TRoS combat

[deltadave]

What is the rationale for using the weapon to determine the attack TN as opposed to using an AC type system?

As an example, in my (heavily modified) D20 game I have modified armor to be ablative (like TRoS) and AC is determined by Height, Weight and Dex.  AC's generally range from 7 to 14.  The equivalent of Tough is determined by Height, Weight, STR and CON.  Height and weight work in opposition for AC and Tough - ie Smaller body gives a higher AC but lower Tough.

[Eamon Voss]

What is the rationale for using the weapon to determine the attack TN as opposed to using an AC type system?

The reasoning behind it is to increase focus on the differences between weapons.  A rapier is used differently than a longsword, even if they generally weighed around the same amount.  By defining the TNs by weapon, you allow for dramatically different fighting styles based on the weapon, which matches the history, literature, and use of said weapons.

As an example, in my (heavily modified) D20 game I have modified armor to be ablative (like TRoS) and AC is determined by Height, Weight and Dex.  AC's generally range from 7 to 14.  The equivalent of Tough is determined by Height, Weight, STR and CON.  Height and weight work in opposition for AC and Tough - ie Smaller body gives a higher AC but lower Tough.

A bigger body also means more reach and longer legs.  More reach makes it harder to attack the person and longer legs means they can move further with a single step.  From long personal experience with weapons and empty hand full-contact fighting, a tall person is a pain to get up to and hit once they know the basics.

Yes, a small person like me can be quick and speedy, but so can a decent big person.

Your system doesn't work this way.  It penalizes the tall and lanky person. Your system also assumes the concept of passive defense, which simply does not exist, and makes for the standard 'roll-off' games that TROS tries not to be.

TROS, on the other hand, provides for active defense and doesn't worry about the conundrums of different size people fighting.  The defender must choose his manuevar and acts upon it.  Which matches personal experience as well as history and literature on the subject of fighting.

When I stick-spar in Kali, nothing is more fun than blocking the stick of a newbie doing a '1' strike, then grabbing the hand of my opponent, and disarming them with a standard kali snake.  When I play at kendo/gumdo, I love to high guard, and then counterslash viciously to the head with the lanwan strike out of kali complete with letting go of the shinai with my left hand to get maximum flexibility.

I could do both of these tricks within 10 minutes of learning how to play TROS, without any modification to the rules.  Sweet.

[Sneaky Git]

What is the rationale for using the weapon to determine the attack TN as opposed to using an AC type system?

As an example, in my (heavily modified) D20 game I have modified armor to be ablative (like TRoS) and AC is determined by Height, Weight and Dex.

I'm curious... What do you mean by ablative?  As far as I understand the word, ablate means to remove or take away by erosion, melting, evaporation, or vaporization.  Is this what you mean?  If so, then I don't understand your reference to TRoS armor.

As for the initial question, it is my general understanding that my abililty to hit you has less to do with what you are wearing and more to do with the weapon I am using, my skill with it, and whether or not you have any "getting out of the way" or "getting me first" type skills.

Chris

[Mokkurkalfe]

I'm curious... What do you mean by ablative?  As far as I understand the word, ablate means to remove or take away by erosion, melting, evaporation, or vaporization.  Is this what you mean?  If so, then I don't understand your reference to TRoS armor.

Chris

I'd assume he means that armor sucks up damage instead of making you harder to hit.

[prophet118]

armor shouldnt make you harder to hit, which is one of the things i loathe about 3rd edition D&D...but alas, everyone i talk to about it, seems to want to mention... "well things do hit you, they just dont do anything to you"...... and my response is always, "oh damage reduction, uh?".. they of course deny that and mutter something about "stupid rules lawyer"

[Eamon Voss]

D&D3E is a great simulation.  A perfect simulation.

A great, perfect simulation of Dungeons and Dragons.

Trying to argue anything else into it will be a failed effort.  

Now this isn't a bad thing.  You can have fun with the game.  Just don't argue about the reality of the game (be it historical, cinematic, or literature based reality), and you'll have fun.  I certainly do.

[Valamir]

I'd assume he means that armor sucks up damage instead of making you harder to hit.

I'm pretty sure you're right Mok.  Of course, that isn't really what ablative means.  Battle Tech armor was ablative.  D&D Hitpoints are ablative.  

TROS armor does not ablate

[Ashren Va'Hale]

hmmmm. now we need to convert Mechwarrior to TROS..... then we can really see what ablative means n'eh?

[deltadave]

Ok, ablative probably wasn't the right word to use.  Armor absorbing damage is a great concept in any case.

I remain unconvinced that the weapon should determine the TN for attacks.  Mayhap my method of computing AC is not perfect, but I believe that it is better than weapon determined TNs.  

Please help me understand the rationale for this.

[Valamir]

All weapons are not created equal.  There is more to the difference than how much damage it dishes out and how long it is.

Some weapons are very nimble, others are slow and clumsy.  Some weapons are designed to be useful to parry with.  Others are not.  

Nimble weapons have better TNs.  Big heavy slow weapons have worse TNs.  Nimble weapons that are ideal for parrying and fending have better DTNs.  Weapons that are not so balanced and would be awkward to parry with have worse DTNs.

Probably the best method of distinguishing weapon differences yet devised...what part doesn't seem right to you?

[prophet118]

well the thing that the weapon based TNs dont allow for, is someone who is so skilled, it doesnt matter if you had him a bamboo stick.....

i know that this is TROS and it is represented by having an outrageous combat pool... i dont really know what else to say to try and prove what i am saying....

[Thor Olavsrud]

I remain unconvinced that the weapon should determine the TN for attacks.  Mayhap my method of computing AC is not perfect, but I believe that it is better than weapon determined TNs.  

Please help me understand the rationale for this.

I believe it basically comes down to the idea that it is really no more difficult to strike a person in armor than it is to strike a person not wearing armor. In fact, it is probably easier because even well-made armor will restrict your movement to some extent.

If you use a weapon with any skill, the only thing that is likely to prevent you from hitting your target -- barring a fall or something of that sort -- is some sort of active defense on the part of your opponent. TRoS handles that with an opposed roll, with the restrictive nature of armor coming into play by reducing CP totals.

Thus armor comes into play by reducing the amount of damage dealt, rather than making you harder to hit, which is reflective of how armor really worked.

[Eamon Voss]

well the thing that the weapon based TNs dont allow for, is someone who is so skilled, it doesnt matter if you had him a bamboo stick.....

I respectfully disagree.  TROS's weapon based TNs work great for people armed with bamboo weapons.  Drop the ATN and DTN and damage for a club or quarterstaff to reflect the lightness of the material.  Make it totally ineffective against armor or incapable of defending against slashes or bashes.  Presto, instant bamboo weapon list.

i know that this is TROS and it is represented by having an outrageous combat pool... i dont really know what else to say to try and prove what i am saying....

You are making perfect sense.  Give a highly skilled fighter a bamboo weapon.  Have him go up against an average fighter in armor with a steel weapon.  The highly skilled fighter, will either run away or pick up a proper weapon (if he is smart); or try and close to the grapple, discarding the bamboo stick (if desperate or stupid).  No one, not even in Souteast Asia, fights with bamboo (or even rattan) if they can get something better.  Anything else is Eastern martial arts apocrypha.  Trust me, I know.

[prophet118]

well, i was just using that as an example, personally, id rather fight with something that doesnt cut, but that just doesnt happen in the time period the game is set in

[Eamon Voss]

Ok, ablative probably wasn't the right word to use.  Armor absorbing damage is a great concept in any case.

I remain unconvinced that the weapon should determine the TN for attacks.  Mayhap my method of computing AC is not perfect, but I believe that it is better than weapon determined TNs.  

Please help me understand the rationale for this.

No problem.

Lets say I am using a properly balanced historical rapier.  Unlike a cheap modern replica, it is like a wand in my hand, and yet it can punch through a person and leave a wide swath of injury in the process.  The rapier, therefore, should be easier to hit with on the thrust, and not so easy on the slash.  It was designed for one move and not the other.

On the other hand, Jake is using a falchion.  It has a heavy blade ideal for cutting things.  Slashing and wacking off limbs.  It is not so handy as the rapier, but devastating in its own right.  It should be easier to hit with on the slash, and not so handy with the thrust.  Furthermore, lacking the careful balance of a saber or longsword, it should not be as accurate on the slash as those more precise weapons.

An AC system can be modified to work with this, but you end up with the same thing as the TN system, just with more math during the middle of combat.  You end up modifying the AC for each attack to handle the different weapon types, rather than just giving each weapon type its own ATN.

Hope that helps!