At first I didn't think I was going to like tRoS. The biggest issue was that it uses d10s. Now, normally, I hate d10s and the feeling is mutual, but it turns out that when I use LARGE NUMBERS of d10s, that's not so much of a problem.

So with that obstacle out of the way, I was instantly captivated by the combat system. It was more or less exactly what I'd been looking for from an FRPG: It had a lot in common with Shadowrun (which I adore,) while having more advanced rules for melee combat, and reflected injury in a very realistic manner.

And then the setting and Spiritual Attributes got me. I've had character concepts swimming in my head all week, and I'm just starting to get them out on to paper. The really sad thing is that it's diverting me from something really important I'm supposed to be doing.

So I'm addicted to character creation.

So what?

:)

Actually, I'm not too keen on Weyth. In many ways it really bothers me -- the astronomical nonsense of Weyrth's moons and its two now-gone extra suns, the excessive parallels (right down to using the actual names of real-world peoples) with Earth, and my inability to locate some of my characters within Weyrth's prevailing philosophical frameworks.

But, then again, it's not a BAD world, and I've finally found a game system where I can do things like use a Rapier in combat without the general sense of weapon-envy that usually inspires and play a man who will never drown because he was born to hang. (Destiny: To die by Hanging.)

We've already played once, and it was fun. I hope to do it again soon. I think I'm going to have a lot of fun with this.

But I have a question: It mentions I can double up on skill packets, but it doesn't say how to deal with overlapping skills. How DO I deal with it when both of my skill packets have Hunting -1 and Sneak +1?

Eh. Let me show you what I'm talking about. This is Mallory, she's a naked Pictish Archer, but I wasn't able to figure out what some of her skill TNs were. I put question marks wherever there was something I wasn't sure of, but feel free to wreck my character however you like...:) I also noticed that Wrestling doesn't have a default section...

Mallory (5-28-2002)

Race: Human
Region: Picti (+1 AG, +1 WT, +1 Soc, -1 TO, -1 ST, -1d6 ht.)
Social Class: Low Freeman
Sex: Female
Sexual Preference: Male
Height: 59" (4'11")
Weight: 80 lb.
Hair: Dark
Eyes: Bright Blue
Skin: (Pale) White

Attributes:

Physical:
ST: 5
AG: 8
TO: 4
EN: 3
HT: 3

Mental:
WP: 3
WT: 7
MA: 4
Soc: 5
Per: 6

Plot:
Passion (love for her brother) 1
Passion (love for her father) 1
Drive (to defend her homeland) 2
Conscience (do the right thing) 1
Luck: 2

Derived:
Reflex: 7
Aim: 7
Knockdown: 6
Knockout: 5
Move: 8

Skills: 9/9

Warrior
Battle 9
Hunting 8?
First Aid 8
Etiquette (Clan?) 8
Sneak 10?
Leadership 10
Intimidate 9
Gambling 10
Boating 8

Woodsman
Hunting 8?
Tracking 10
Survival 9
Scrounging 9
Animal Guise 9
Herbalist 10
Orienteering 8
Sneak 10?
Camoflage 9
Climbing 10
Swimming 8

purchased:
Acrobatics 8
Dancing 8

Proficiencies:
Longbow 9
Wrestling 2
Dagger (Default) 1

Gift: Beauty of Legends (Major)
Flaw: Rage (Minor)

Possessions:
Weapons
Longbow
48 Arrows
Shortsword

Coinage
Stahlnish (Heavy)
2 Marks
20 Funts
28 Pfennings
Farrenshire (Imperial)
2 Crowns
20 Shillings
54 Pennies
Other:
9 sets of avg. freeman clothing
Boots
Cloak
Silver arm-bands
Elaborate broach
Elaborate earrings

Commentary:
As beautiful as she is deadly -- and no slouch at either mark -- Mallory is a devoted defender of her homeland. Her weapon of choice is the Pictish Longbow -- though her stature requires that she hold it at an angle when she uses it. She wears traditional pictish battle dress -- war paint -- when in battle (and is therefore not shy concerning her body,) with predictable results. She carries a Short Sword for close defense and is somewhat proficient in its use. She has a father and brother whom she loves dearly, but her mother died giving birth to her.


Eh. I'm rambling. Did I mention I had something really important I was supposed to be doing? I think I'll go do that now.

For your skills, I'm pretty sure that if you take away the question marks, you've got it right. Sneak at +1 on both packets will result in you having 1 sneak skill at +1. On the other hand, if you had skill packets where it was sneak +1/sneak -1, It would cancel out to simply being the base level of skill. Also, the larger of two bonuses/penalties would prevail, methinks. A -1 and a -2 on the same skill would end up as a simply -2.

I can help here. Take the best of the two and drop it by one anytime skills overlap.

And yes, that's from the new printing. Sorry.

Jake

ps. Bob--you said you didn't think you'd like TROS. What caused you to buy it and where did you buy it? Oh, and of course I'm glad you like it.

Jake Norwood wrote: I can help here. Take the best of the two and drop it by one anytime skills overlap.

And yes, that's from the new printing. Sorry.

Jake

ps. Bob--you said you didn't think you'd like TROS. What caused you to buy it and where did you buy it? Oh, and of course I'm glad you like it.

Hm. That's almost as disturbing as weapons being unable to cause wounds below a certain level in certain circumstances. Oh well. No such thing as a perfect system. No big deal.

Jake Norwood wrote:

Hm. That's almost as disturbing as weapons being unable to cause wounds below a certain level in certain circumstances. Oh well. No such thing as a perfect system. No big deal.

Sorry, but what are you referring to here?

Jake

Ah, now I get it now. Yeah, it's true that occasionally that crops up (but wait! What if he's wearing armor!), but it isn't too common. To add to that, it would pretty difficult to actually only wound someone with a longsword at a lvl1 or lvl2 wound IRL if you were really going for them. That's the intention behind the weapons with higher damage codes (as opposed to weapons with lower ATNs). Sure, a weapon with a lower TN will get more success (meaning more damage), but a weapon with a higher damage rating is guaranteed to really wreak havoc if it hits. I realize that in real combat there were "little" wounds, but very rarely would you experience anything like a level 1 (or maybe) 2 wound when attacked with a serious weapon and a serious opponent. That's one of the main reasons that weapons have both an ATN and a DR, instead of just one or the other.

Jake

Jake Norwood wrote: Ah, now I get it now. Yeah, it's true that occasionally that crops up (but wait! What if he's wearing armor!), but it isn't too common. To add to that, it would pretty difficult to actually only wound someone with a longsword at a lvl1 or lvl2 wound IRL if you were really going for them. That's the intention behind the weapons with higher damage codes (as opposed to weapons with lower ATNs). Sure, a weapon with a lower TN will get more success (meaning more damage), but a weapon with a higher damage rating is guaranteed to really wreak havoc if it hits. I realize that in real combat there were "little" wounds, but very rarely would you experience anything like a level 1 (or maybe) 2 wound when attacked with a serious weapon and a serious opponent. That's one of the main reasons that weapons have both an ATN and a DR, instead of just one or the other.

Jake

Bob Richter wrote: Thanks. I thought it might be something like that, though I find it somewhat disappointing that a Hunting -1 and a Hunting -1 stack the same way as a Hunting -1 and a Hunting +137 (just to be extreme.)

BrianL wrote:

Bob Richter wrote: Thanks. I thought it might be something like that, though I find it somewhat disappointing that a Hunting -1 and a Hunting -1 stack the same way as a Hunting -1 and a Hunting +137 (just to be extreme.)

Couldn't disagree with you more.

The two skill packets represent two areas of training. If I spend half my life getting superior training in programming a PC (lets say computer -1) and the other half getting inferior training (computer +1 or even +137) shouldn't my overall skill be based on the superior training because I'll be all but ignoring the inferior training anyway, maybe picking up just a tidbit here and there.

Brian.

Bob Richter wrote:

BrianL wrote: The two skill packets represent two areas of training. If I spend half my life getting superior training in programming a PC (lets say computer -1) and the other half getting inferior training (computer +1 or even +137) shouldn't my overall skill be based on the superior training because I'll be all but ignoring the inferior training anyway, maybe picking up just a tidbit here and there.

Brian.

Okay. But why wouldn't twice getting superior training be better than getting superior training once and inferior training once?

BrianL wrote:

Bob Richter wrote:

BrianL wrote: The two skill packets represent two areas of training. If I spend half my life getting superior training in programming a PC (lets say computer -1) and the other half getting inferior training (computer +1 or even +137) shouldn't my overall skill be based on the superior training because I'll be all but ignoring the inferior training anyway, maybe picking up just a tidbit here and there.

Brian.

Okay. But why wouldn't twice getting superior training be better than getting superior training once and inferior training once?

Depends on how much the areas of training overlap, really. In Programming, both courses would probably cover much the same stuff. In hunting or tracking or whatever? Well, I don't know, but they;re very likely to teach much the same basic skills anyway.

I guess my answer is that you should have all the benefit of your best area of training (computer -1 in this case), plus a little bit extra that you probably picked up from the other course that the first might not have covered (thus one better). That could happen regardless of how good the other course was.

Brian.

Hey, I got to agree with Jake on the damage issue. Although it's possible to drop a sledgehammer on your foot, and only be bruised, it's unlikely to happen if you get hit with one by someone trying to take you out. Of course, if you do happen to only get bruised, I suppose that's where someone was spending Luck, right?

On note of the skills, we just play take the best of the two. If you go for the same skill packet twice, just subtract 1 from every skill. We don't do that if it just happens to be that two different packages support the same skill, tho.

Chris

Bankuei wrote: Although it's possible to drop a sledgehammer on your foot, and only be bruised, it's unlikely to happen if you get hit with one by someone trying to take you out

Atomic Requiem wrote:

Bankuei wrote: Although it's possible to drop a sledgehammer on your foot, and only be bruised, it's unlikely to happen if you get hit with one by someone trying to take you out

In other words, this represents the minimum raw damage a weapon can do. Getting stabbed will never result in a nick or a flesh wound in the given situation , you'll always get cut for at least a level 3 wound, or whatever.

*AT*

But there is NEVER a minimum raw damage a weapon can do. Getting stabbed CAN result in a nick or a flesh wound, depending on the depth of the stab, and whether it penetrates or slides off. And depending on where it is, a stab isn't a stab. A stab that goes far enough left of center (without missing) is a shallow cut.

A Sledgehammer to the foot can fail to crush it, even if someone is TRYING to crush your foot with it. You move your foot, and it nicks it, or strikes it at a weird angle, and does less than really impressive damage (though it still hurts like a ...)

Bankuei wrote:

But there is NEVER a minimum raw damage a weapon can do. Getting stabbed CAN result in a nick or a flesh wound, depending on the depth of the stab, and whether it penetrates or slides off. And depending on where it is, a stab isn't a stab. A stab that goes far enough left of center (without missing) is a shallow cut.

There's also the quantum possibility that every atom in your body might just randomly dissapate and reform at the other side of the universe. Small, but still existant :P

To give better examples: I recall Jake saying that a level 1 wound is equivalent to spraining your wrist or ankle, or any wound that would cause you to favor a certain side or actions to compensate for the pain. So really anything less than that isn't registered in TROS. So a nick, scrape, or surface wound, may not even count as damage, period(aka a tied defense).

A Sledgehammer to the foot can fail to crush it, even if someone is TRYING to crush your foot with it. You move your foot, and it nicks it, or strikes it at a weird angle, and does less than really impressive damage (though it still hurts like a ...)

Move your foot= defense. Weird angle= Luck.
Taa daa! simply done. Of course, if you want to volunteer to see how often luck and bad angling play into the odds of your foot surviving, by all means, be my guest :P

Again, games are based on the odds of highest probabilities. If you want a game that takes into account rubber bullet theory, people surviving after failed skydiving attempts, or remaining functional after emergency cranial hemispherectemies(losing half your brain), I'd simply call it at Luck dice and leave it there.

Chris

Bob Richter wrote:
And you can do that. Personally, I'd prefer allowing (in cases of a single success that causes damage) an AG roll against the value of the highest attacker die minus the ATN to "step down" damage.

Valamir wrote:

Bob Richter wrote:
And you can do that. Personally, I'd prefer allowing (in cases of a single success that causes damage) an AG roll against the value of the highest attacker die minus the ATN to "step down" damage.

Me thinks you've been watching too many movies.

You're missing the point. Minor injuries of the sort you are describing with agility rolls leading to just suffering a cut, or a sledgehammer just causeing pain but no damage are not modeled in RoS. So if you get 0 successes and hense 0 damage, that very well may be the sort of wound you suffered.

Getting a success means "you got hit". It does not mean "you got hit just barely". Since it means "you got hit" you are going to take whatever damage is typical for a weapon of that type. For some weapons the only options are Major Hurt or REALLY Major Hurt. "just a scratch" ISN'T an option, because "just a scratch" isn't modeled.

Can you possibly conceive of a situation where a major weapon only inflicts a minor injury. Sure. But thats absolutely irrelevant. Often times accounting for every possible outcome makes a model LESS realistic not more. Thats just a fact of statistical modeling, no matter what kind of model you're talking about. Giving something a chance to happen that makes it dramatically more frequent in the model than it would be in reality is LESS realistic than leaving it out altogether, in many cases.

That is the route Jake took with RoS. As someone who has far more knowledge of these weapons and what they are likely to do if they connect with flesh at speed...I'm inclined to accept his judgement on that.

But there is NEVER a minimum raw damage a weapon can do.

Personally, I'd prefer allowing (in cases of a single success that causes damage) an AG roll against the value of the highest attacker die minus the ATN to "step down" damage.

"It's only a model."

Jaif wrote:

But there is NEVER a minimum raw damage a weapon can do.

Granted. So what? It's a model, not a computer simulation (which is still just a model).

Ok, you agree with that (I assume), but want that level of detail in your model. What I have to ask is; why? What's so important about it?

Personally, I'd prefer allowing (in cases of a single success that causes damage) an AG roll against the value of the highest attacker die minus the ATN to "step down" damage.

What are your sources for this addition? What evidence, besides your intuition, are you using to inject this new rule into the model? Do you find that agility is undervalued in the game compared to your experience as a swordsman?

-Jeff

A chain vest with leather sleeves and a set of bracers will do wonders in reducing the effectiveness of a "clip".

In our model, Natural toughness can be better than the best metallic armor.

Bob Richter wrote: 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.)

Bob Richter wrote:
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.)

Rattlehead wrote:

Bob Richter wrote: 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.)

Invest in your future - Purchase Armor.

;-D

But, seriously, no one wants to get "nicked" even. The combat in TROS is supposed to be messy. The important things are: How do I avoid this fight? If I can't avoid it, how do I get the drop on this guy? If I can't do that, how can I stay out of the way of his sword long enough to poke him first?

A cunning and thoughtful swordsman is the one who dies of old age in Weyrth...

Brandon

Bob Richter wrote: 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 :)

Wolfen wrote: A chain vest with leather sleeves and a set of bracers will do wonders in reducing the effectiveness of a "clip".

In our model, Natural toughness can be better than the best metallic armor.

But it is, for the most part, canceled out by the attacker's strength. Armor is vital because it is ON TOP OF your natural toughness.

Also, think of what exactly you're talking about.. the difference in ST of 2 is a fairly sizeable difference in TRoS mechanics. That would mean that the guy is considerably stronger than you are tough, and is wielding a fairly nasty weapon with the intent of killing you... Chances are, if you fail to get out of the way or keep that weapon from meeting your one and only body, a messy death is pretty much ensured... So die with it, or learn to not get hit.

Okay, so what have we learned? Nothing new. We were aware that TRoS was an imperfect model to begin with... Hell, Jake knew it. But it's better than any other at emulating real combat... which can safely be taken as a given in this forum. Can it be improved? I don't doubt it. Will it be? Probably, as Jake's already stated he's going to be trying. For now, I'll play the system as is, and continue to take part in discussions which dissect the system.. But simply knocking it for it's (acknowledged) imperfections isn't constructive.

contracycle wrote:

Bob Richter wrote:
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.)

Don't get into fights, then. More seriously, what the system is telling you is that if it scored even the minimum success he WASN'T nicked. Nicking is too fine for the system to resolve - it does not address that scale. The minimum success it records is sufficient to do the above damage - which I think is a perfectly plausible interpretation of "successful use of a sword".

I say, if a Strength 6 guy SUCCESFULLY USES A TWO-HANDED LONGSWORD on someone, they are fuckin' dead and no bones about it.

contracycle wrote:

Bob Richter wrote: 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".

Retirement? In the middle ages?

Nevermind.

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.

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

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!"

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.

Jaif wrote:

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. :)

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.

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

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

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

Bob Richter wrote:
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.)

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.

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.

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.

Definitely!

House rules, tactics, everything!

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

BrianL wrote:

Bob Richter wrote: 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.

Here's a consideration that I think some people have missed... You don't HAVE to defend if you don't have initiative. Only on the first round after throwing initiative (if you throw white) are you constrained in any way to defend. It is quite possible (but rarely wise) to attack when you do not have the initiative. If you are heavily armored, taking this chance might be worthwhile, esp. if your opponent throws a fairly conservative attack roll.

My character wears fairly light armor (ie, the heaviest he can without losing CP) and fights fairly conservatively. However, he is considerably less likely to be so conservative if the attack is obviously to his torso, as he is nicely (AV 4) armored there. (hence the value of feints..)

That aside, Bob is correct when he says "Armor doesn't get you any automatic defense successes, any more than toughness does..." You cannot take the initiative by getting beat on but absorbing it through armor and TO. However, due to this added security, you can take a few more risks than your unarmored foe, which CAN get you the initiative.

Here's a consideration that I think some people have missed... You don't HAVE to defend if you don't have initiative.

I think the enc. penalty for armor in shields is a tad heavy, but not so heavy that it renders them ineffective.

From all of the actual gameplay I've seen, armor does save lives in TROS, against big and nasty weapons, and small and nasty weapons alike. Certainly you might not get initiative, but with the opportunity to save a butt load of CP to throw at someone(2nd exchange, massive defense, get the initiative, next round, refresh, all out offense), you get a big advantage. So far Armor has all but negated a few hits, possibly because the hits were only by a few successes, but everything counts.

Chris

Jake wrote:

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?"

A simple way to do it would be like the thrust to the lower legs. If you get a, say, 8 or more on the (open) d6, then you just nick or scratch the other guy. All that's needed is one extra roll(sometimes) and the chance would be approximitely 14%.