All right, I'm a believer.

[Bob Richter]

The Gambler's Ruin will catch up with you eventually, and YOU WILL DIE, no matter how smart or good you are, especially when Longswords can't nick, scratch, gut, gouge-- or anything else seemingly minor-- you :)

CHEAT, damnit.  You are still thinking about "fighting people" instead of "killing people".

That's why I said no matter how SMART you are. Cheating fails too, in the end. Retirement is the only way to die of old age and have time to enjoy it.

[contracycle]

Retirement?  In the middle ages?

Nevermind.

[Shadow]

I see that Bob has a point, no matter how strong a swordsman is he should still be able to achieve what amounts to a lesser wound (such as with a tip-cut, partial puncture, etc).  I do not feel that he is trying to trash the TROS system at all, but is offering a potentially useful critique along with suggestions to improve the system.  I see it as a compliment to TROS that he chose this system to invest time and effort in offering advice for it; and I hope all my postings will be taken in similarly, as they are intended.

One thing I really admire about the TROS combat system is that many attributes of a weapon and wielder are accounted for with separate ratings, which makes it easy to represent the relative advantages of different weapons (though we may disagree exactly what advantages a weapon may have... I still see a rapier as a +0 damage weapon, but that is another story).  I agree with Bob (if I am interpreting right), that # of successes represents how well-struck a blow is.  A single success represents a blow that barely overcame defenses to land blade to flesh with significant effect.  I think it reasonable that even with, say, a greatsword, a strike that succeeds by a margin of 1 could be just a tip-cut or relatively small wound (non-lethal at least).

On the other hand, a strong wielder with a massive weapon should be more likely to hurt one badly, even with a less-than perfectly delivered strike.  As Bob says, though, it is possible to harm someone without killing them with any weapon.  I have a suggested mechanic that could be evaluated or expanded upon, to account for this possibility:

This mechanic would call for an additional dice roll when a target is struck for damage above level 1 (for a damage of 1, there is no subsequent roll for damage, it just stays at 1).  For each level of damage above one a die would be rolled against a TN, each success on this roll adds back to the base 1 damage inflicted (this TN could be standard, say 5 or so... or the number could be based on TO or even Agility; if the mechanic is approved the exact TN could be worked out).  Thus,  say Rexor is struck with a longsword for a damage of 5... he would take 1 damage for certain, then 4 dice would be rolled against whatever TN is deemed appropriate (4 just for sake of example).  If 3 of these were successes, Rexor would end up taking 1 + 3 =4 damage (which probably has him up done for anyway; but it would be possible that he could suffer a lighter wound).  

This (or a similar) mechanic could be tinkered with to fine-tune damage.  It would not delay the system significanly, as extra rolls would only be required when wounds are actually inflicted... and usually once a wound comes, the battle will be short anyway.  Still, I think this would be a worthwhile addition, and would answer criticism that the system does not allow for a variety of wounds with all weapon types.

[Jaif]

Well, I hate to break it to you, but the model's pretty unrealistic already.

No need to be snippy, I accept this statement.  Fact is, the Romans were about the only people in a reasonable position to make an accurate combat model for a game, simply because they had a few zillion real live to-the-death combats as test subjects.

On the other hand, I have some good experience (that's not to say a good AMOUNT of experience) of rolling with blows from fists, quarterstaves, swords (even very big ones swung by guys more stong than I am well-built), and even cars (which have a whole lot over a mace swung by the strongest guy *I* can imagine.) And I will tell you that agility is a VERY important difference between "That blood looks SO real" and "Oh my God! They killed that guy!"

Agility and Wit, actually.  You need to notice the situation, process it, and react to it in a speedy fashion.

However, agility & wit are alread factored into the combat system.  In fact, they are the central components of it, being the basis for reflex. Factoring in agility again is overkill and unbalancing, IMO.

To speak more loosely, it feels like you're turning the combat into a b-rate martial arts film to take care of what may be a minor anomaly in the system.

A single success means a blow has been struck, but to suggest that such a blow would be instantly fatal to someone just because they're not as well-built as Ulrich is, quite frankly, silly.

Here we actually agree in large part.  It's one thing to say a tough person shrugs off a solid mace hit on his breastplate that would drive a lesser man to his knees w/a broken rib; it's another to say a tough man's skin is so leathery that the arrow fails to penetrate the throat.  I don't have a solution now, but I know I don't want to add in an agility roll to take care of the situation.

Besides, fighting's damn fun in the game.  I think I need to kill me some PCs and see what they think. :-)

-Jeff

[Bob Richter]

However, agility & wit are alread factored into the combat system.  In fact, they are the central components of it, being the basis for reflex. Factoring in agility again is overkill and unbalancing, IMO.

Hm. Point. I might suggest making the test with any remaining Combat Pool dice (up to your Reflex) instead, then. Not that that means you'll have any. :)

The truth is that I didn't get as much time to think on that as I would have liked. :)

Now, what to do about Ulrich's phenomenal absorption of meat damage? Hm.
:)

But you're right, the system is fun. For now I'll just use Ulrich and leave Mallory out of it. :)

[Shadow]

An easy way to reduce the "meat shield" effect would be to halve  strength and endurance influence on damage (rounded up?).  This would not unbalance the system towards greater or lesser damage, it would reduce the impact of differences between strength and toughness on damage.  

I agree with Jeff that counting TO or Agility twice in calculating damage would be a mistake; therefore, in regard to my previously posted solution (a couple of posts before this one on this thread), I would stick with a set TN for the proposed damage rolls, not one based on TO or agility.

[Jaif]

You know, it may be reasonable to just limit human toughness to 7.  This would say that people can become stronger than they are tough, which actually agrees with real world observations about over-trained atheletes, anabolic steroids, and the like.  In other words, people can train themselves to a point where they can apply more power than their own bodies can handle.

Btw, there was a hockey player who had his throat cut in a game, was taken off the ice bleeding a lot, and still survived. (Spelling wrong, but Clint Malarchek of the Washington Crapitols, I believe.)

Wesley did that in the TV show Angel, too.  And don't get me started on the Kurgan. :-)

-Jeff

[Jake Norwood]

SInce we're chatting about home-brewed solutions to this issue (I'm not sure it's a problem, per se), here's one that I thought up:

-Increase all damage ratings by 2 (?) points
-on a successful hit roll the DR of the weapon at a TN of, say, 3.
-Every success on that roll becomes a point of damage that has to be absorbed by TO and Armor.

That adds an additional roll to the game (something I tried very hard not to do), but it is a solution.

Here's another one:
Convert all DRs to some kind of TN. For example:
ST +2 is now WTN (wound-target-number) 3
ST +1 is now WTN 5
ST is now WTN 7
ST-1 is now WTN 9
ST -2 is now WTN 11 (which, as we all know, is the same as a 10)

Upon a successful hit you roll your ST/WTN. Your opponent rolls his TO against his "AV" (which would also be changed so that more armor in a given area = a lower AWTN (anti-wound-target-number).

The final damage is equal to the attack successes plus the margin of success on the wound contest.

This is a pretty fair way of getting to the wider range of possible wounds you guys are looking for, although it would take a fair amount of modification (and playtesting to get the TNs right). It would also slow play down considerably.

For me its an issue of speed...do I need to have these smaller wounds bad enough to slow every combat for them?

As for the TO thing, I agree that TO should max out around 7.

Jake

[Lyrax]

Sounds to me like the solutions are worse than the original problem...

[Atomic Requiem]

Sure, an ST 6 guy is stronger than an ST 4 guy is tough, but weapons still strike at odd angles and catch nothing but skin no matter how much strength is behind them, especially when an able target is trying his darndest to get the frak out of the way.
-----------------------------
And you're wrong. If the same blow had struck Ulrich the Stahl, it would be a Level 1 wound. Even struck against his neck, this would yield:
..."Flesh Wound"
-----------------------------
As to why it's important. Hm. I guess I'm just not too keen on my Body 4 guy being ENSURED a messy death if Strength 6 Guy ever CLIPS him with a two-handed longsword. (+2 for the sword, +1 for the success.)

I'm not sure I have anything valuable to offer at this point in the conversation, but after reviewing the thread, I thought I'd offer some comment.

I think the resolution to this whole issue is that when considering the combat system, it must be taken as a whole. When determining wounds, the strength & skill of the attacker, as well as the toughness & skill of the defender must be taken into account. Agility factors into that as well.

While it's true some "talented" characters will always cause major wounds to certain opponents, at least to me, this seems realistic.

I think the key to resolving this issue is to see that all the attributes must be resolved simultaneously instead of only looking at what happens when a "STR 6 guy with a long sword gets 1 success on a TOUGH 4 guy."
If it ever gets to that, then I think there is no such thing as clipping - this has already been resolved by their respective, dervived, skills, before it gets to damage assessment.

Not only does the respective skills of the combatants come into play before wounds are assessed, so are their manuevers, style of fighting, and method of attack (surprise, situational modifiers, etc.). To bypass this and move directly on to certain situations that occur between two fighters and conclude the system doesn't properly model damage, is not appropriate.

Anyways, Jake's solutions may have been more what you're looking for, but I just thought it might be important to point out that it's perfectly appropriate to have the many layers before we get to damage resolution be fair contributors to proper modeling of combat & combat damage.

*AR*

[Shadow]

Whether or not minor (level 1 & 2) wounds are worth the time and effort of an extra dice roll and added complexity is a legitimate question.  For me, the detail and extra realism is worth it, even though the proposed rules would rarely effect the outcome of a fight in TROS.  

Jake's second suggested option looks like it would clear up the problem completely.  What I like most about it is that it separates margin of success damage from strength/weapon damage.  You might be able to simplify it a bit by partially combining the two suggestions from your post, as follows:

1) drop the roll of TO vs Armor
2) re-roll only for damage exceeding the margin of success, after all other modifications (armor, TO, etc).  When damage after all other modifiers does not exceed the original margin of success, you would not have to roll for damage.
3) make the additional roll against a given set TN (I would go with 4 offhand, that allows 70% of damage exceeding the margin of success to still score on average).

here is an example:

George (ST 6) slashes at Hans (TO 4) with an arming sword aimed at the head, Hans parries with his dagger.  George obtains 5 successes, Hans only 3; the margin of success is 2, in favor of George.

George ends up hitting Hans in the head (upper).  The damage is as follows:  Success margin (2) + (ST+1 =7), overall damage is 9 before we consider Han's TO and armor.  Assuming Hans has no armor, we subract just his TO (4) from the damage, leaving us with 5 damage still.  So far, this follows the TROS system as currently written.

Now it is time to roll to see how much of the damage beyond success margin is applied to the unfortunate Hans.  The total damage after all other modifications is 5; the success margin was 2 (from the original attack vs parry rolls), so 2 damage is assured, we only roll for the remaining 3.  We roll 3 dice against TN of 4 and get 3, 5, and 7; 2 successes!  These 2 are added to the margin of success George originally obtained (2) when Han's parried; 2+2=4, Hans takes a level 4 wound to the head (pretty much goodbye Hans...).

If Hans was wearing a chainmail coif (AV 3), no roll for damage would have been required; total damage 5 - 3 (for AV) would have been 2; since this is NOT greater than the original margin of success (which was 2), Hans takes the 2 damage with no additional dice rolling.

From the example, it can be seen that with this method damage rolls would only be required in certain circumstances (when the damage is greater than the original margin of success, after all other mods (TO, AV).  If margin of success is 5, one would never need roll for damage as there are no damage levels beyond 5.  

This method has the virtue of being easily added to the existing system without the need to change damage ratings, etc.  It could be emphasized that it need not be bothered with except in "key" fights and not when many are fighting at once.  Those who did not want the added detail could dispense with it completely, since it really would not change the outcome of fights often.  What it does do, is allow for strikes which barely get past defenses (i.e., only those with a low margin of success) to achieve lower level wounds occasionally.

[Mokkurkalfe]

Good one Shadow!

Just one thing. I think all of us agree that strike from a big, bad weapon would only give a minor wound if only the tip of it hitthe body or if it came from a weird angle cuz' the target's dodging.
Therefore, it would make more sense if the TN for the roll is based on the AG.

[Jake Norwood]

Shadow-

I also think that for those who want this extra rule/detail your approach is a good one. I think that your TN of 4 is a little high, though, for a few reasons.

I don't thing that AG should be part of the TN--it's allready factored into everyone's combat pool, and therefore into the dice the defender used to evade/parry/whatever. What to base it on, however, is a good question. Although a "flat" TN, such as Shadow proposed, may not be the *most* accurate way to do it, it is functional.

I would actually drop the TN to 3. The kind of tip cuts that you, Bob, and others in your camp are looking for are really pretty darn rare. Even a 30% chance is cheating a weapon out of it's damage code. If you did keep the TN at 4 then I would ad 1 to the damage from all weapons. That makes the liklihood of these kinds of wounds proportional. On the flip side, if the chance is so small, is it really worth rolling, considering the slow-down it has on a game. I say "not really," but the real determiner here is "what kind of TROS game are you going for?"

If you're looking at the gritty, unforgiving type (such as I run at home) then I wouldn't bother with this optional rule at all. BUT if you're going for a more sword-swinging film-style dramatic game where the 5% chances in life are much higher (like, say, 30%), then this rule is appropriate, assuming you don't mind the extra rolling.

I can easily see myself supporting both modes of play. Maybe I should set up a page on the web for "house rules." Whaddya think?

Jake

ps. Thanks for turning an "I'm right, you're wrong" discussion into something productive. It's right in keeping with the style that the TROS forum--so I hear--is known for.

[Mokkurkalfe]

Definitely!

House rules, tactics, everything!

[Brian Leybourne]

Armor is as much a plague as a boon. It drains your combat pool, which increases his chance for a devastating success.

Ever actually had a duel in tRoS? If so, you wouldn't make that statement. Losing 5 from your CP to gain 5-6 automatic successes on every defense (instead of spending those 5 dice on one defense per round and getting maybe 3 successes) is a MASSIVE bonus. Just massive.

I have had lots of duels between 2 characters, one with a 12 point pool and no armour and the other with a 7 point pool and full plate everywhere, and I'll tell you - it is INCREDIBLY tense, nervesome and scary for the unarmored guy, 5 more dice in his pool or not. And even when he does hit, he almost never wounds the opponent, because he can't go full out for fear of draining his pool and being attacked back - in this situation the 12 pool guy has to make SURE he keeps initiative, because one "nick" and he's in serious smeg.

Do NOT underestimate armour. It is huge.

Brian.