As GURPS player I'm interested in to know is there strenght minimums for weapons or can child use poleaxe with same effectiness than Conan (excluding damage)? In my opinion this is problem in many game systems. I like the way, that damage is made by strenght not by weapon.

- Janne -

No strength minimums are really needed, in tRoS. A person or character with a less than average strength will stay out of combat anyways. Bows and crossbows are the only weapons, however, that have strength minimums. As a GM, I might decree that all people shorter than, say, 4'6" would have to have weapons specially made that are short enough (unless the person is using a dagger or a shortsword, etc) for that person to use. I have supervised my little brother (he's 9) with a waster (wooden sword), and the main reasons he can't wield it effectively are:

A) He's too short

B) He has no clue how to hold the thing and

C) He doesn't have enough interest in learning B).

I think Lance has the right of it. Actual medieval weapons weren't nearly as heavy as we think them to be, and if well-balanced, even a child can use them. Size and skill would have more say in the overall use of the weapon, although strength would definitely play a part in how effective it's use would be.

One thing I've never seen though is a game which has accurate ways to define the attributes of children. The main reason is that, in most cases, children are not considered viable characters to play; which is probably why playing children is as popular as it is. People do like to test the break-points in a game.

I see your points. But you cannot assume that lower than average person will stay out of fight.
I have ran several fights with Combat Simulator and I must that combat system is really nice :). I ordered book today and I hope that I will get it in a couple of weeks. Too bad they didn't even know that book was out :(.

- Janne -

Janne Halmetoja wrote: I have ran several fights with Combat Simulator and I must that combat system is really nice :)

BrianL wrote:

Err.. not because I'm claiming credit for the cool combat system or anything (that's all Jake), but just because it's nice to see people using the Combat Sim - I put a lot of work into that, good to know it wasn't for nothing.

Brian.

Janne Halmetoja wrote: There was some problems, though. If attributes are lowered by hits at the end of combat and you begin immediately new (with same characters) they are still lowered. Other thing was that if combat pools are 0 when combat is over and you begin new one (again with same characters), they are still 0 and you can't do nothing. Nothing too important, but still little annoying bugs :).

Maybe you should add reset button, which is actived after fight is over. If user wants to take battle with same characters he just clicks reset-button and stats are reseted to original values and battle can begin. If he wants to change stats he can click reset-button again and then edit stats and begin fight again. This reset-button should also refresh combat pools.
I don't know any better way because I don't have source code.

What should I do if there comes up a sign saying:
"Access violation at address 77F526AB in module ntdll.dll. Write of address 00403DB9"?

It comes up when I start the simulator.
Then, when I try to change any value or attribute a sign comes up saying
"Access violation at address XXXXXXXX(depending on what attribute) in module 'RiddleOfSteel.exe'. Read of address 00000000."

What's the problem here?

On the real topic.
Perhaps you can't use some weapons if you have the Little flaw?

I don't have the book yet, so that's why asked about strenght minimums. You can think that minimum strenght represents the size of weapon. If your strenght is lower than minimum strenght needed to that weapon, it is too big for you. That's the way how it's thought in GURPS.

- Janne -

I TROS, as a GM, I would rule that all children must take the "Little" flaw, and that all persons with the "Little" flaw would be unable to effectively wield most regular-sized weapons, especially pikes, doppelhanders, greatswords, longswords and warflails.

However, a child could use, say, a regular arming sword as a greatsword... but the stats would be that same as the regular arming sword, and no shield could be used (since it takes both hands to effectively wield the sword). This would greatly limit the abilities of little people in battle unless they could make weapons specifically for themselves (like dwarves).

There is always many tastes and I like minimum strenghts. That's just me :).

There are some weapons I require ST 5 for, namely longbow, maul and warflail. Wether realistic or not, it reinforces the picture of these things as *massive* weapons.

Mokkurkalfe wrote: What should I do if there comes up a sign saying:
"Access violation at address 77F526AB in module ntdll.dll. Write of address 00403DB9"?

It comes up when I start the simulator.
Then, when I try to change any value or attribute a sign comes up saying
"Access violation at address XXXXXXXX(depending on what attribute) in module 'RiddleOfSteel.exe'. Read of address 00000000."

What's the problem here?

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

- Janne -

Janne Halmetoja wrote: What is the average attribute score in tRoS? Is it 4?

- Janne -

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

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

Brian.

BrianL wrote:

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

Brian.

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

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

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

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

- Janne -

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

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

Janne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mike

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you talking about repairing wooden shields? One good blow and they are useless. Yes, large shield can take a lot of hits and still be in one pieces.

Janne

Would it be at all possible to move the talk about armour and weapon damage to a thread not labeled "Minimum Strengths." Just a suggestion to help aliminate confusion.

I guess that should have been "Strenght minimums?"

Hey all-

I'm hopping in on this late, I realize, but here goes:

No minimum strengths are needed. Weapons were not heavy--they were made for more or less normal folks that trained to use them. If a weapon was exeptionally heavy, it wasn't useful. Throw out everything you've read in fantasy fiction concerning weapon weights. ST mins in GURPS, etc, were issues of balance and had little if anything to do with real weapon mechanics and dimensions.

Wooden shields weren't all that bad, and I'm sure they held up for quite a while.

Metal shields (and armor, for that matter) are thin. Thinner than SCA stuff, generally, but better made and tempered.

Swords were better made way back when. We've argued about it a lot, but I've got it from Paul Champagne, who is one of the best (if not the best) in modern swordmaking. His stuff is phenominal--I've handled it--we're talking 2,000-8,000 bucks for a sword. He says the old stuff is better, and he's trying to figure out how they did it, because we have lost the technology. Get over it, guys.

Even then, this stuff can break, but how many of us really wants an extra stat on the charsheet about equipment failure? Anyone?

Jake

Another thing, I don't remember if it was this thread or not, but it fits here...

John Clements didn't say that no one really used heater shields. He said that the buckler was a more prevalent shield on the battlefield than other types throughout the bulk of the medieval and renn. periods. Heaters were in use, although they were smaller than your average reinactment shield.

Jake,
who has to stick up for his teacher

Hello everyone i'm new to the game and the forum,
But i've been playing in RPG's since '78. Back then I
was just a wee lad of 12,
And my friends and i would have stick/sword fights...

In my opinion it isn't about minimum strength, it's
about height. You can not EFFECTIVELY Wield a non
pole arm that is much longer than you are tall. This is
somewhat addressed indirectly in the rules already.

If a player came to me wanting to play a 3' 9 y.o
street urchin, I'd let him... but if he tried to use a
6' long sword i'd subtract dice from his combat pool...
And probably assess a damage negative -2 or -3 dam
with a greatsword?. Or maybe a +2 or +3 combat
target #.

IMHO
Make the player give you his adult profile.... then adjust
down accordingly... Remember rules on gifted,
before puberty.. NO MAGIC to speak of. etc.....

hmm possible max abilities for a 9 yo....
1/2 Stats ... max of 3
ST (Muscles need time to grow)
WP (kids know they break easier)
T0 (Kids break easier)
SO (Almost Noone takes kids seriously this could
be + mod in the hands of a wise player)
2/3 stats max of 4
Ag (kids are agile, but they still improve with age)
Wt (with less experience they aren't as sly)

ALL IMPROVEMENTS ARE BOUGHT FOR ADULT THE ADULT
Rasing Strength from a 6 to an 8 on the adult sheet
looks like a 3 to a 4 on the child but costs 29 points, not 4.

REMEMBER A CHILD IS ONLY 1 SPELL AWAY FROM HAVING
HIS ADULT ATTRIBUTES
Level 3 spell of one Growth (maturing)
T)3 R)1 V)2 D)0 L)3
CTN 9 Ages the child 1 decade. Cast at range touch.

All skills at a +2 tn?

Alternatively limit his starting max starting priorites
Off the top of my head perhaps something like the following.
to DD EE FF And i consider that to be generous for a 9 yearold.
If he really wanted to play a noble fey child who had been
kidnapped or runaway from home, I might allow AB EE FF
without the starting $ (yes in case of fey he's even fewer
years old at this height)

Also No proficencies in unwieldy weapons... so with much
reduced stats... little damage done Few dice in the
Combat pool, and a high target number to hit.... Even burning
luck it would be rare to do 4 damage .... the average toughness
of an adult. the player would WANT to use a dagger.

If there are big gaps between sessions he'd improve
with age, if not.... it's his choice to play a child.

To balance some of this, not that the game is about balance,
kids might be better at sneaking, picking pockets (small hands)
(adult dice? lowwer TN?) , they can get through small windows.
Bonus dice to dodge, or maybe to duck and weave?

Let the Player make the case for what they can do better
Just let him see the logical down sides in his stats....
A player will feel better about a negative -2 modifier that isn't
documented if he talks you down from a -3

I don't tell my players NO lightly, but that doesn't mean I
will not not try to make them see the flaws in thier plan.

Jake Norwood wrote:

No minimum strengths are needed. Weapons were not heavy--they were made for more or less normal folks that trained to use them. If a weapon was exeptionally heavy, it wasn't useful. Throw out everything you've read in fantasy fiction concerning weapon weights. ST mins in GURPS, etc, were issues of balance and had little if anything to do with real weapon mechanics and dimensions.

Even then, this stuff can break, but how many of us really wants an extra stat on the charsheet about equipment failure? Anyone?

Janne Halmetoja wrote:

Jake Norwood wrote:

No minimum strengths are needed. Weapons were not heavy--they were made for more or less normal folks that trained to use them. If a weapon was exeptionally heavy, it wasn't useful. Throw out everything you've read in fantasy fiction concerning weapon weights. ST mins in GURPS, etc, were issues of balance and had little if anything to do with real weapon mechanics and dimensions.

I still like ST mins in GURPS. They restrict weak guys using mauls with maximum, but they still can use them (you get -1 to skill per lacking point and you make little damage). Maybe this is not the best example, but I still say it. We were shooting with air gun and I couldn't aim very good with it. It was really heavy compared to my air gun (which I could aim good even I standed). My friend air gun wasn't too big for me, it was too heavy. Maybe this is different issue with hand weapons, but in my opinion ST minimums are good thing. Maybe weapon is not too big for you, it is too heavy. Maybe you know more about these things than I do, Jake :). That's just my opinion :).