Just something that has been festering in the back of my mind for a while now.

The use of armour (you yanks would say armor) in TROS is very passive. Other than shields, your armour is either there or it's not, and a good attacker can and will work around it by not attacking you where your armour is (and even more so if he has the accuracy gift).

But what about the defender? Shouldn't he get a chance to counter that? Obviously this is covered by his parrying, evading or blocking an attack, but what about the possibility of trying to direct an attack at a more heavily armoured part of the body?

For example, if someone swings a blade at my arm, and I happen to be unarmoured there, as a last resort I might want to throw my hand in the way because I have AV2 gauntlets on and I would rather take the blow there. Or if a thrust gets past my defenses and is heading for my belly, I might want to quickly duck down, hoping to take the blow on my breastplate instead.

I haven't really put too much thought into it, but was thinking something akin to a terrain roll, using CP and with a difficulty based on, I don't know, the location and the number of successes the attacker has? Maybe success would then let you adjust the d6 hit location roll by +/- 1, something like that.

Thoughts? Does this sound interesting or is it unnecessary or even unrealistic?

Brian.

Sounds like a pretty decent optional rule. I'd probably make it a terrain roll, and give a TN of 5 or 6 for the hand or arm, a good TN of 6 for the head and a TN of 7 or so for the chest (catching it on one's breastplate? Not too easy, but probably doable).

It's kind of like the "Accuracy" gift, only in reverse, isn't it? Kind of a neat idea. Perhaps you could make it a skill... like the Body Language skill... except that instead of gaining CP, you could shift your opponent's location die by one for every success...

Of course, this doesn't take into account using a hand to block to take the damage, but perhaps that it better covered by the Block maneuver anyway.

Of course, terrain rolls would function as well, but I just thought I'd throw a couple of ideas in anyway. :)

-Mark

Thats cool, the idea is for people to throw in ideas! I do quite like Lyrax's suggestion though, I must say.

Weapon strikes are prety quick, other than a hand/arm parry, I'm not sure how applicable this is. If it is declared before the defence roll, allow a CP activation cost ? Has to be arms/hands for 2 CP or immeadiately adjacent area for 4CP. After the defence roll... it's too late.

This is just my opinion, and some possible number of activation dice.

An alternative would be to allow defender to call his defence in such a way that if the attacker wins by a margin of one success, the blow lands where defender wanted it, but if 2+ success it strikes where aimed. Again immeadiately adjacent, or hands only.

Well...sounds like an "aw crap" rule to me, although those things have their place. I wouldn't ever want to get struck by most weapons, regardless of armor...just sounds like a bad idea. Then again, there are times where it's that or death...

Maybe just make a parry role with that part of your body providing the TN...arms are 5, legs 7, head 7 or 8...

Jake

only head parry I'd allow is an attack to the face, catching it on the helm... maybe

I agree with Thirsty Viking here. I don't think you can realize your parry will fail and then put some armour in the way instead. It goes too fast.
Blocking with your hand is covered by the rules, right? As Jake said, give the other body parts a TN and
I've thought for some time of a gift, something like "Quick", "Agile" or "Evasive", which works like Accuracy, but it effects your opponents d6 roll instead of your own. This would only work after an Evasion though.

What I'd like to see is some way to concentrate your first line of defence(i.e. weapons/shield) on different, usually unarmoured parts of the body. Is this realistic, possible, or perhaps even both?

I think it depends on situation.

If I'm wearing a breastplate and no head, I'll deflect hits to my head... into my chest if I need to.

HEY! Maybe you could give a TN of 1 or possibly even 2 lower (than normal parrying) to deflect a hit into a nearby body part! A neck strike into my helmeted head, a groin thrust to my armored legs...

If successful, the attacker would get 1/2 of his TOTAL successes, plus his weapon and strength as normal. That would make people cautious about using it, but it makes a decent "Aw, crap" rule.

BrianL wrote: The use of armour (you yanks would say armor)

Lyrax wrote: I think it depends on situation.

If I'm wearing a breastplate and no head, I'll deflect hits to my head... into my chest if I need to.

HEY! Maybe you could give a TN of 1 or possibly even 2 lower (than normal parrying) to deflect a hit into a nearby body part! A neck strike into my helmeted head, a groin thrust to my armored legs...

If successful, the attacker would get 1/2 of his TOTAL successes, plus his weapon and strength as normal. That would make people cautious about using it, but it makes a decent "Aw, crap" rule.

Lyrax wrote: If I'm wearing a breastplate and no head

Bob Richter wrote:

BrianL wrote: The use of armour (you yanks would say armor)

Some guy named Webster didn't believe in retaining the unpronounced "u."

I quite agree. :)

BrianL wrote: And don't get me started on letters Webster thought were superfluous.

For example, the metal is Aluminium, not Aluminum. The entire planet (except Americans) spell it with the "i" because that's the actual scientific name for the metal.

BrianL wrote:
And don't get me started on letters Webster thought were superfluous. Swapping "s" for "z" and visa versa is pretty harmless (except in school spelling bees, perhaps), but in some cases your spelling is just wrong. For example, the metal is Aluminium, not Aluminum. The entire planet (except Americans) spell it with the "i" because that's the actual scientific name for the metal. Only uncle Sam has to be different...

Brian.

A soap box I share, but it will never happen. Too many candidates rely on the hispanic vote and too many hispanics prefer spanish.

Hey--this is my real job (I'm a linguist and language teacher)! I know about this stuff!

I'm pro-English as an official language, but I haven't seen a good way to implement it. Both my father and my wife are from non-English speaking countries and had to learn it. I'm pro-that.

However, this isn't really what the thread or the forum is for...so start a new thread or something.

Jake

Excalibur had some of the most realistic plate-armour fight scenes I've ever seen in a film (ok - they looked realistic).

There's a bit when Arthur is fighting Lancelot, and both are seen to noticeably use their armour to reduce the impact of a blow - shoving a pauldroin against the middle of a blade, moving into a swing and reducing the impact. I'd not allow it in addition to a manouvre but, as Jake says, as a parry in itself.

U declare which part of your body is being used to block the blow, and every success over the enemy reduces dmg by one. But maybe range penalties should now be figured as though they were at close quarters?

I.E. Heinrich the Knight Errant, armed with long sword, faces off against some armoured foe wielding a pike. The foe thrusts with his pike, but Heinrich moves into the blow, taking it on a shoulder before the weapon has been fully extended.

He loses 2 CP for the range disadvantage and then rolls. He succeeds - by 2 successes let's say - and takes the hit on the shoulder, reducing dmg by 2, plus 6 for his plate. Let's say foe has str 5, that's 7 dmg for the pike. Those two successes have absorbed all of the blow. A Gr sword would still have inflicted 1 wound. And that's assuming two successes over the enemy, after all that CP you've spent. This tactic is thus only really available to ppl in full plate, or fighters who are significantly more competent than their adversary. And I'm pretty sure that such was an advantage in wearing heavy armour, using it not just passively, but to actively absorb blows.

Range is now at close. Heinrich loses 2 CP (because he's using a longsword but fighting at close quarters) and the foe loses 4 (extremely long weapon).

Sorry - a bit long-winded, but does this make sense? And its not really complicated. Parrying with your body acts like a normal parry (with established TN) but success results in the range between both fighters counting as close.

I think your rule has merit. I want to hear how it plays out. As for Excalibur...it's by far one of my favorite movies, and the swordfighting there is better than most, but still horribly clumsy. If I were fighting an armored opponent, I wouldn't be swinging at him so much. Whether that supports the "use armor wisely" idea or not I dunno.

Jake

Personally given the fully armored state... this is easily seen as strikes that had fewer success magin + weapon damage than armor + toughness. This is how I saw it anyway.

Assuming you are in plate using a sword to parry, wouldn't it be easily reflected by reducing the sword parry target numbre since the arms are also useful?

Maybe I'm wrong here but a thought. IMO it should be harder to parry with a plate arm than a shortsword. but I'm willing to admit that a plate arm wielding a shortsword has better parrying.

Thoughts?

I still like the idea. Imagine simultaneous block and strike using armoured body as shield!
This is what I've always considered the benefit of wearing heavy plate - that only a really solid blow is gonna hurt bad. I would just give high TN to reflect the awkwardness (maybe 10 for body, 9 for limbs?) of blocking with one's body. I would also maybe allow proficiencies in the class - armour use? As any proficiencies with a weapon will have been lost from using the body. And the proficiency would only be of benefit to those in full plate. Any other kind of armour would be of too little value - better to dodge or parry with a weapon. This would endow the veteran knight with awesome superiority when facing multiple ill-trained and unarmoured foes (peasants basically) and allow him to literally plow through them, their blows hardly stopping him.

This I can imagine from an epic heroic knight :)

Vanguard wrote: ... This would endow the veteran knight with awesome superiority when facing multiple ill-trained and unarmoured foes (peasants basically) and allow him to literally plow through them, their blows hardly stopping him.

This I can imagine from an epic heroic knight :)

Hehe. Oops.

But you what know what I mean - the idea of a competent fighter who knows how to use his armour against an ill-trained rabble?

The knight Vs peasants bit was just the first context which came to mind (hehe - evil chuckle).

Vanguard wrote: Hehe. Oops.

But you what know what I mean - the idea of a competent fighter who knows how to use his armour against an ill-trained rabble?

The knight Vs peasants bit was just the first context which came to mind (hehe - evil chuckle).

Are you suggesting that peasants can't be wicked? A knight's wrath undoes only the wicked, and if an army of peasants threatens his peasants, he'll slaughter as many of them as he needs to.

Lyrax wrote: Are you suggesting that peasants can't be wicked? A knight's wrath undoes only the wicked, and if an army of peasants threatens his peasants, he'll slaughter as many of them as he needs to.

You didn't answer the question. You're being evasive. Maybe I'll ask an easier one for you.

Can you think of a scenario in which a knight hacking away at peasants would be justified/right/heroic/chivalric/any one of the above?

Lyrax wrote: You didn't answer the question. You're being evasive. Maybe I'll ask an easier one for you.

Can you think of a scenario in which a knight hacking away at peasants would be justified/right/heroic/chivalric/any one of the above?

Are murderers Justified to use deadly force to defend themselves from the police?

I dont think so.

If peasants came to get him because he just slaughtered a village I would say he would not be justified attacking them.

Scott

with all due respect to the peasants out there, the knight is probably the least likely person or group to have simply slaughtered a village. Raiders? Sure. Peasants? All the time. Gols? It's not unheard of. Knights? Get outta town!

Woops... My proposal is verging on turning this thread into outright flaming. Chill guys. What I'm discussing here is the merits of a competent fighter actively using his armour against a rabble of unarmoured foes.

Right, so here goes (I shall attempt to provide a justified context):

Let me conjur the scene.

A knight errant returns from crusades. In his absence, the steward left in charge of his lands has betrayed him. With a band of hired thugs, the steward has subjucated the local people, bringing them to near-starvation through draconian taxes. His tyranny allows no escape. All men above the age of sixteen are slain. Only women and children plow the fields. The thugs have free roam of the lands, looting and raping at will. All churches are burnt and replaced with imported bronze busts of the steward's head sixty feet tall.

The knight's castle has been turned into a brothel where his sisters and daughters all serve. His wife was set in stocks and granted to any passer-by, his mother likewise, his boots urinated in, and all his pets now hung as trophies about the castle. Someone stole his coffee mug.

There is no one he can rally to his aid. The peasants are all weak from opression and he must act soon. So he plots an elaborate, fiendish trap. It is agony, suppressing the near-overwhelming urge to act, this burning sickness in his soul spreading like cancer, a hatred for the steward that threatens to destroy him. But he prevails. It takes him two weeks to weave the plot, so monumental in its ambition that a lesser man would go insane from the sheer complexity. But it is perfect. And it can't fail. The knight will have his revenge.

In the rocky hideaway he has been skulking for these past weeks, the knights prepares himself. First he dons his woollens, then his chain, then his plate. His belt goes on next, then his father's sword through the scabbard. He picks up his shield. Without his horse, (he was forced to eat it or starve - a bitter price) the knight must travel afoot. He hefts his antlered great-helm, sighs one last time, then puts it on. The world now a bright slash of light through the visor, the knight leaves his hideout, thirsty for revenge. And he will have it, this he swears himself. Damning revenge.

On his way to the steward, the knight is ambushed by a rabble of ill-trained peasants who jump him from all sides, leaving him unable to evade.

Can he use his plate armour actively?



;)


Take care

Excellent context!
I assume his plan was to simply walk up to the steward and kill him?

Anyway, I've always thought that the active use of plate is made by the player when he ignores an attack that he knows will not harm him and simply attacks instead. Granted, that's more like active use of passive use armour, but still.

Hmm. yeah, I suppose so.

But what I'm getting at is this.

Some bloke is hefting this massive maul and attacking some other bloke wearing full plate armour.

If the bloke in armour stands utterly still and takes the full impact of the blow, is it gonna hurt more than had he been charging into the blow?

According to TROS, if you attack, then you have no CP left for reducing the effect of an attack. So the blow will have as much impact whether the armoured man is still or trying to intercept it. That's why I'd like to allow the option of using armour as a blocking tool. Splitting your CP could represent the extra effort of gauging the trajectory of one's opponent's blow, and a success would result in ranges between both combatants being reduced to close.

But I've yet to test this so it could well end up being a crock of shite.

ps. Oh, and yeah, the plan was to walk straight upto the steward and cop him one (put his sword somewhere unpleasant).

Take care

what's really going on here, as I read it, is an "armored dodge." This seems pretty reasonable... I'd say that the easiest way is to use the dodge rules "as is," except that the fellow dodging doesn't have to put so much effort into the dodge since he's really just trying to lessen the blow enough that it won't hurt his armored self. I know it isn't named that way, but maybe the mechanic we want here has been under our noses the whole time.

Jake

Yeah, cool. That works.

Armoured fighter puts minimal CP into an evasion, not hoping for success but to lessen the foe's number of successes over him, trusting in his plate and toughness to absorb the overlapping damage.

But this still doesn't allow for the armoured fighter to attack at the same time. He can't gain initiative by losing a dodge. He must constantly dodge. What I'm looking at is aggressive close-quarters combat whilst putting your armour in the way of enemy blows. I'd still rather run it as a simultaneous block and strike using armour as shield (with higher target numbers than blocking with a shield).

This is not a useful tactic when wearing lighter armour, as no matter how well you succeed, your still getting hit. Far too risky.

Sorry. I'm being stubborn ;)

(Jake - I'm honestly not suggesting additional rules for TROS. The game just doesn't need it. It's discussions on what rules best interpret certain specifics situations which interests me)

Take care

I see what you're looking for, but I think that you can't really do both, except perhaps to use your off-hand in a simul block-strike, which we've discussed. Striking in any martial art uses the whole of your body for speed, balance, and power--even more so with weapons. To suggest that you could deflect with your shoulder and strike at the same time simply doesn't work. If it's something you want in a more "cinematic" game, then go for it, but it isn't "historical," so far as I understand it.

Jake

Irmo wrote:

Vanguard wrote: ... This would endow the veteran knight with awesome superiority when facing multiple ill-trained and unarmoured foes (peasants basically) and allow him to literally plow through them, their blows hardly stopping him.

This I can imagine from an epic heroic knight :)

An epic heroic knight butchering peasants? An interesting concept of heroism ;)

Vanguard wrote:
Some bloke is hefting this massive maul and attacking some other bloke wearing full plate armour.

If the bloke in armour stands utterly still and takes the full impact of the blow, is it gonna hurt more than had he been charging into the blow?

Or you can declare an evasive attack, which is already in the rule-books.

Lyrax wrote: Or you can declare an evasive attack, which is already in the rule-books.

Right cool. Ok then, that pretty much covers everything I was seeking. Like the idea of evasive attack regarding amour use. Had been thinking along the lines previously.


Might still run it as simultaneous Block/strike (Hope no one hears that - God, I'm stubborn)

Take care

So, just tell your players it's called "taking the blow intelligently on armor" and use the evasive attack rules. Problem solved :-)

Brian.