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

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

Ravien wrote: 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

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.

Ravien wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

Ravien wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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!

Hi Ravien

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Thanks for the link Charles, I checked it out and it was indeed interesting. I haven't read all the articles, but I'll probably get around to that sooner or later. And thanks too for everyone else's contributions thus far!

One last comment about armor, I've read that chain mail was considered the most uncomfortable armor to wear, simply because all the weight is carried on the shoulders.

But as I've stated before, I'm not making "16th century England: The RPG", I'm simply using common and cool concepts to make Eclipse accessible and interesting, both for myself and any audience who plays it. Basically I think about it like this: if people in star wars can speak with british accents, Eclipse can have a timeline of weapons and armor development that does not mirror Earth's own history. Because it's a fantasy game, and it's meant to be fun, not studied and compared to scholarly accounts of an irrelevant history.

I've been moving house for the last few days, and will continue doing so for a day or two still. But whilst I'm moving I should be able to find time here and there to write up another post about either ranged combat or magic combat, so my question is: "Which would people prefer I write about next, Ranged combat or Magic combat?"

Or alternatively, has everyone lost interest in the mechanics?

Ravien wrote:
One last comment about armor, I've read that chain mail was considered the most uncomfortable armor to wear, simply because all the weight is carried on the shoulders.

Ravien wrote:
I've been moving house for the last few days, and will continue doing so for a day or two still. But whilst I'm moving I should be able to find time here and there to write up another post about either ranged combat or magic combat, so my question is: "Which would people prefer I write about next, Ranged combat or Magic combat?"

Or alternatively, has everyone lost interest in the mechanics?

Ranged Combat

Ranged combat works on the same principles as melee combat, but instead of attack speed and attack power, you have accuracy. Accuracy = d20 + agility modifier + power modifier + weapon accuracy +your Sniper skill if you have the Marksman ability. The logic behind Accuracy is that it is a combination of your dexterity and coordination and your physical strength to draw a bow/hold a crossbow steady/throw an item. Firing a longbow is inherently more accurate than throwing an axe, due to design and weight and stuff. So all ranged weapons have an accuracy modifier and a range increment. A musket has high accuracy but short accurate range, a throwing axe has short range and poor accuracy, and a longbow has high accuracy and high range. I am considering splitting accuracy into two types, one for ranged weapons such as bows and thrown weapons, and the other for ranged weapons such as crossbows and firearms, because as it stands now, firearms and crossbows still rely on the agility and power of a user, whereas it may be more conceptually accurate if they only used d20 +weapon accuracy +Sniper skill, making them ideal for beginners, but not-so-hot for more skilled characters. I dunno, what do you guys think? Are two different accuracy scores for different ranged weapon types too much?

So the accuracy roll combines whether you hit your target or not, and how hard you hit them. Here’s how:

You make your accuracy check, and the difficulty of the shot is assessed by the GM. The GM looks at the Range Increment TNs table and determines how your target is moving relative to you, and how far away they are in terms of range increments for your weapon. This will give them a number, which they subtract from your accuracy roll. If the result is still positive, then you have hit the target and the result is basically treated exactly like attack power in comparing it to the target’s toughness to determine damage. So in a way, where attack speed is used to determine “hit or no-hit” in melee, the agility modifier part of the accuracy roll might serve that function for ranged (because without the agility modifier part, the accuracy roll looks just like attack power). In practise, it will be fairly rare to completely miss a target that is unaware of your shot, but might be more common to hit them at an odd angle such that you don’t pierce their armor. Whilst this might arguably be less realistic than is possible, I personally think it’s nicer to hear that “your shot glanced their armor” than “you completely missed them altogether”. If I ever decide that I want to make it harder to hit a target, all I have to do is scale up the TNs in the Range Increment table.

So how does this look in practise? Glad you asked, ‘cos I love generating examples!

Rylae sits perched high in the huge redwood tree, her skin and hair shades of brown and green in a motley pattern. From below, she would be virtually indistinguishable from the tree in which she sat. The morning is cool and wet, the breeze and rain chilling the end of her tail, which she is using to hold a small branch over her head to keep the rain-drops out of her eyes.
The GM calls for Rylae’s player to make a Listen check, and she rolls 17, and adds her Listen skill for a total of 28. The GM secretly rolls the Sneak check for the scout, and rolls 14 for a total of 23. Rylae’s ears twitch as she picks up the sounds of someone attempting to sneak through the forest. Minutes pass, and Rylae can hear the person getting closer. Rylae’s player asks to make a Spot check, and the GM nods. She rolls 8 for a total of 18, and the GM rolls the Hide check for the scout, and rolls a 1, for a total of 12. Immediately after, he rolls the Spot check for the scout, and gets 23. Decent, but not good enough to spot Rylae (her Hide check was 32). Rylae spots the scout trying hard but unsuccessfully to move without being seen or heard, and she watches as he moves on. He is not her target. A few minutes later, Rylae hears a procession of horses, and it sounds like the riders are armoured. Eventually, they come into focus about 600ft away, and she sees five armoured soldiers surrounding a woman in full-plate. This is her target.
Rylae’s player decides to use her Patient Sniper ability to increase her accuracy, and she will be aiming for the ladies head, even though she is wearing a steel half helm (18). She asks how long until the party just passes the tree she is in, and the GM tells her about 40 seconds, or 10 rounds. Rylae’s player decides to wait for twenty seconds, then draw her bow and use her Patient Sniper ability for 5 rounds to increase her accuracy by a total of +10 (+2 for each round). Also, because she is going to be firing when her target is within the first range increment of her longbow, she gets the +6 bonus to accuracy afforded by the Point Blank Shot ability.
As the party draws near, the GM doesn’t bother making Spot checks for any of them because he knows that none of them have enough skill ranks to see Rylae even if they all rolled natural 20’s. Rylae draws her arrow, lines up her target, and tracks her, ensuring she will not miss. As the lady passes 60ft below, Rylae gets ready to loose just before her target passes into the next range increment for her weapon. The GM asks her to roll her accuracy, and she rolls an 11, adds her accuracy (26), the +10 from her Patient Sniper special ability, and the +6 from her Point Blank Shot ability, for a total of 53. The GM looks at the Range Increment TNs table and decides that the target is walking away from Rylae within the 1st range increment of her weapon, and so subtracts 14 from Rylae’s Accuracy. The GM compares this result to her target’s Toughness, which is 28. Rylae’s accuracy check beat her target’s Toughness by 11. Looking at the damage table this tells the GM that the hit is instantly fatal. Rylae’s arrow flies true, and the force of the arrow snaps the ladies neck and knocks her off her horse, and her body sploshes in the muddy leaves of the forest floor.
The soldiers immediately begin shouting and searching the area frantically, drawing horse-bows and swords, as Rylae nocks another arrow. Unless a character has the Rapid Shot ability, drawing an arrow and nocking it are one action, and aiming and firing are another. If she is lucky and plays her cards right, with the rain and dim morning light, she might be able to take out 2, maybe even 4 of the soldiers before they discover her location.

So there you go, I hope that was all clear and easy to follow, because that’s a draft of the example I’ll include in the finished rulebook. If you have any questions or concerns, I’d love to hear them so I can tweak the example to make more sense. Obviously an explanation of the abilities Rylae used (Point Blank Shot and Patient Sniper) will be in the rulebook. Oh, and Rylae is an elyrial, which is why she can camouflage her skin and hair and has a tail. She can also jump a minimum of twice her height, which is how she got in the tree, and she never takes falling damage if she can move, which is why she doesn’t mind being so high up (60ft high).

It is possible for a target of a ranged attack to actively avoid that attack if they are aware of it and can see the firer at the time of the shot. To do so, the GM ignores the Range Increment TNs table, and instead rolls a dodge check for the target, opposed directly against the accuracy of the firer. Mechanically, the dodge check replaces the Range Increment TN, in subtracting from the accuracy to leave what is essentially attack power. Make sense?

Finally, size matters. Smaller creatures are harder to hit and larger creatures are easier. The Range Increment TNs to hit a creature increase by +4 for every size category smaller than your own, and decrease by -4 for every size category larger than your own. The rules for dealing with multiple opponents are identical to with melee, but with one extra... KEEP MOVING!!! You DO NOT want to be standing still firing at a group of archers on a hill who are firing at you. You want to run and you want to find cover. When you are firing from cover you suffer -1d6 to your Accuracy rolls but opponents firing at you suffer -2d6 to their accuracy rolls (to simulate that "surprise" factor of you popping out at random intervals to take a shot).

To reiterate the question I raised earlier, what do you guys think of having two seperate conceptually different accuracy scores for weapons that require physical prowess like bows and weapons that are pretty much self-sufficient?

I'll be happy to answer any questions or hear any criticisms!

Well, I am blown away. Finally; a combat system that is actually GOOD without being minimalist or imbalanced! My only concern is that it may take too much time to resolve (even more than d20!). All things considered, this is a great system which still has room for improvement.