Strenght minimums?

[Brian Leybourne]

What is the average attribute score in tRoS? Is it 4?

- Janne -

Yup. Although if Jake were here he would be quick to point out that nobody is ever truly average.. thus none of the attribute priorities give exactly 40 points.

And, of course, that's only the HUMAN average.

Brian.

[Durgil]

Although if Jake were here he would be quick to point out that nobody is ever truly average.. thus none of the attribute priorities give exactly 40 points.

And, of course, that's only the HUMAN average.

Brian.

That reminds me of an optional rule in Chivary & Sorcery: The Rebirth.  The Basic Strength Score is made relative to that character's body weight by making it a percentage of the character's body weight that can be successfully lefted over his head.  There was then a formula to compute an "Absolute Strength."

I thought it worked quite well; I created a Middle-earth style troll (12' tall weighing about 3/4's of a ton with a base Strength of 8 in a 3-18 range) and his Absolute Strength ended up something like 28 or 30.  That was compared to a 5' 6" man weighing ~150# with a base Strength of 11 on a 3-18 range.  It makes a lot of since when you watch TLoTR Movie and see that cave troll killing orcs left and right with just ill timed clumbsy maneuvering or Sauron whacking 4 to 6 opponents at once.  I guess blocking or parrying would be a pretty stupid reaction when faced with such an opponent?

[Janne Halmetoja]

And, of course, that's only the HUMAN average.

Brian.

I meaned human average. Sounds strange because it's usually 5 in d10 games :). System sounds very good besides that weapons and shield are unbreakable. I'm looking forward to get book in my hands, which may take about a month :(.

- Janne -

[Lyrax]

Swords and shields aren't necessarily unbreakable.   But they don't break every time you use them, and there currently aren't rules covering shield or weapon strength yet (maybe in tFoB).

The good news is that this is very realistic.  Weapons, when well taken care of, will last a very, very long time.  Shields even more so.

[Janne Halmetoja]

What I have heard, shields usually lasted one good battle (if you are not using metal shields). After that they were useless. Swords weren't so good as today, but they didn't also break every time. Yes, it depends also materials and quality of the sword (poor quality sword is not, of course, as resistant to breakable than good quality).

It is not too hard to make breaking rules by myself, because I can use GURPS and HarnMaster as reference material. I'm waiting main rulebook and it is really painstaking (as waiting is always) and of course I'm waiting to get Flower of Battle too :).

- Janne -

[Durgil]

One thing to keep in mind when you start talking about metal shields is weight.  To make the metal thick enough that it doesn't dent too easily, you would be talking about a lot of weight.  This was only really feasible for the joust.  The best you would have seen used on the battlefield would maybe have a metal boss with a strip of metal around the edge, but primarily made of some type of hardwood.

[Janne Halmetoja]

I almost put a note about metal shields weights but I left it, because I thought everybody would anyway understand how much they weighted. No sane people would use bronze shield in fight (maybe buckler, but that's it) as you mentioned.

Janne

[Mike Holmes]

Swords weren't so good as today, but they didn't also break every time. Yes, it depends also materials and quality of the sword (poor quality sword is not, of course, as resistant to breakable than good quality).

Actually, there was a previous thread in which modern vs. ancient swordmaking was discussed. You might want to look at it. The consensus seemed to me to be that, yes, we have the metallurgy today to make an awesomely tough sword, but that, barring a very few extreme examples (maybe only one) that nobody uses them. That, in fact, swordmaking from the middle ages created weapons that are still fairly good by modern standards. Again, it's that necessity thing.

You are right, however, that quality is important. One thing to consider, however, is that sewords have always been expensive to make. They use more metal than most weapons, and require a lot of know-how. As such, fewer swords will be of cheap make than other weapons. Most swords will be built to last, and will not break if well maintained, and, more importantly, used properly.

In Clement's demo (man I got some milage out of that), he demonstrated that proper medieval technique used the flat of the blade to parry against the opponent's flat. A well constructed sword was somewhat flexible in this direction, and could take any beating a man could deliver in this manner. Only on mistakes would there be a significant chance of breakage. I'd call for a roll on a fumbled parry, for instnce, but not otherwise.

I remeber that this was one of the reasons that he said that Japonese swords would frequently chip as that technique often involves more perpendicular sorts of parries.

Mike

[Lyrax]

A cheap sword (if there truly is such a thing) will last a battle or two.

A high-quality sword, if taken care of, will last a lifetime.

A low-quality shield might not last very long either.

But remember that Viking warriors often named their shields, as they did their swords.  This would be indicative of shields that last a long time.  It would need some repairing from time to time, but any character with a military background should have no trouble with this.

Most swords at the time, I imagine, would only break if they were poorly made, and only then under high amounts of abuse.

[Sneaky Git]

A cheap sword (if there truly is such a thing) will last a battle or two.

A high-quality sword, if taken care of, will last a lifetime.

A low-quality shield might not last very long either.

But remember that Viking warriors often named their shields, as they did their swords.  This would be indicative of shields that last a long time.  It would need some repairing from time to time, but any character with a military background should have no trouble with this.

Most swords at the time, I imagine, would only break if they were poorly made, and only then under high amounts of abuse.

I agree with most of the above points..  I noticed, however, that few people have mentioned the use of non-sword weapons.  I will concede the fact that well-made swords, due to their expensive (and metal-intensive) nature, should take a beating without breaking.. but what about non-sword weapons?  Spears?  Polearms?  Wood is resilient, yes, but not invincible.

Finally, the one point with which I disagree.  Should a weapon/shield be damaged, I feel that assuming "any character with a military background should have no trouble with this" is dangerous.  Certainly, some would have rudimentary knowledge, but many of the skills necessary to repair damaged arms and armor took years to master.  Most warriors wouldn't have the time to apprentice themselves out to the necessary master.  If this were not the case, why would armies travel with blacksmiths and armorers in their train?

[Mike Holmes]

Good points SG. Someone mentioned that there might be something about this in TFOB. Was that just a rumor? I hope it is the case.

Mike

[Lyrax]

I wasn't talking about "the Gol bashes your shield, and its metal rim rips off" kind of weapon and armor upkeep.  I was thinking more along the lines of "do you sharpen your sword regularly?" and "do you keep it from being damaged by the weather through your constant care and vigilance?" type of weapon and armor upkeep.  I agree that if it becomes damaged, a smith is required to put it back in working order.  However, any character with a military background should know enough to keep the weapon from getting to that point through normal wear and tear.

[Lance D. Allen]

Likewise, checking wear on armor straps, banging dents out of armor (dents give weapons something to catch in, rather than deflecting it)... Yeah, basic equipment maintenance would be second nature to anyone with military training. I wouldn't think this sort of thing would require an actual skill, though. Any non-soldier would pick it up before too long, once they realized their equipment was deteriorating.

[Sneaky Git]

Likewise, checking wear on armor straps, banging dents out of armor (dents give weapons something to catch in, rather than deflecting it)... Yeah, basic equipment maintenance would be second nature to anyone with military training. I wouldn't think this sort of thing would require an actual skill, though. Any non-soldier would pick it up before too long, once they realized their equipment was deteriorating.

In that case, I agree completely with both Lyrax and Wolfen.  Yes, soldiers would have the knowledge necessary to maintain their arms and armor.

[Lyrax]

Now that we have that covered, if you'd like, we can look at special damage, that needs a smith to repair.

I'd say that all persons with a proficiency less than 3 would need to have their weapons repaired or at least checked every month or perhaps every few weeks of use, and persons with a proficiency of less than 5 would need to have their weapons repaired/checked every several months of use.  Using a weapon once during this period does not qualify as "one month of use."

Characters with 5 or more proficiency points probably know enough to keep their weapons in top condition, but would be wise to get their weapons looked at after a battle or some other period of war-caliber use.

I feel a rule similar to this (more strict for low-grade weapons, more relaxed for high-grade weapons) reflects the fact that beginners are more likely to parry and strike wrong, thus damaging the blade.  Some relatively low-abuse weapons (such as stiletto daggers) probably wouldn't be subject to this unless they are used in a manner that they were not intended to (such as against armor).