the orcís attack speed is 16. The orcís attack power is 24, and against Bobís Block Toughness of 54, this isnít nearly enough to do anything. Bobís mighty sword effortlessly catches the orcís strike with a ringing of steel-on-steel.
Round 1, Action 3: The third orc moves to Bobís side, and tries to take a swipe at his right arm. Bob rolls an attack speed of 15, and the 3rd orc rolls an attack speed of 20. We already know that the orcs cannot hope to break through Bobís Block. Orc#3ís blade is met squarely by Bobís huge sword, and deflected easily.
Round 1, Action 4: Bob has now dealt with each orcís first action, and if we remember correctly, Bob held the upper hand on the first orc, so now that he returns to deal with that orcs second action, he will be the one attacking, and he declares that he is going to attempt to decapitate it. Bob rolls an attack speed of 11, and the orc rolls an attack speed of 9, enough to allow it to block. Bobís attack power is 31 against the orcs Block of 22. According to the damage table, this is enough to deal an instantly fatal wound. Bobís massive sword smashes through the orcs measly defence, sending its head flying in a spray of sickening filthy orc-blood.
Round 1, Action 5: Bob has run out of actions, and both remaining orcs have one action remaining each, so Bob is overwhelmed. The second orc attempts to skewer Bob with its sword, and rolls an attack power of 30 (when attacking something that cannot make any actions there is no need to worry about speed, especially considering both attack power and speed use the same roll). This is exactly equal to Bobís Toughness, so the orc only manages to put a nasty dent in his armor, as Bob jolts from the impact.
Round 1, Action 6: The last orc uses its last action to try to cut off one of Bobís legs. It rolls an attack power of 16. Bobís leg is knocked a bit from the blow, but itís no biggie.

In terms of in-game time, the above exchange took 1 round, or 4 seconds. I find this fact useful when picturing the exchange in terms of the flow and speed that it proceeds at. Pretty cool and impressive in my mind. :)

Round 2, Action 1: When Bob last dealt with the remaining orcs, they each held the offensive. The second orc takes a wild swing in the direction of Bobís head. Both Bob and the orc rolled 8 (seriously!), and according to the table, this means that the opponent with the highest power becomes offensive. Bobís sword meets the orcs sword mid-strike, and for a moment, all is frozen, until Bob pushes the orcs blade away, forcing it back.
Round 2, Action 2: The third orc takes an overhead swing at Bob, trying to cleave him in twain. Bobís attack speed is 18, and the orcís is 19. Bob raises his bloodied sword and the orcís blade meets it as if it were a wall of stone, as the clang rings through the air.
Round 2, Action 3: Bob spins with his sword, trying to cut the second orc in half horizontally. Bob rolls an attack speed of 23, and the orc gets 8. This allows Bob to decide to disarm the orc if he wants to, but he just wants to kill the filthy thing. His attack power is 43, and because the orc wasnít able to block, this is compared to its Toughness of 15. Bobís great-sword hums as it swings in its arc, cleaving the top half of the orcís body from the lower half, trailing orc-blood in its wake.
Round 2, Action 4: As Bob stops his spinning swing, he meets the eyes of the last remaining orc, and sees fear. In a split second, the orc flees as fast as it can, and Bob decides that it isnít worth chasing.
After all, there are always more orcs, watching, and waiting for him to show weakness.

Post-Fight Commentary
Ok, I tried to explain anything that I thought needed explaining as it came up, but thereís one thing that I didnít explain because it would have been too detrimental to the flow of the exchange. That is, the initial decisions as to who-attacks-first. This decision is only ever made in the first action of any encounter. From then on, the rolls dictate the tides of the duel. But that first decision is always made by the player, simply for the sake of simplicity. At the beginning of a duel, the GM will simply ask the players for their actions/intents: attack, defend, flee, or whatever. You will notice that in the second action Bob was attacked by an orc, and had no chance to choose what to do, thatís because he already chose at the beginning of the first action.

Also, as I have mentioned in the original thread, any one action can only have one decision made by a character. You cannot change your decisions based on how the opponent reacts to you.

One of the really cool things that the above example showed was the immense utility of a good full suit of armor. Without it, Bob would have been orc-meat in Round 1, Action 5, when the orc skewered him with an attack power of 30. It also showed the awesomeness of blocking, and the difference a Damn Huge Sword can make.

I think that pretty much covers everything necessary about fighting multiple opponents normally. The only significant thing I havenít covered is an example of how combat works when one has the Concert Fighting ability. Hereís a brief summary of how the above example would change if all the orcs had Concert Fighting: In action 1, Bob would have attacked one orc, and at the same time both of the other orcs would have made their attacks against him, exactly as if they had overwhelmed him. In action 2, Bob would defend against the second orc as he did, but the first and third orcs would attack him at the same time, again, exactly as if they had overwhelmed him. This would have used all the actions of the orcs (they only have 2 actions each), and thus Bob would have had 2 actions left to attack any orc he wanted to, because now he would have overwhelmed them (he had 4 actions per round). Does that make sense? If all three orcs had Concert Fighting and Bob had the {i}Battle Trained[/i] ability, then the fight would proceed exactly as before, except the orcs could not overwhelm Bob in actions 5 and 6, because Battle Trained negates the Concert Fighting ability and grants 1 extra action per round for every opponent more than 1 (in this example, 2 extra actions, just enough to prevent Bob from being overwhelmed). Sorry if all that didnít make sense.


Combatants of Varying Size
In Eclipse, Size Does Matter. All creatures have an inherent Toughness rating, and the benchmark is the Toughness of a medium-sized creature, which is 10. There are 11 size categories (I think I made a mistake in an earlier post by saying that there were 8?):Miniscule (fly), Petite (gecko), Diminutive (toad), Tiny (cat), Small (human child), Medium (human adult), Large (forest dragon), Huge (war-eagle), Gargantuan (purple worm), Colossal (ice elemental), and Tremendous (baloth). A creatureís Toughness increases by 4 for every size larger than medium, and decreases by 2 for every size smaller than medium. Thus, a large creature will have a minimum Toughness of 14, while a small creature will have a minimum Toughness of 8. I say ëminimumí because most creatures have other factors that will increase their Toughness, such as a thick hide, thick hair, scales, etc.

When a creature is facing an opponent that is two size categories larger (or smaller) than it, a new dynamic comes into play: that of damage reduction. Against a Colossal creature, a humanís sword is like a big needle. Likewise, against a human, a geckoís teeth and claws are more of a nuisance than anything else. No matter how hard that gecko tries, it just isnít going to be able to kill you with mundane weapons. So we have damage reduction, and damage increase. What does this mean? Well, when the size difference between two combatants is two-three categories, the larger creature benefits from 1 level of damage reduction, and the smaller creature suffers from 1 level of damage increase. ì1 levelî means that if the damage table says you should deal a moderate wound, you instead deal a light wound (reduction) or a mortal wound (increase). If the difference was 4 size categories, then level 2 damage reduction/increase would be in effect, with the larger creature dealing fatal instead of moderate wounds, and the smaller creature dealing moderate instead of fatal wounds. The underlying concept here remains the simple size discrepancy, in that if a dragon is fighting another dragon, and could deal a moderate wound to it, then the other dragon would take a moderate wound. But turn that other dragon into a human, and the same attack would deal a fatal wound, simply because a dragon is Bloody Big, and what hurts a dragon hurts a human a lot more. Does this concept make sense?

Itís actually getting pretty late and I have to get up early tomorrow, but I promised an example of a fight between combatants of varying sizes, so here it is:

Trogdor: The Burninator
Size:      Colossal

Power:         87 (+34)
Constitution:      63 (+26)
Speed:         46 (+21)
Agility:         29 (+15)

Actions per round:    12

Trogdor is a Mountain Dragon, which are the biggest of the predatory dragons in Eclipse. Whilst they donít wear armor or carry weapons, their incredibly hard scales provide great protection, and they are weapons! For the sake of this example, Iím going to ignore Trogdorís fire breath (awww!).

Attack Speed:      +26
Attack Power:      +34
Dodge:         +15

Toughness:      44 (minimum would be 22)

Bob
Size:         Medium

Actions per round:   4

Attack Speed:      +4
Attack Power:      +24
Dodge:         +12

Toughness:      30
Block:         54

Pre-Fight Commentary
Yes, I know Bob is very, very outmatched here, but Iím only using this example to show how fighting something Real Big is Rather Scary, and more often than not, Rather Stupid. Also, because a predatory dragon is not an intelligent creature, it will be fighting heedless. So without rolling a single die, I can say that unless Bob miraculously kills Trogdor in the first 4 actions (the ones where Bob can do something), then he will be whatís for dinner. Finally, because the difference between a medium-sized creature and a colossal-sized creature is 4 categories, Trogdor has 2 levels of damage reduction against Bob, and Bob suffers 2 levels of damage increase against Trogdor.

I'm too tired to think up a story, let's just kill Bob already!

Round 1, Action 1: Bob sees Trogdor, and being the psycho that he is, he decides not to run away, but instead he is going to try to dodge. Trogdor is going to try to squash Bob with his paw. Bob rolls a 5, for a total Dodge of 17. Trogdor rolls a 1, for a total attack speed of 27. According to the dodge table, Trogdor gets to damage Bob. Trogdorís attack power is 35, and Bobís Toughness is 32 against bludgeoning attacks, and looking at the damage table, this tells us that Trogdor could deal a light wound to Bob. But with damage increase, this becomes a mortal wound. Bob dives out of the way as best he can, only to be smacked brutally into the ground by the massive paw of Trogdor mid-dive, and he feels pain like heís never felt before as ribs break and organs haemorrhage. Because he is taking a mortal wound, he must pass a constitution check to continue fighting, and must roll 3d6 to see how much longer he has to live. The TN for his constitution check is 25, and he rolls 29. He rolls 3d6 and determines that he has 12 rounds (or 48 seconds) left to live.
Round 1, Action 2: Trogdor raises his other fist to attempt to crush Bob into jam. Bob is going to try to defend with his sword. Bob rolls an attack speed of 18, and because he has a mortal wound, Bob suffers -6 to all rolls for a total attack speed of 12. Trogdor rolls an attack speed of 34. This is plenty to allow Trogdor to damage Bob without Bob being able to block. Trogdorís attack power is 42, and again we use Bobís Toughness against bludgeoning attacks (32). Even without damage increase, this is enough for a fatal wound. As Bob struggles to lift himself up, he is crushed into the ground with a sickening crunchy splat, and as Trogdor lifts his fist with satisfaction, all that remains of Bob is a chunky puddle of crushed mangled metal and mince.

Wow, who saw that one coming? Hehe, that was kinda fun though. I knew there was a reason I thought dragons were so cool.

Now realistically, Bob should never have been fighting Trogdor, but it is possible for a human to be an even match for a dragon, because there is no limit to how high you can raise your attributes. This doesnt remove damage reduction/increase, but it sure beats being Bob.

But maybe that gives a (rather exaggerated) example of how size affects combat. I hope that helps to clear that up and makes sense too.

Anyways, Seeya!

-Ben

[greyorm]

Hey Ravien, just so you know, I am reading what you've posted, and I am liking what I'm seeing. I just don't have much to say about it yet.

[Valamir]

Valamir, firstly, let me say that what I wrote was not "my logic", but instead was a summary of what I found in an encyclopedia, under the section on armor. It covered types of armor, their uses, development, cultures, history, famous smiths, and eventual decline. My information also came from the section on fencing, which was very detailed in providing the historical development of swordsmanship and the evolution into the art of fencing. It was a fairly decent encyclopedia (sorry, I can't remember which one for reference), in that it gave clear, concise, referenced explanations and histories for all the information it provided. I'm sorry that you disagree with the encylopedia, but that's not my problem. But after reading this encyclopedia, my personal opinion is to conclude that gunpowder did have a major impact on armor, not because I trust it more than I trust you, but because it makes sense and fits well with explaining the decline of armor use. This is not to say that the rise of a central monarch and the resources required to outfit an army were not factors, but that they were factors, in addition with guns, and in addition with a number of other factors which I don't know about.

I don't wish to get into a "my dick's bigger than your dick" debate, so please do not interpret this as my being defensive or stubborn. I am simply presenting what I know, where I learnt it from, and why I believe it. I am open to evidence to the contrary though, so if you could please provide me with evidence to the effect that medieval warriors trained and practiced their skills as most people imagine they did, then I'd be happy to hear it. But I'm sorry, "your idea is unreasonable, thus my idea is correct" is a falacious argument.

I don't want to get into a debate on it either, nor will I say any more about it in your thread on game design.

Except to say this.  If you're getting the information you're basing your game on from an encyclopedia, you may want to actually go to a good library and check out some more scholarly works on the subject, particularly those written in the last decade.  

Encyclopedias are treasure troves of popularized myth and sloppy scholarship.  Typically they are many many years out dated regardless what the copy right says, especially in more esoteric fields like medieval history.  There are much better sources out there that you could draw your information on if you're interested in basing your mechanics on a more accurate representation of medieval combat.

Bracken, Ravien is right, that's not an appropriate question for this thread, but you may find a number of people interested in discussing it down in the TROS forum.

[Bracken]

Valamir, firstly, let me say that what I wrote was not "my logic", but instead was a summary of what I found in an encyclopedia, under the section on armor. It covered types of armor, their uses, development, cultures, history, famous smiths, and eventual decline. My information also came from the section on fencing, which was very detailed in providing the historical development of swordsmanship and the evolution into the art of fencing. It was a fairly decent encyclopedia (sorry, I can't remember which one for reference), in that it gave clear, concise, referenced explanations and histories for all the information it provided. I'm sorry that you disagree with the encylopedia, but that's not my problem. But after reading this encyclopedia, my personal opinion is to conclude that gunpowder did have a major impact on armor, not because I trust it more than I trust you, but because it makes sense and fits well with explaining the decline of armor use. This is not to say that the rise of a central monarch and the resources required to outfit an army were not factors, but that they were factors, in addition with guns, and in addition with a number of other factors which I don't know about.

I'd sugguest checking out at least 3 different accredited sources before forming a solid opinion. However, since Eclipse takes place in a work of your own design, perhaps history in your world went a bit differently.

On the other hand, this argument is tenable. Considering the areas that I do allow skills in, it seems reasonable to create skills for fighting with different weapon types too. So presto, fighting skills are in.

Glad I could help!

Well, it doesn't quite work by "knocking" an opponent into the defensive. Picture the duel in The Princess Bride between Wesley and Montoyez. Offense and defence come from (as far as I can see), one opponent simply responding faster than the other. I imagine that this is the same principle at work with larger weapons, because responding faster usually means whacking their sword earlier in its swing, and from here, you would get the "knocked" into defensive bit. But my mechanics need to deal with all sorts of weapons, from rapiers to quarterstaffs to axes and spears, so I need to work with underlying general concepts.

I get where you are going, I'm mulling it over.

Whilst I don't really mind you posting stuff like this (so long as it doesn't happen too often), I've seen Ron get quite strict with people doing this, so you might want to keep such posts for private messages in the future, if only to avoid the Wrath of Ron!

Already PMed Valdamir. Won't come up again.

As for the examples, they do clear some things up for me. I don't have any specific comments at the moment, but when I do, I'll be posting them.

Also, I wanted to ask if you have any combat manuevers (other than offense, Defense, and Heedless), and if so can you post them?


Bracken

[charles ferguson]

Hi Ravien

Believe it or not, knights... weren't, as a rule, especially skilled swordsmen.

The ancient Romans had fencing schools, the Japanese had their own swordfighting techniques, both before firearms. Medieval knights may not have "fenced" in the way we think of now (see this article for some suprising & fascinating research on swordfighting at just the historical period you're dealing with in Eclipse). However, that doesn't mean that many of them weren't skilled with their weapons.

Some research on present-day medieval reenactment might help to flesh out some of your ideas on this, if you're so inclined. My brief reading in that area indicates to me that the opinion of people who actually do fight one another in armour with big swords is that skill (ie: practice, mastery of technique) definitely *does* matter.

Some contemporary accounts of medieval & renaissance battles also list some horrifc sword injuries inflicted on wearers of plate armour (helmets split, breastplates cut through from front-to-back from the collarbone to the middriff, etc). Similar, AFAIK, for the samurai. Armor was a great life-saver but it didn't make the wearer invulnerable--so skill was still pretty useful.

But, it's your world & your system, you can do it however you like. Various historical situations only show us what's likely or possible, not how we "have" to do it in our own fictional setting.

--Interesting system, BTW

[charles ferguson]

Oops!

Just re-read the thread where you said 'fighting skills are back in', Ravien--so most of my post was moot. My apologies to all.

Hope you find the Sword Forum article on rapiers interesting, though.

[Ben O'Neal]

Thanks for the link Charles, but I clicked it and it said "Error 404: Page Not Found", but I think that's just because I'm using netscape 4 on a windows 95 machine right now (yeah, it's painful). I'll try again when I'm on a better computer.

Some contemporary accounts of medieval & renaissance battles also list some horrifc sword injuries inflicted on wearers of plate armour (helmets split, breastplates cut through from front-to-back from the collarbone to the middriff, etc). Similar, AFAIK, for the samurai. Armor was a great life-saver but it didn't make the wearer invulnerable--so skill was still pretty useful.

Yeah of course! I'm sorry if I've come across as saying that wearing full-plate makes you an M1A1 Abrams, but if you look at the math involved, you can see that full-plate simply makes it much harder to kill someone, not ompossible. I feel that this is a not-unreasonable assumption, given my knowledge of physics. In the first duelling example I gave in the first post, both Granger and Terron were wearing full-plate, and Granger still died. If Bob fought his clone, he would only need to roll around 15 (if his clone didn't block) to deal a fatal wound. He'd deal a light wound on a roll of 7, and a moderate wound on a roll of around 10 (depending on where he was aiming). So it is always a good idea to block!

And now that I'm including Swordplay as a skill, full-plate is going to become less effective. But just like Weavecraft and Psicraft are available only to characters with the Flow-Weaving and Psionic Birthright abilities, so too will Swordplay only be available to those with the Swordsman ability. Everyone can get good with a weapon by raising their attributes, but only a few can become truly skilled (those with the ability).

But, it's your world & your system, you can do it however you like. Various historical situations only show us what's likely or possible, not how we "have" to do it in our own fictional setting.

Yeah, this is a good point, but for some reason, most people like their "fantasy" to be "hisorically accurate". But that's a thread for Theory if I ever heard one.

Also, I wanted to ask if you have any combat manuevers (other than offense, Defense, and Heedless), and if so can you post them?

Yeah I do have a list of Cool Shit you can do in melee, and some of it is really deadly/awesome. All of the Cool Shit is only available to characters with the Swordsman ability, and is divided into three categories: offence, defence, and enchancement, which are taught through three corresponding schools: puissance, jada, and xavier respectively. Schools are taken as abilities, and cost 2 ability points to take.

Each school has 3 belts, with 3 techniques per belt. Once you master all the techniques in a belt, you can move to the next belt. Once you have mastered all 3 belts, you gain really cool bonuses that make you totally kick-ass. No, I'm not going to tell you what they are yet :P Techniques can be mastered with time and money, but I won't bother listing the times and cost in this post.

It's quite a bit to write up though, so I'll only give one example from the first two belts in each school:

Puissance (offence)
Puissance techniques can only be used when on the offensive. Most puissance techniques are only effective against humanoids.

Orange Belt - Knockout:
You feint to attack, stepping in to smash the opponent in the head with the other end of your weapon. You add your ranks in Bluff to your attack speed, and they add their Acrobatics skill to theirs. If you win, you deal fatigue as per your attack power. If you lose, you lose the upper-hand, and leave yourself open to being grappled or pushed.
Bonus when Mastered: You add double your Bluff ranks to your attack speed, and deal double the fatigue.

Red Belt - Double Trip:
You duck and spin, with one leg  and your weapon extended, to trip and attack your opponent. You do this by using your Acrobatics skill instead of your attack speed, and the opponent adds their Acrobatics skill to theirs. If you lose, you fall prone and become defensive. If you win, the opponent is knocked prone and cannot block your attack as they fall.
Bonus when Mastered: You add your Acrobatics skill to your attack speed.

Jada (defence)
Jada techniques can only be used when on the defensive. Most Jada techniques are only effective against humanoids.

Blue Belt - Dirty Trick:
You roll to dodge an opponents attack, and in doing so, grab a handful of dirt and throw it into your opponents eyes. You suffer -5 to your Dodge check, and the opponent adds their Spot skill to their attack speed. If you win, your opponent becomes blinded for 1 round. If you lose, use the Dodge table to determine the outcome.
Bonus when Mastered: You don't suffer any penalty to your Dodge check, and your opponent becomes blinded for 1d4 rounds.

Green Belt - Counter:
You can counter any technique used against you when you are defensive. If you pass a Focus check against a TN of 25, you nullify any technique used against you as if it had not been used.
Bonus when Mastered: You add your Focus skill ranks to your attack speed when on the defensive.

Xavier (enhancement)
Xavier techniques can only be used when not engaged in combat. Xavier techniques enhance yourself, and thus are effective against all others.

Grey Belt - Strength of Mind:
You can meditate to partially lift yourself out of reality. You must meditate uninterupted for one hour and pass a crystal check (TN=30) to gain magic resistance equal to your crystal score. This magic resistance lasts for 30 mintues.
Bonus when Mastered: You need only meditate for ten minutes to gain the benefits of this technique, and your magic resistance is 10 +your crystal score.

Yellow Belt - Heal Self:
You can meditate to gain control over your body. You must meditate uninterupted for one hour and pass a crystal check (TN=30) to heal all your wounds by one level (e.g. moderate to light). If your crystal check is higher than 35, you also gain level 1 damage reduction exactly as if you were two sizes larger. This damage reduction lasts for 30 minutes.
Bonus when Mastered: You need only meditate for ten minutes to gain the benefits of this technique, and you can heal damage by two levels, and gain level 2 damage reduction.


Ok, is that the sort of thing you meant? All up, each school has 9 techniques, and a character who managed to master all techniques in all schools would be quite a dangerous opponent.

[charles ferguson]

hey Ravien

the URL is http://www.swordforum.com/articles/ams/char-rapier.php/

although if you go to the homepage at

http://www.swordforum.com/

& then click from there to the rapier article (at very bottom of page) the pretty image at the top of the page will actually load :)

Two other fascinating articles currently on that site about swords & their use that you might find relevent are:

CAVALRY COMBAT AND THE SWORD
(differences between cutting & thrusting; training & skill levels; wounds inflicted by swords in actual combat)

THE WEAPONS & FIGHTING METHODS OF THE HIGHLAND SCOTS
(discusses a fighting style that used broadwords on the battlefield, with no armour, side by side with firearms, while others had abandoned such blades for more 'civilized' swords.)

About the "plate made guys invulnerable" thing: I know, you never said that, & armour certainly did make it much harder to kill a guy! I just wanted to emphasise that the common assumption that plate armor made someone

a) unkillable, &
b) a lumbering tortoise unable to get into the saddle unaided

is misleading. I've read (in an Osprey Man of War book I think) that a full suit of field plate (although these could vary hugely in wght) was generally considerably lighter than the standard kit of an infantryman of Napoleonic times, who was expected to (& did) march, charge, jump if neccesary, & dig field fortifications while carrying it. OK, so maybe they didn't do them easily or gracefully or in Olympic qualifying times, but they were certainly able to manage them.