Okay, I made an on-the-spot call tonight when one of my players attempted to strike-to-wound with a greatsword. The target had a handaxe raised over his head to strike, and the player called a shot to the arm, attempting to cut off the arm entirely. He rolled, and with successes, ST and weapon DR, it came to a DR of 11... after TO was subtracted.

The cut went into the upper arm.. Lvl 5, the arm is lost. On the fly, I made him roll the d6 for location again, and checked the adjacent zone for another Lvl 5 wound. Basically I had the sword go through the arm and bury itself deep into the shoulder, with cumulative bleeding for both. Despite attempts to bind his wounds, he bled to death in short order. (I was actually hoping for a messier dismemberment, like through the arm and through the side of his head... heheh)

The player making the strike protested as he desired only to wound, but considering that he rolled... 8 dice in his attack, I think his character's intentions were entirely different.. And the other players thought it made a great deal of sense, and didn't even question the fact that I'd made the call off the top of my head. I will be using the over-damage rule from now on, 'cause I think it's neat, but I wanted to post about it, and see what you all thought.

Also, another one I've been considering that would slightly "nerf" the shield in a realistic way is a type of over-damage rule -vs- shields.

If you hit a location which is passively covered by the shield, it applies a passive AV to that location. If it goes over the AV of the shield, it still does damage, correct? My thought is based off of this. If a shield is used to successfully block, I think that a damage should be calculated anyhow, based on the attacker's successes before the block attempt. If the total damage goes over the AV of the shield, then it will leak over into the character. TO and whatever armor the character is wearing may reduce this to nothing anyhow, but it will mean that a shield will not make you invincible. For example...

An unarmored mook uses his kite shield to block against an longbowman. The archer, having aimed for a few moments, has his full missile pool of 13, and fires. The target is within the first increment, but is moving sufficiently to warrant a -3 penalty, so 10 dice are rolled as the archer aims for center mass. He rolls: 8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 4, 4, 4 and 2, for 5 successes. The mook with the shield rolls his entire CP (a whopping 8, due to lack of proficiency) to block: 10, 7, 6, 6, 5, 3, 3 and 1, for 5 successes. Looks like the mook wins, but just barely...

but wait a moment, now we apply the overdamage rule.. The archer calculates damage using the original successes, (5+8=13) and does 3 points more than the AV of the shield. That means that those 3 points roll over to the mook himself. We'll say average toughness of 4 and no armor, so the arrow doesn't hurt him as it passes into the shield... but he feels it as it tickles him in the ribcage.

So, whaddya think? Is this good stuff, or am I working it too hard? Good optional rules for Flower of Battle, perhaps? ::hopeful expression::

A fun idea, although I also had issues trying only to wound folks. I disagree that throwing 8 dice means it has to be a "kill" strike. The amount of dice you put into an attack are supposed to represent the skill and effort you're putting into it, whether its a kill or a grapple(see Hook Manuever). My rule for striking to injure is that you can decide when declaring your attack how many extra CP you're going to spend to "pull the blow". Each extra CP allows you to lower the final wound by 1 level.

Chris

I agree with Chris' pulling-the-blow maneuver. It fits in pretty well with what I've seen IRL.

As for blow-through damage...we've got a house rule that says anything past level 5 goes onto the next obvious zone (if there's one at hand), much like what you did. Thus an 11-point final wound could clean through 2 unarmored legs (which actually happened from time to time, I might add).

Jake

Ok.. here's how I see it. I like the theatrical and dramatic effects of Overdamage, and damage carrying over to other zones is great too. But, regarding attempting to wound without killing, I have a different take on it.

So, suppose I rolled 5 successes during an attack. What does a "success" on an attack roll represent? It would seem to me that it's "how well" an attack was made, not "how hard" the sword was swung. This isn't an issue if I'm just trying to hack my opponent to bits, as is usually the case. If I'm only attacking to kill, I would be attempting to be as damaging as possible, and the successes would be a representation of how successful my attempt to damage my opponent was.

But if I want to only wound my opponent, then my intent was different. Therefore, my successes should mean something different. The successes I roll in this case should be a representation of how well I accomplished what my intended action was - in this case a less than fatal, but still damaging blow.

How to handle this? Good question, and without giving it much thought, I would suggest this: Allow the attacker to choose how many of his successes are applied as damage. The rest are just gravy. They're not lost or "wasted", as they are why he was successful. Also, all of an attacker's successes should be used in contest against a defender's defense. But in the end, after all defense is handled, the margin remaining is there for the attacker to spend on damage - if he so chooses. Allow the attacker to decide after defense is handled, but before damage is applied, how many of his successes are wound levels.

This may put too much into the hands of the players. But, on the other hand, letting the players get what they want isn't always bad, as long as it doesn't ruin the "balance" of the game. Then again, since TROS relies more on common sense and good roleplaying to impose balance, rather than rules, this is really a moot point.

Just my 2 pfinnig,

Brandon

...when swinging, one can pull their shot...but as the effert to land the shot increases the harder it is to lessen the blow.
Perhaps a player could pull their blow by half or alter the end damage by a number = to their WIT or Reflex.
just a thought, anyway...

I agree with rattlehead, just let the player say. I mean, unless you felt a need to kill the NPC, all this achieved was frustrating your player, who went from "cool" to "clumsy" in this situation. And it will also be quicker just tio tajke the players direction rather than do any more fiddling and calculating.

Okay, let me clarify.. He declared, after rolling the successes and calculating the total damage that he wasn't trying to kill the mook. I shrugged and did it anyhow, because honestly, when you're ambushed in the dark, and opt to roll 8 or so dice, your character is probably not thinking of allowing the ambusher a chance to live.

I discussed the ruling with him again tonight, and he had no problems with it, so it wasn't a particularly big issue. I will, however, make known to them the option that Chris mentioned, as I think it accurately sums up the effort required to attempt to damage someone but to control exactly how MUCH damage is done. He'd totally intended for the arm to be taken off, but didn't even consider that the sword might actually *keep moving* after the arm was gone. And the guy had pretty much nothin' to defend with, as he'd spent almost all of his CP on the attack, hoping to rely on surprise (failed ambush) to keep him safe. Slowing a greatsword which was swung to dismember isn't an easy task to accomplish... I know just from padded and wooden swords that I've used in messing around with the SCA.

I've noticed no one commented on the idea of blow-through on shields.. I think it has merit, but what about ya'll?


*Tangent Alert* Below this point has nothing to do with the current conversation. You are warned.

I just got me an SCA bastard sword made tonight. It comes up to about my upper sternum resting on the ground, and has over a foot of handle (Lonnie, the guy who made it for me says that it classifies, by SCA rulings, as a greatsword due to this, as historically the handles of bastards were only hand-and-a-half, but hey...) for a nicely two-handed grip. The balance is especially nice, with the fulcrum being about an inch above the cross-guard. I can easily swing it one-handed, though it's heavier, dead-weight, than what I'm used to. I'm enthused..

I think you'd actually have to give Lonnie some props, Jake. He's serious about his style, and is familiar with many of the techniques you've mentioned. He may or may not be your caliber (I doubt it, because he's not an acknowledge free-scholar of anything, but..) but I think you'd find him a cut-above your average SCAdian fighter. I'll have to introduce you at Hexcon.

He'd totally intended for the arm to be taken off, but didn't even consider that the sword might actually *keep moving* after the arm was gone.

Wolfen wrote: I think you'd actually have to give Lonnie some props, Jake. He's serious about his style, and is familiar with many of the techniques you've mentioned. He may or may not be your caliber (I doubt it, because he's not an acknowledge free-scholar of anything, but..) but I think you'd find him a cut-above your average SCAdian fighter. I'll have to introduce you at Hexcon.

Um, and he didn't want the guy dead??? "Here, just a little off the side...there ya go!" :P Bloodloss from losing an arm is nothing nice.

The attempts at first aid prolonged the man's life by about a minute, before Gailen realized that he was too badly injured to be saved(ie, bleeding out all over the ground, despite the bandages), and so put his sword through the man's chest

How about if the number of dice used in an attack becomes the limit for any left over damage. This could represent the effort put into the attack.

A decisive swing with 8 dice is much more likely to blow-through for another wound than, say, a quick flick of the wrist that uses only 4 dice.

Anyway...that's just what I use.

That's not a bad way to handle it at all.

Jake

Trybec wrote: A decisive swing with 8 dice is much more likely to blow-through for another wound than, say, a quick flick of the wrist that uses only 4 dice.

contracycle,

I can see your point. Perhaps what I should have said is that IMO the number of dice put into an attack indicates commitment to the attack.

Afterall if an attack in the first exchange, is defended against, and the attacker loses initiative, he then has less dice to defend with if he had used 8 dice than if he had used only 4.

If this results in him having too few dice to defend with and getting hit...then yes I would say he had slightly overextended himself.

As for the issue of blow-through, I think one of the tactical aspects of a ROS fight can be knowing (or guessing) how many dice you have to use against a particular opponent to score a hit, and still be able to defend.

I see blow-through as another aspect of this. If you are trying for a strike to wound, you now have to guess how many dice to use to get your hit...without turning your target into a corpse.

Yes, more dice must, to an extent, indicate effort. This because a strong attack, one with a lot of effort, is a good attack by definition. One thing you get taught, even in sport fencing (my only practical experience) is that if you don't pose a credible threat, your attacks as well as your defense are for nought. So, making an attack that is less powerful than what you could have done, and making it well, is very difficult in actuality. Jake, does your experience back me up here?

There must be some penalty. Either the player must use less dice, representing a more tentative attack, or they should have to pay to pull the blow, as in Chris's rule. As always, a character can choose to mitigate the damage via attacking a limb, instead, especially hands and feet. It's dangerous, but not necessarily a death sentence.

And the overdamage rule should not always cause more damage. Is that how it works now? Only occasionally (as in the cool description by Lance) will there be body on the other side of an overdamaged limb. Sometimes the extra effort will just go away from the target. One could say that whatever roll determined whether overdamage can be avoided can have dice added to it from the pool (or vice versa, interestingly). Thus you go with a fairly powerful, non-pulled blow to a limb, but leave some dice to ensure that if you blow through, that the blow will not continue into the body (or into it as you prefer). Or you can just use Chris's rule to simulate this as well. Lots of ways to handle it.

Mike

Yes, more dice must, to an extent, indicate effort. This because a strong attack, one with a lot of effort, is a good attack by definition. One thing you get taught, even in sport fencing (my only practical experience) is that if you don't pose a credible threat, your attacks as well as your defense are for nought. So, making an attack that is less powerful than what you could have done, and making it well, is very difficult in actuality. Jake, does your experience back me up here?

I actually play in a campaign where us players have this nasty habit of doing extreme amounts of damage because They never spend they're spiritual attribute points Therefore, they tend to have 25-30 die Combat pools when they pull in their spiritual attributes... How should that be handled? Should blows that were grossly enhanced by spiritual attribute points be able to be pulled as easily as blows that weren't?

You know that there's a limit of 5 on all SA's right? So if you never spend them, you'll never earn any more after they max out at 5, which means your character never gets any better. Yawn.

And they can't all apply all the time, if they do you have SA's that are way too generic.

Brian.

Wolfen wrote: Okay, I Also, another one I've been considering that would slightly "nerf" the shield in a realistic way is a type of over-damage rule -vs- shields.

If a shield is used to successfully block, I think that a damage should be calculated anyhow, based on the attacker's successes before the block attempt. If the total damage goes over the AV of the shield, then it will leak over into the character.

So, whaddya think? Is this good stuff, or am I working it too hard? Good optional rules for Flower of Battle, perhaps? ::hopeful expression::

The problem, Toli, is that you're swinging too far on the pendulum.

You see, I have this theory that there's a pendulum in RPG design. On one side of the arc is realism, and on the other side is playability. What I mean is that the more realistic you want to be, the less playable you end up being because of all the complex rules you need to create that realism. Conversely, the most playable games tend not to have much realism in them (hit points, armor making you harder to hit at all instead of easier to hit but protecting you from damage etc).

TROS has a really good balance, IMO, it's quite realistic and nice and gritty, but not at the sacrifice of playability. Not to swell Jake's head or anything, but I believe it's the best fantasy RPG system I have ever come across (albiet some work needed on Magic, perhaps).

What you're proposing swings the pendulum more towards realism. It's a cool idea, but it sacrifices playability because you have a lot more computation to do every time someone lands a hit, and that slows down the game and is less fun. Again, IMO.

Brian.

Mike Holmes wrote: Yes, more dice must, to an extent, indicate effort. This because a strong attack, one with a lot of effort, is a good attack by definition. One thing you get taught, even in sport fencing (my only practical experience) is that if you don't pose a credible threat, your attacks as well as your defense are for nought. So, making an attack that is less powerful than what you could have done, and making it well, is very difficult in actuality. Jake, does your experience back me up here?

Ok, Here's an example. of how to get 25-30 Die Pools, with the SA's, with a limit of 5 on any one spiritual attribute,
Destiny: To return to your homeland in glory, 4
Drive: Recover your lost honor, 3
Faith: Bushido (Bushido teaches how to kill men and their ilk, But only in honorable combat, the player in question ABSOLUTELY CANNOT use this against Monsters. if you believe this is not faith, ask a samauri.) 4
Luck: 4
Concience: 3

So when fighting the Black Knight, (Human, Powerful, Dishonorable, Evil so in a pinch, concience applies, he may be able to pull in as many as 14 spiritual attribute dice. combined with a combat pool of 12(14, -2 for armor penalties, yes he actually did spend some dice to beef up the character, however he keeps it riding high as often as possible.) equals an effectife combat pool of 26,

Now, if you pull all this crap into a single blow,let's say to zone III, would it be A desparate blow, or A guided blow to Disarm

Yes, this is an extremely specific situation, However you dodged answering my earlier question.

We talked about this earlier...I think that Bankuei or Mokkerkalfe had a good solution--one that could easily work in the case of SA "overkill." However, I really think it works like this: never draw a sword on a man you don't intend to kill. I assure you he isn't planning on just teaching you a "lesson."
Jake

I happen to think that GMs are little too willing to allow easy interpretations of SAs which I think encourages the situation that Warboss describes. I would require a lot more information before I'd allow all of those SAs to apply to the situation described in the example.

For instance: How does defeating this black knight have anything to do with returning to the homeland with glory. Is the opponent someone significant? Is he famous? Is killing him going to be sung about in songs and legends for generations to come...if not than ixnay on the Destiny in my book. Julius Caesar returned to Rome covered in Glory. To do it he had to spend many years waging war and conquering an entire people. THAT was worthy of giving him a parade. Simply killing some poor sod in single combat...unless this combat was somehow directly tied to something far bigger...I wouldn't buy it.

Similiarly Drive: Recover lost honor. How would fighting this black knight have anything to do with that. Is this the knight who caused him to lose his honor in the first place? Was his honor lost because he wet his pants and ran away in fear from a black knight and now he's facing that fear and proving he isn't a coward? If not ixnay on the Drive.

Faith Bushido: Maybe...depending on how you set up the campaign. I'd have a hard time accepting an SA whose obvious function was just a free dice generator for combat...I'm not sure how believing in a code of honor and honor through combat would automatically feed into every combat (even with the honorable no monsters restriction). Perhaps in a combat against an opponent who was a CHALLENGE to that code. Someone who opposed the code who stood for a way of life diametrically opposed to bushido such that this particular combat pitted ideology against ideology...but as a rule every time you step into battle...I doubt it.

Concience: that's kind of a funny one. I don't think the description of conscience did a very thorough job of outlining just what value system is supposed to be challenged before it kicks in, but I don't see it being applicable in this combat without more information. To me Concience comes into play when the character witnesses something that he knows is wrong that he should try to stop but which its in his best selfish interest not to get involved. Concience is that little voice that forces him to get involved and if he follows it THEN the dice can be called upon. But simply being a "good guy" faced with fighting a "bad guy"...no that isn't sufficient in and of itself to call upon those dice.


SAs are not Super Powers. Ron has been enthusiastic about espousing using the SAs and giving dramatic examples of how the SAs can lead to tremendous dice pools...but that was in a very specific context that I think is being overlooked.

There should be as a rule only 1 or 2 scenes in an entire session where an SA or two is even applicable. The combats that involve pulling in 4 or 5 SAs should be the climactic resolution of an entire campaign.

If you are routinely in every combat allowing characters to draw on 3 or 4 SAs IMO you are being WAY to liberal in permitting their use.

I will note that I'd definitely apply this guidline different between a 1 shot session adventure vs. an ongoing campaign.

Very good write-up, Valamir! I couldn't agree more.