I realize that my words may (and probably will) be considered blasphemy, but has anyone considered adapting Riddle of Steel's combat mechanics to Burning Wheel. I happen to like most of what BW has to offer, but I'm not too crazy about the way it handles Scripting and armor. On the other hand, while I love TRoS combat mechanics, I'm not as fond of its magic or skill rules. I don't think it would be terribly hard to convert as both are dice pool systems. I think Spiritual attributes might work well with Luke's Artha rules as well.

Well, just wanted to chime in with my thoughts. Let the flaming begin :-)


-Claymore

Yup, I've suggested the possibility several times. It would be pretty easy actually, the systesms are quite compatable in that regard. The most difficult part would be deciding how to meld BW maneuvers with TROS maneuvers rather than just scrapping BW moves all together.

Before I tackle it though I want to play with the current scripting system to see how BW combat currently feels. I may decide that such a conversion is entirely unnecessary.

Valamir wrote: Yup, I've suggested the possibility several times. It would be pretty easy actually, the systesms are quite compatable in that regard. The most difficult part would be deciding how to meld BW maneuvers with TROS maneuvers rather than just scrapping BW moves all together.

Before I tackle it though I want to play with the current scripting system to see how BW combat currently feels. I may decide that such a conversion is entirely unnecessary.

i can't help you with this one; i don't know the ROS system at all.

I don't understand why you would want to take BW into ROS? There's nothing left after you convert BW into another system. BW is just a system. Going in the opposite direction ROS to BW is quite possible, though.

-L

i'm sorry, i'm very tired... i didn't see the first post in this thread!

oops! Well, I think a merger of the two could be done, taking out scripting and dropping in those lovely charts and stuff. But like I said, I don't know ROS at all. (I've read the Quick Start.)

One thing that BW would have to assert is FLAT target numbers. Obstacle can rise and fall as it will (and using bigger pools allows for higher obstacles), but DN/TN should always stay the same.

Suggestions? Donations?

I imagine Mr Norwood is going to be at Gencon, I could ask him about it. But he probably doesn't know anything about BW!

-L

Its just the combat system being discussed Luke. BW is a d6 die pool system, TROS is a d10 die pool system. That makes them pretty compatable. After you derive your die pool for combat you'd just use TROS concepts for combat instead of the scripting. It would work pretty slick actually.

But like I said, I have to see the scripting in action before I bother thinking about replacing it.

abzu wrote:
i can't help you with this one; i don't know the ROS system at all.

I don't understand why you would want to take BW into ROS? There's nothing left after you convert BW into another system. BW is just a system. Going in the opposite direction ROS to BW is quite possible, though.

abzu wrote:
i'm sorry, i'm very tired... i didn't see the first post in this thread!

oops! Well, I think a merger of the two could be done, taking out scripting and dropping in those lovely charts and stuff. But like I said, I don't know ROS at all. (I've read the Quick Start.)

One thing that BW would have to assert is FLAT target numbers. Obstacle can rise and fall as it will (and using bigger pools allows for higher obstacles), but DN/TN should always stay the same.

Suggestions? Donations?

I imagine Mr Norwood is going to be at Gencon, I could ask him about it. But he probably doesn't know anything about BW!

Jake Norwood wrote:

Claymore-

I actually began reading the Burning Wheel today, before seeing this thread. It's a very solid system thus far, and I'm impressed with how thorough it is. I haven't but looked at the combat system, but hybriding TROS combat into the core BW mechanic looks pretty functional.

Jake

Actually Luke, the charts are probably the least important thing and the least interesting thing to convert. The only thing charts are used for is hit location and damage. I'm thinking that they can be ignored entirely in favor of the current BW damage system.

The fun part about TROS is dividing up your combat die pool to power your maneuvers. The big question would be to scrap BW maneuvers in favor of TROS maneuvers, or to redefine BW maneuvers in terms that use the TROS mechanics.

The flat TNs are an issue that would have to be accounted for. In TROS the combat TNs come from the weapon type seperate attack and defense TNs based on the characteristics of the weapon. To keep with the flat TNs of BW (and rightly so) that would have to change, presumeably to something closer to the way BW handles weapons.

At any rate, it will make much more sense once you've played TROS at GenCon. And again, this is just sheer speculation. I'm equally looking forward to you running me through some BW scripting combats.

Valamir wrote: Actually Luke, the charts are probably the least important thing and the least interesting thing to convert. The only thing charts are used for is hit location and damage. I'm thinking that they can be ignored entirely in favor of the current BW damage system.

The fun part about TROS is dividing up your combat die pool to power your maneuvers. The big question would be to scrap BW maneuvers in favor of TROS maneuvers, or to redefine BW maneuvers in terms that use the TROS mechanics.

The flat TNs are an issue that would have to be accounted for. In TROS the combat TNs come from the weapon type seperate attack and defense TNs based on the characteristics of the weapon. To keep with the flat TNs of BW (and rightly so) that would have to change, presumeably to something closer to the way BW handles weapons.

At any rate, it will make much more sense once you've played TROS at GenCon. And again, this is just sheer speculation. I'm equally looking forward to you running me through some BW scripting combats.

My initial thoughts as I posted earlier is to add reflexes to the skill level (err.. exponent) and to fork in a couple of combat related skills to form a players dice pool.

Since you already use a similar mechanic for Sorcery (adding Will to Sorcery to allow for the higher obstacles), I don't think it violates BW core mechanics terribly badly.

How does damage work in ROS?

ok. that is all fairly straightforward and pretty easy to translate.

where do the die pools come from? what are they used for? Because right now it looks like the combat mechanic could be fairly easily ported without using big ol die pools. You'd just use Shock and Pain to reduce your dice like Midi+ wounds and Blood Loss would be Blood Loss. If we could keep the combat skills on the same scale as every other skill (ranged 1-10 dice), then the translation would be fairly easy.

then again, if the Shock and Pain came off of BOTH roots for the pool--the stat and the skill--then it would work just fine as is...

hmmm,

-L

Hi Luke,

The TROS rules use a stat called Reflexes and the character's Proficiency in that style of weapon to produce the Dice Pool in TROS.

The key point of TROS is the strategy of how many dice to gamble in the first exchange vs. the amount you're going to need in the second exchange. The more you use in the first exchange increases the likelihood of your success, or at least being in an advantageous position, but could leave you short on the second exchange. The less you use in the first exchange is a greater risk, but with better payoff in the second exchange if you make it.

Chris

okee dokey. that seems fairly simple and elegant.

now, what are the ROS "maneuvers" like?

i know attack/defend options are done with a die drop.

-L

Here's an example that I remember off the top of my head. If a player uses the Beat maneuver, he's essentially knocking his opponent's weapon out of line, for every success he rolls the opponent loses two dice out of his pool on the next exchange. As with all maneuvers, if it's successful, you keep the intiative. So with a successful Beat, you hope that the opponent doesn't have many dice to defend with on the subsequent attack.

I'm forgetting nuances, but that's typical of how things work in general.

Mike

Perhaps a quick and dirty example.

You and I face off. You have Reflex 5 (an attribute) and Proficiency (weapon skill) 7 for a total Combat Pool of 12. I have Reflex 6 and Proficiency 8 for a total CP of 14 (cuz its my example ;-)

First we select the stance we will start in. You decide to go aggressive stance I decide to go defensive

Then we decide to either attack or defend. This involves secretly selecting either a red die (signalling intent to attack) or a white die (signalling intent to defend) The die is not rolled. If you attack from an aggressive stance you get +2 dice if you defend from an aggressive stance you get -2 dice, etc.

If we both drop white then we are circling with no attack. If we both drop red then its simultaneous. We see whose blow lands first and the other guy is generally in big trouble.

Lets say you attack and I defend which means we both get +2 dice to our pools.

Since you're attacking you select how many of your 14 dice you want to sink into your attack. You decide to do a basic 8 die attack swinging vertically down. In TROS target number is based on weapon (typically 6 or 7 on a d10) so you roll 8 dice against a TN of 6.

I decide how to defend before you roll. Instead of doing a basic defense I select the Counter Maneuver. The Counter comes with a 2 die charge so I lose 2 of my 16 dice. I elect to be a bit balsy and only throw 10 dice into my counter.

You roll 8 dice and get 4 successes. I roll 10 dice and get 5 successes. If I were doing a regular old defense, I would now take the initiative because I beat you and would select the next attack. Because I Countered and paid a 2 die penelty and it worked I now get a bonus for the counter. I get to use your successes against you to boost my next attack. In other words if you roll alot of dice and successes but yet I beat you anyway, you're overextended and I take advantage of it.

So, your attack failed, and I now have the initiative. I started with 14 dice, +2 for defending from a defensive stance, -2 for the counter cost, -10 for the dice I rolled leaves me with 4 dice (all of that is simply added and removed from a bowl'o dice so its easy to track). However, I get your 4 successes as a bonus so my counter attack against you is coming at you with 8 dice. Ordinarily I'd choose my target hit location zone, but with a counter you take whatever opening you can get so target location is random.

You started with 12 dice +2 for attacking from an aggressive stance and -8 for your attack, so you have 6 dice left to defend. Now might be a great time to think about Full Evade (i.e. get the hell outta dodge), but for example purposes you choose a basic defense and hope you get lucky.

I roll 8 dice and get 4 successes you roll 6 dice and get 2 successes. That leaves me with a 2 success edge...I hit you (of course I do...its my example).

We now go to damage. My weapon is Strength+1 and my strength is 5 so my total damage is 8. Your Toughness is 4 but you have 2 points of armor on the location I hit so 8 is reduced by 6 to 2. You suffer a Level 2 wound and now look up the Shock, Pain, and Blood loss for that wound on the table.

Assume Shock was -3 and Pain was -1.

We then go to the new round and pools refresh.

Your pool of 12 is reduced by 3 for the shock to 9 (and by 1 going forward by Pain in later rounds). Stance only matters on the first engagement. Unless we seperate (as with a Full Evade) and choose Stance again niether of us will get the +2 die bonus. The Red Die / White Die choice is also not made again unless we seperate. We are already engaged and already know who the attacker and who the defender is.

Since I successfully hit you, I keep the initiative. My undamaged pool is 14 dice. This will be a decisive exchange. The conservative choice would be to attack with something like 10 dice and keep 4 in reserve for defense in case you get lucky. However, in order to have a reasonable shot at defending against my 10 dice, you'd need to use at least 8-9 of yours. Even if you only use 7 and get super lucky and beat me to take initiative you'll only have 2 dice to attack and I have 4 dice to defend. Not a good choice for you. You *could* try a counter like I did but that would leave you with only 7 dice to counter and if you didn't get lucky and succeed not only would I hit you but I'd have another 4 dice to smack you with while you had 0. So most likely what you'd do is defend with all 9. But if you do that and succeed, you won't have any dice left to follow up with so initiative would revert back to me and my 4 dice. So if you're going to have to use all of your dice anyway, you might as well Full Evade and break off the engagement. This gives you a real good Target Number (4 I think instead of 6) making you quite likely to evade. Evading ends the round and goes straight to refresh. That means you won't be suffering the -3 Shock, you'll only be suffering the -1 Pain and so you'll have 11 instead of 9 dice. It also means we'd return to stances and red/white.

So, me...knowing that you're probably going to Full Evade, and knowing that if you do you're likely to succeed, and if you do the round ends and we go immediately to refresh, and if that happens my saved 4 dice would be wasted has a choice to make.

I might just throw all 14 dice, knowing that the only way you have a chance to beat that is with a full evasion with all of your dice so that even though I'm leaving myself wide open you won't be able to capitalize on it.

Or I might throw a lesser number of dice, hoping to bait you into trying something that I can then smack you down for. Etc.

That's the psychology of TROS combat.

A very fine example Ralph :-)

There are many other great things about combat, such as using terrain to your advantage when facing multiple foes. When fighting a battle outnumbered, you have two options, split your dice pool against your adversaries (not the best thing) or expend a few dice from your pool and make a terrain test, with a TN based upon your surroundings (which could be converted to obstacles easily enough). If you make the test, only one opponent can engage you during the round.


Claymore

Valamir wrote:
The tables are hit location tables. You aim for a particular zone (like diagonal swing from the left) but you randomly roll on a d6 which location you hit in that zone. Damage is a function of how well you hit. Basically, Number of Successes from the attack roll + Weapon modifier (usually in the form of Strength + X) minus opponent's toughness and armor on the location hit.

The result translates to a level of damage 1 through 5. Cross referencing the location with the level of damage (on the table for the appropriate damage type...thrust vs slash etc) gives the combination of the above 4 damage types that you suffer.

Level 1 is largely of the "just a flesh wound" variety.
Level 5 is largely of the "spectacular death" variety.


Pretty involved, but flows really smoothly in play. Hits are actually fairly rare, so unlike D&D where you do a little damage each round, in ROS you do no damage most rounds and then you finally land a nasty blow that ends the combat.

Alright, this all sounds feasible. The hitch would be ROS variable DN which BW doesn't much like. So something's going to have to give. But before I retreat to my mountain cave to ponder the situation I have just one more question for you specifically Claymore.

What is it that you REALLY like about the ROS combat mechanics? What flavor or feel needs to be there for you want to play it? What absolutely cannot be lost in the translation?

-L

What i really like about TRoS is buying manuevers out of the dice pool and the fact that i have so many options. Its not your basic attack, defend or counter. And the strategy is as close to real time as a pen and paper rpg can get. The scripting(in Burning Wheel) is a cool idea but that's not how real combat goes about. I don't like having to pick my action before the events unfold. (yes i know you can change them after the fact but its the concept not the mechanic that i'm not a particular fan of).

If i was going to merge the systems, you must put the manuevers from TRoS. I have a slight favorite with the TRoS dmg system also but that is probably more from familiarity rather than anything else.

I don't like the way either of system does armor. But then again i've never found an armor system i like. With armor rules you usually have to put yourself into one of two schools of thought-"armor absorbs blows" or "armor deflects blows" The fact is some armors deflect, some absorb and some do both. Its hard to make good armor rules I know this and I'll never be happy but hey a guy can dream.

Burning wheel is a great system with skills and character creation being my favorite part. I just want a more fluid combat mechanic in my games.

I really like the combat in TRoS(obviously). It adds gritty realism to the game. I am not however a big fan of the magic system-its a little too powerful for me.

-Anton Duelant
Recovering Power Gamer

abzu wrote: Alright, this all sounds feasible. The hitch would be ROS variable DN which BW doesn't much like. So something's going to have to give. But before I retreat to my mountain cave to ponder the situation I have just one more question for you specifically Claymore.

What is it that you REALLY like about the ROS combat mechanics? What flavor or feel needs to be there for you want to play it? What absolutely cannot be lost in the translation?

-L

okee dokee.

i can see it working.

some things i am thinking about:

If you like the ROS combat system you should probably stick to their wounding system. Use the Shock, Pain, BL and Death rules. Don't bother with the IMS stuff from Burning Wheel.

Burning Wheel works best when it is an additive system. A difficult action? Add to the obstacle. A more powerful character? Toss on more dice.

Combat dice pools = Ref+Skill+FoRK+Weapon.
Rather than increase/decrease TN/DN, Weapons and equipment should just throw more (or less) dice into the pool. Perhaps it could also be relative to the weapon of your opponent? I dunno. ROS seems to chalk full of combat weapons experts, perhaps they can offer some advice. Either way, the weapon should add dice to the pool. Shields should add to the Def pool. Or perhaps add more to Def Pool and less to Agg Pool.

Armor. Why not take Anton's suggestion? In the new Simplified Melee mechanics rules Armor can be used "Offensively" or "Defensively".

Offensive armor can be added to your combat pool for the exchange, but it doesn't help you shrug wounds. Basically you are going in heavily relying on your armor to take a few hits before you get your shot it.

Whereas Defensive armor doesn't add to the Pool, but can be used to add to "Toughness" or to shrug damage. (Depending on which school of thought we decide on, BW or ROS.)

As for actually doing damage...

Average Pool based on BW dice would be 8 or 9 dice (Ref B4, Skill B4 with no FoRKs and a +1D weapon.)

Average Forte of your target would be 4.

That means on an average to hit roll (4 successes vs Forte 4) there would be no damage.
Is that right? Wait, no. You add your Weapon Power to your successes over when you hit. So let's say it's a +2 P weapon, so that would be 2 over the Forte/Toughness. And would be a decent wound, right?

Armor could be simplified to a simple +1 to +6 (quilting through metal plating) for adding to Forte for determing damage.

I don't know how these successes translate on the charts. I'll dL the QS rules again and take a look. But the simplest way to do this would be to ignore the hit-loc rules and charts (I know: HERESY!) and just say X amount over your opponent's successes is so much Shock, so much Pain and so much BL. Perhaps if you can get successes-over equal to their Forte+Armor they are instantly killed. Also, perhaps players can choose where their successes go? 1 success= 2d of Shock, 2 successes=1D of pain or 1D Shock + 1 level of Blood loss. (Or something along those lines). That way they could control something of the suffering of their opponent.

I am fumbling around in the dark, but I can't help myself. I LOVE tweaking mechanics.

suggestions?
-L

I like your suggestions, and I think I can work with them. Your strength and weapon add to your overall success level against your opponent, so If you beat your opponent's defense roll by two dice and you had a strength of 4, +1 for your weapon, and he had a fort (toughness) 4, you would inflict a level 3 wound (4+1+2-4). Pretty nasty. If he was wearing quilted (+1), he would only suffer a level 2 wound, and if he had full plate he wouldn't take any damage at all (however the attacker would retain the initiative during the next exchange if he had kept at least a single die in his pool)

abzu wrote:

Armor. Why not take Anton's suggestion? In the new Simplified Melee mechanics rules Armor can be used "Offensively" or "Defensively".

Offensive armor can be added to your combat pool for the exchange, but it doesn't help you shrug wounds. Basically you are going in heavily relying on your armor to take a few hits before you get your shot it.

Whereas Defensive armor doesn't add to the Pool, but can be used to add to "Toughness" or to shrug damage. (Depending on which school of thought we decide on, BW or ROS.)

-L

So I read over the QSROS rules again last night.

Going from ROS into the BW dice/mindset, I would definitely use all the ROS bonuses and penalties to just add and subtract dice from the pools.

Weapons should add dice for their "optimum uses" and subtract dice for their lesser uses (like an axe on the thrust). I wouldn't however, give damage reduction penalties for weapons vs certain moves. I think the reduced dice would reflect the ability to get that damage and it seems like another level of complexity that isn't completely necessary.

Maneuvers should add and substract dice from the pool as well.

Armor can be used as "auto successes/soak" to reduce the incoming power of a weapon (just like in ROS). That works fine in the translation.

Shock and Pain dice should be "doubled up" against the combat pool for the translation. When a sorcerer takes a Midi Wound in Burning Wheel he loses a die from his Will AND his Sorcery. I think this should carry over for RO-BW for consistencies, sake. Because with Pain you are going to be losing dice against other non-combat skills and stats that have a range of 1-8--and BW is built to handle penalties like that (important for incapacitation purposes and other penalties).

Hm, I guess Shock dice should only come out of the Pool total, not off each skill. But when you take a point of Pain then you lose a die from your Reflexes and your Skill.

I am very interested to hear how this goes!
let me know!

-L

wait a minute...

so all this talk is great for sword fighting.

How does ROS handle stuff like Get Inside, Lock and Throw?

From what the QS rules say, it is only possible knock someone down if you wound them.

curious,
-L

Hello,

0ne thing that tends to get missed in discussing The Riddle of Steel combat is that maneuvers are a minor add-on, not a core piece of the system. I highly recommend playing without them for a while - they are not much more significant than a formalized color mechanic with (usually) minor bonuses. I also recommend avoiding thinking of them as a "what I can do" list.

Best,
Ron

Heh, Ron and I disagree a bit on the significance of the maneuvers. It really depends on how free form you want to be with it. Virtually any kind of manuever with virtually any kind of impact can be done with ROS by creative use of the Terrain Roll rules and a willingness to allow the GM to assign bonuses based on stated intent and the quality of the roll.

The maneuvers do, however, set the tone for the scope of what effects are possible, the scale of any costs or penelties and some limitations on what weapons are capable of. Playing without them is good as a beginners training excercise but really pretty bland after awhile. Feint and Counter are particularly important to the effective psychology of play, and Hook, Bind and Strike, and Simo block and strike are quite useful and go a long way to differentiating the combatants capabilities.

Luke, I think you'll appreciate the way TROS does reach, because it acknowledges the same sort of thing you did with Get Inside. Basically each weapon has a reach which is a simple number, longer being higher. Initially the longer weapon has an advantage. Trying to attack someone with a longer weapon results in a penelty to your die pool equal to the difference. So if I had a Reach 3 weapon and you had a Reach 1 weapon, every time you tried to attack me you'd lose 2 dice.

However, once you did manage to land a blow (even an ineffective no damage blow) you're now "inside" and the penelty is reversed. It would now be the longer weapon that had the penelty, so I'd be motivated to actually drop the longer weapon and draw a shorter one.

There are some quite interesting Grapple moves, including grapple to throw and grapple to trap. The hook maneuver is also a useful way to get someone down.

Also, I'm not sure how the QS rules may have simplified knockdown. But in the full rules you roll for knockdown any time your combat pool is reduced to below 0 by shock (or shock + pain). This does not require a wound per se, just someone whose spent their die pool down to nothing who then suffers a minor level 1 hit. The level 1 hit may be too trivial to actually "wound" but it can trigger a knockdown check.

abzu wrote: wait a minute...

so all this talk is great for sword fighting.

How does ROS handle stuff like Get Inside, Lock and Throw?

From what the QS rules say, it is only possible knock someone down if you wound them.

curious,
-L

hi claymore,

BW and ROS have two different paradigms for dealing with damage. ROS is exact and detailed, while BW is more general and abstract.

Weapons relate to the world by how they effect it. A sword is what is it because of the way it cuts. Thus a sword represented in one game is going to be different the other. I know this seems overly simplistic, but I am just trying to make a point that before one can really determine how a sword does its job and how a swordsman uses it, one has to define the body that is its target.

So IMS vs Shock and Pain.

BW and ROS are mechanically quite similar in this effect. (from what I can tell).

In BW you have 3 levels of potential hits that you can do with a weapon. These hits then translate onto the opposing character's body/physical tolerances. Each character has slightly different physical tolerances. So a Mark result hit from my sword might lay you low, while it would barely pierce Ralph's tough hide.

Mechanically, in BW, this means that you want to meet your obstacle for Incidental hits, get two over your obstacle for Mark hits and 4 over obstacle for Superb hits. (Those hits are then essentially translated into damage by the receiving character's stats)

In ROS (from what I can tell) your weapon plus luck and skill determine your best possible hit at that moment, and your opponent's skill, armor and inherent toughness can possibly reduce this. The severity of the hit comes from the weapon's strength plus your strength plus your skill/luck over the target's toughness and armor. The greater the difference between your final result and your victim's the great the damage.

Damage, in both systems, is reflected in lost dice (and raised TNs). With an option for instant death.

Pretty darn similar. It just depends on how you want to do it.

Of course, you could keep either system in its entirety, ignoring the other. Success over your opponent's defensive moves translate right into IMS. Same thing for the ROS damage levels. (But if you are going to use the BW skill and magic systems, it's easier to stick with the IMS/PTGS.)

You could keep the three-tiered IMS system, but use the ROS damage system. Your weapon damage/IMS would translate right into so much Shock, so much Pain and so on.

Or you could use the successes over to read right into the ROS charts. As opposed going through a Strength vs Toughness mechanic. This would, of course, require weapons and strength to add dice.


another thought, you could scale all this back a bit dicewise. Use the ROS combat structure/mechanics but only draw the combat pool from skill+FoRKs+stance. This would make combat very tight and very nasty. You could incorporate into this the Terrain Test rules and the Advantage mechanics from the simplified melee mechanics. Keep all other damage and weapons mechanics as per BW. (You can use any old armor system that pleases you.)

I actually like that armor system you came up with. If I ever get a chance to playtest it, I might actually endorse it.

rambling...
i think we could hash something out in the course of a night's playtesting.
-L

abzu wrote:
I actually like that armor system you came up with. If I ever get a chance to playtest it, I might actually endorse it.

-L

Haven't seen any talk about shades. How do you propose handling that? Is the shade mechanic gonna make anything weird in terms of combat? I don't know i'm just throwing it out there...

Anton_Duelant wrote: Haven't seen any talk about shades. How do you propose handling that? Is the shade mechanic gonna make anything weird in terms of combat? I don't know i'm just throwing it out there...

Claymore wrote: I hope to have a rough outline of my RoS combat conversions later tonight.


Claymore

Anton_Duelant wrote: I don't like the way either of system does armor. But then again i've never found an armor system i like. With armor rules you usually have to put yourself into one of two schools of thought-"armor absorbs blows" or "armor deflects blows" The fact is some armors deflect, some absorb and some do both. Its hard to make good armor rules I know this and I'll never be happy but hey a guy can dream.

-Anton Duelant
Recovering Power Gamer

Durgil wrote:

Claymore wrote: I hope to have a rough outline of my RoS combat conversions later tonight.


Claymore

That sounds great! I'm really looking forward to taking a look at it.

Ok, basic guidelines are done. Please note, these are alpha rules. I'm posting them here for comment since I will be testing them tomorrow night with my gaming group. Some sections are still spotty (I havn't tackled the knockdown rules yet, some maneuvers need more reworking for the RoS/BW conversion, etc.). Any comments on the hiccups would be great. It's 11 here, I still have a half hour packing at the store before I leave (me ackin back!), but I will check back later.

Claymore

Claymore’s Riddle of Steel variant combat rules for Burning Wheel (alpha test v.5, 6/26/03)
By George Thompson

Dice Pools
Take your relevant weapon skill and add your Reflexes attribute to it. This forms your base combat pool. You may fork in 1 related skill if your weapon skill total (not pool total), is 6 or less. If your skill is 7+, you may fork in 2 related dice. See the Burning Wheel rules to determine what skills are appropriate to be forked to your main combat skill.

Weapon Styles
TroS has a list of combat styles, and what maneuvers can be preformed with them. For the most part, use common sense when converting. Any style with shield requires the Shield play training skill to use the style with full effectiveness.

Initiative
Initiative is handled in a similar way to RoS, with melee characters pairing into groups and combatants rolling Red die/White die to determine if they are attacking or defending upon engagement. If it is necessary to figure out when a particular action occurs (such as when a missile shot goes off, or when a spell is cast), go by the reflexes of the character (higher reflexes goes before lower). If characters are engaged in melee use the reflexes of the character that has the initiative at the start of the exchange to determine when exactly the exchange occurs.

Note:
(TroS has no true group initiative rules, you simply pair up the best way you can and fight. For the most part, the system actually works pretty well, but breaks down when trying to figure out if a missile shot occurs before two characters exchange blows, or when you cast a spell, at the start of combat when people are moving, etc. it’s a problem I have had running the game on more than one occasion)

Note 2
(I still need to consider bow fire and spell casting times. Spell casting times will vary based upon the amount of syllables that need to be spoken to cast the spell. I will work on this over the weekend. Any comments in the meantime are always appreciated.)

Stances
Stances work the same as in TroS. You can choose Aggressive, Neutral, or Defensive. A stance in these combat rules only last for the first exchange, or until the combatant’s break and re-engage. The dice bonus does not continue throughout the combat.

Exchange of Blows
As in RoS, each round consists of 2 exchanges, each 1-2 seconds long. During each exchange a character may take a single action. The aggressor may take any one applicable offensive Maneuver, while the defender may choose 1 appropriate defensive maneuver. Once both exchanges occur, all dice pools refresh (go back to their base value, minus any modifiers due to injury)

Once the attacker has decided the offensive maneuver he wants to perform (such as cut, thrust, or bash), he declares his action and indicates how many dice from his pool he wishes to expend to make the attack. The defender may then choose a defensive maneuver (such as block, parry, or counterstrike), and declares how many dice he wishes to use to defend himself with. Should the attacker hit (i.e. roll more successes then the defender), resolve damage. The attacker may choose to press the attack (by declaring another attack and allocating dice), or may voluntarily pass the initiative to the defender. Should the defender roll more successes than his opponent he may now switch rolls becoming the attacker, putting his opponent on the defensive. Once two exchanges have occurred, all pools refresh and a new round begins. (See TroS combat rules for full explanations of maneuvers and combat actions that may be taken)

Note On Maneuvers
Some maneuvers (such as evasive attack) modify your TN or your opponents. Rather then alter the TN, raise the obstacle instead. Therefore, is you were performing an evasive strike, your opponents obstacle would raise by 1 for each die you expend from your pool, while your obstacle will raise by 1 for every 2 points you spend from your pool. This makes for a more subtle change in one’s chances of success or failure. A few maneuvers (such as evade) will need to be re-worked, I hope to have these online by Sunday.

Note on Shields
Shields (and other parrying items) add dice to your pool rather then lower your TN. Use the BW shield dice rules listed on page 107 of the main rulebook.

Terrain
Different types of terrain add to your manuever obstacle, they do not affect the TN.


Aiming
In TroS, attacks are never made at a random location; you need to declare which area of the body you are targeting with your attack. We intend on keeping that flavor with these rules. Declare the zone you are aiming for before you make your attack. If you hit your opponent, roll a single d6 to determine the exact location in the zone struck. If the character has any armour on the location, he can attempt to make an armour save.

Damage
Damage is determined the same way as with burning Wheel, with a few small changes. Rather than the standard IMS (Incidental, Mark, and Superb), we now have IMSA. The first 3 levels remain the same, the forth is known as Amazing (Luke, feel free to change this to any adjective you want :-), and does double the damage of a Mark result. Therefore if you had a sword with an add of 2, 6 additional successes would yield an Amazing result.

Weapons
Use BW weapons stats, but ignore VA and speed.

Armour
Armour follows the spirit of BW but works slightly differently. After your strike your opponent and determine the severity of the blow (IMSA), your opponent may make an armour test if he is wearing any protection on the area hit. 3 dice are rolled with a TN equal to the type of amour worn (see BW for armour TNs). Each success on an armour die decreases the severity the wound received by 1 level. Therefore if your enemy took a Mark hit and received a single success on his armour check, the severity of the hit would be downgraded to an Incidental hit. If your opponent got 2 or more successes on the armour test, the armour would negate the wound. Note that the best you can do if you receive an Amazing severity wound is reduce it to an Incidental hit (with all armour dice coming up successes).

Armour Failure (optional)
Armour fails if a majority of the armour dice come up 1’s. If you are wearing superior quality armour, your armour only degrades if you roll all 1’s. Primitive armour degrades a point if any die comes up a 1. (one could also experiment with rasing the TN on on an armor failure rather than lose a die, just a thought.)

Apply damage as you would normally in BW, but use the following effect penalties.


Effects of Injury
There are now 2 things to worry about when damaged, shock and pain. A Shock penalty immediately subtracts dice from your combat pool. Should the shock received exceed your combat pool, any remainder is paid at the start of the next round (when all dice pools refresh), unless your pain penalty is greater. Shock is only a one-time penalty, when your pool refreshes the dice come back.

Pain is subtracted from all pools and skills at the beginning of a round.


Wound Shock /Pain
Superficial -1D /nil
Light -2D /nil
Midi -4D /-1D
Severe -6D /-2D
Traumatic -8D /-4D
Mortal Doesn’t matter you aren’t going anywhere (or doing anything)

Modifiers to Shock and Pain
Some areas of the body are a heck of a lot more sensitive then others. If any of the following locations are struck add 50% to the shock and pain values and increase any nil results under pain to –1D:

Head
Face
Neck
Groin

So if poor sir Miles (had to use him in an example somewhere :-) takes a groin hit and after armour protection (thank goodness for the codpiece), receives an Incidental hit. His opponent has a sword with a Mark damage of 7, so he inflicts 4 points of damage because of the incidental wound (Incidental damage is ½ of Mark damage round up, for those of you who don’t have a copy of BW, and shame on you, go to www.burningwheel.org and order one right now!). Sir Miles takes a superficial wound and looses –2D for shock from his dice pool immediately, and will lose –1D due to pain at the start of the next round. If he survives the combat he may gain a new nickname from his companions.

Degrees of wounds to limbs (optional)
If a limb takes a severe or greater wound it is rendered useless until medical attention can be rendered. If a character is carrying a weapon he drops it, if hit in the leg he goes to one knee, a hip shot will knock a character prone, etc. Use common sense when determining the effect of the attack.


Design Notes
These rules are based upon my own personal preferences (and prejudices) of both games, they do not represent the best or only way to use TRoS with BW. As a matter of fact, when designing these rules I thought of many different ways to do quite a few things. This system captures what I like best of both games, the realistic flow of battle, targeting zones of the body rather than swinging wildly, damage rules that are realistic, allow for randomness, and also don't set into stone the exact effects (no charts telling me what just got cut off Fred), but take some account of the effect of damage on the location hit.

Any comments are more than welcome!

-Claymore

Hi Claymore (George),
interesting stuff. seems a pretty slick amalgam of the two sets of rules. I am glad you used the BW wound stages with the ROS effects. It makes it all so simple! (though your wounds penalties are harsh! )

One question: Why are you ignoring Versus Armor? Maces and Swords can be very different weapons when beating against metal plates.

Also, if you are going to stick with your BW-ROS wound stage/penalty amalgam, I don't think you will have any problems with Bow and Spell damage. They both use IMS like other weapons, so they can benefit from your rules as well.

Timing of bows and spells in combat might be a little difficult without the scripting mechanics. I prefer exact timing mechanics, but it could be simplified:

Bows fire every third exchange. They fire simultaneously with any hit. Speeding this process up by one exchange raises your to hit Obstacle by 3.

Thrown weapons are launched every two exchanges. Speeding this process up raises your obstacles by 3.

Unloaded crossbows just take too long to load in combat to make a difference.

Any loaded or readied missile weapon should be able to be discharged in the first exchange. Simultaneous hits make the world go round!

I don't think missile weapons should use a "pool" like combat. It's not the same kind of face-off when you are shooting someone as when you are coming to blows. I recommend using the standard skill vs obstacle tests described in BW.

Spells are a little different: I recommend 4-6 syllables an exchange.
They should be cast as per the standard BW spell casting rules.

thanks so much for posting these, george! They are very cool.

-L

abzu wrote: Hi Claymore (George),
interesting stuff. seems a pretty slick amalgam of the two sets of rules. I am glad you used the BW wound stages with the ROS effects. It makes it all so simple! (though your wounds penalties are harsh! )

One question: Why are you ignoring Versus Armor? Maces and Swords can be very different weapons when beating against metal plates.

Also, if you are going to stick with your BW-ROS wound stage/penalty amalgam, I don't think you will have any problems with Bow and Spell damage. They both use IMS like other weapons, so they can benefit from your rules as well.

Timing of bows and spells in combat might be a little difficult without the scripting mechanics. I prefer exact timing mechanics, but it could be simplified:

Bows fire every third exchange. They fire simultaneously with any hit. Speeding this process up by one exchange raises your to hit Obstacle by 3.

Thrown weapons are launched every two exchanges. Speeding this process up raises your obstacles by 3.

Unloaded crossbows just take too long to load in combat to make a difference.

Any loaded or readied missile weapon should be able to be discharged in the first exchange. Simultaneous hits make the world go round!

I don't think missile weapons should use a "pool" like combat. It's not the same kind of face-off when you are shooting someone as when you are coming to blows. I recommend using the standard skill vs obstacle tests described in BW.

Spells are a little different: I recommend 4-6 syllables an exchange.
They should be cast as per the standard BW spell casting rules.

thanks so much for posting these, george! They are very cool.

-L

i was teasing about the wound penalties. I actually think the shock and pain division is rather elegant and the die penalties should work fine.

Since BW doesn't favor "hit location" stuff (a Severe is a Severe in your gut or in your ear), I tend to think the "called shot to the groin, additional -1D of pain" is just heaping on a little extra abuse. But that's just me.

A Severe wound is MORE than enough to "incapacitate" a limb. But I gotta ask again, isn't the -2D enough of a penalty? Sheesh, I can't believe I am fighting against more grit in the game! Anyway, your judgement is sound, Severes cripple limbs and remove hands.

Quick question: When you take a wound, does the Shock and Pain double up? Meaning if take a Midi, is that actually -5D as you are hit? Or is it -4D temporarily and then once you "refresh" you're at a permanent -1D?

And to clarify, Shock ONLY deducts from your combat pool, right?

Lastly, if you are worried about the Combat Pools being a little shy of ROS, open up the FoRK rules a bit. Allow players to FoRK in any and all martial skills and maybe even Intimidation. We allow multiple FoRKs in combat in the basic BW rules and it works just fine. (And we don't have to worry about 8 dice of Shock!)

thanks again!
-L

btw, i will get a copy of ROS. I am currently saving my pennies, though. Got to save up for Gencon!

abzu wrote:

A Severe wound is MORE than enough to "incapacitate" a limb. But I gotta ask again, isn't the -2D enough of a penalty? Sheesh, I can't believe I am fighting against more grit in the game! Anyway, your judgement is sound, Severes cripple limbs and remove hands.

Quick question: When you take a wound, does the Shock and Pain double up? Meaning if take a Midi, is that actually -5D as you are hit? Or is it -4D temporarily and then once you "refresh" you're at a permanent -1D?


And to clarify, Shock ONLY deducts from your combat pool, right?

Lastly, if you are worried about the Combat Pools being a little shy of ROS, open up the FoRK rules a bit. Allow players to FoRK in any and all martial skills and maybe even Intimidation. We allow multiple FoRKs in combat in the basic BW rules and it works just fine. (And we don't have to worry about 8 dice of Shock!)

thanks again!
-L

btw, i will get a copy of ROS. I am currently saving my pennies, though. Got to save up for Gencon!

abzu wrote:

A Severe wound is MORE than enough to "incapacitate" a limb. But I gotta ask again, isn't the -2D enough of a penalty? Sheesh, I can't believe I am fighting against more grit in the game! Anyway, your judgement is sound, Severes cripple limbs and remove hands.

so?! what happened? Did you play? I am dying to know!

-L

abzu wrote: so?! what happened? Did you play? I am dying to know!

-L

regarding combat skill tests:

i can see two ways to go about this. First, is to just compare the combat pools of the combattants and base the difficulty of the combat on those numbers. Roughly: Combat pools less than yours are Routine tests, about equal to or slightly less than are Difficult tests and CP greater than yours is a Challenging test.

The other way requires slightly more bookkeeping, but it's how we work it in our BW game (and it works just fine). Take the most "difficult" die roll of the encounter and use that to judge the tests. Meaning: You end up Blocking a 10D Strike with only 2 defense dice. If you live, that is definitely a Challenging test!

As for armor: Your 3D/Location method seemed rather elegant and simple. I recommend playtesting it before modifying it further. If you do need to change, remember to try to keep it simple! (I know, I know, I need to take my own advice.)

Lastly, some characters can't be burned. Especially younger characters who started their career early and have been on a number of adventures. This goes double when translating from another system. I think you did the right thing, though. Take the Burner as a basic frame work and then add on from there. When I do this, I usually add 6-12 skill points over what the Burner gives, and 1-3 stat points. However, this is very situational. If I want to make the Mother of All Badguys, I just give him 6s, 7s and 8s where needed. But I if I am trying to create a March Warden who is the veteran of a long quest into lands unknown, then I use the above formula.

I am very curious about the ROS/BW translation process though. Is there anything you could post to enlighten us benighted souls?

-L

abzu wrote: regarding combat skill tests:

i can see two ways to go about this. First, is to just compare the combat pools of the combattants and base the difficulty of the combat on those numbers. Roughly: Combat pools less than yours are Routine tests, about equal to or slightly less than are Difficult tests and CP greater than yours is a Challenging test.

The other way requires slightly more bookkeeping, but it's how we work it in our BW game (and it works just fine). Take the most "difficult" die roll of the encounter and use that to judge the tests. Meaning: You end up Blocking a 10D Strike with only 2 defense dice. If you live, that is definitely a Challenging test!

abzu wrote:
As for armor: Your 3D/Location method seemed rather elegant and simple. I recommend playtesting it before modifying it further. If you do need to change, remember to try to keep it simple! (I know, I know, I need to take my own advice.)

abzu wrote:
I am very curious about the ROS/BW translation process though. Is there anything you could post to enlighten us benighted souls?

-L

The Riddle of Steel combat in Burning Wheel Combat Maneuvers

All notes refer to The Riddle of steel unless noted. To find out more about The Riddle of steel, or to purchase a copy, please go to: www.theriddleofsteel.net


Offensive Maneuvers

Bash: as written

Beat: As written

Bind and Strike: replace the second sentence with: on one exchange roll attack as normal. You may add your shield/parry defense bonus dice to your pool. If your attack is successful, you inflict no damage but your opponent loses one 1 for each success you achieved over him, good on the next exchange. For example, if you beat your opponent by 3 successes, he loses 3 dice from his pool on the next exchange. if the defender succeeds, you may not use your shield/parry bonus dice during the next exchange*

*this does not appear in the original RoS rules and was added for my personal preference for use with BW (this could not be done as easily with RoS, as shields lower the defensive TN), feel free to delete it.

Cut: as written

Double Attack: pending until I completely review Two Fisted Fighting in BW (sorry).

Feint: as written (and a favorite ;-)

Feint and Thrust: as written.

Grapple: under review

Half Sword: change +3 against armours to "the weapon gains +1 VA to armours (if you decide to use VA). Ignore the TN reduction for half-Swording. Change shifting grip rules to: the user must pay 1 CP and make an Obstacle 2 reflexes test.

Hook: replace the fifth and sixth sentences with: If the attacker is successful, the defender must make a reflexes Obstacle test of 2, +1 for every success the attacker achieved over the defender.

Simultaneous Block/Strike: as written (another favorite ;-).

Short Stop: under review.

Thrust: Ignore the first two sentences.

Toss: Change ATN and DTN to Obstacle 2.

------
Hope these help as a start to converting roS maneuvers to BW. There are still a couple of holes I need to fill, anyone who is familar with both systems please feel free to chime in. I hope to have the defensive maneuvers up tomorrow.


-Claymore

The maneuver conversions look spiffy. The concept of "paying dice" is foreign to me, but I think it will work in the system just fine. It increases the difficulty of a maneuver (quite a bit, I might add). So test difficulty would be at the number of dice rolled. In theory, a character will roll less dice and thus have a harder time accomplishing his action. Which is how it should be.

I will post a pdf of the updated 4pg character sheet, it is designed to be used with the new artha rules. If you are using the Single Page CS let me know and I'll post that, too.

What I'm really curious about is the translation guidelines you used to get from ROS to BW characters. Any chance you could post those in case anyone wanted to follow your lead?

-L

abzu wrote: If you are using the Single Page CS let me know and I'll post that, too.

abzu wrote:
I will post a pdf of the updated 4pg character sheet, it is designed to be used with the new artha rules. If you are using the Single Page CS let me know and I'll post that, too.

What I'm really curious about is the translation guidelines you used to get from ROS to BW characters. Any chance you could post those in case anyone wanted to follow your lead?

-L

Double Attack: pending until I completely review Two Fisted Fighting in BW (sorry).

abzu wrote:

Double Attack: pending until I completely review Two Fisted Fighting in BW (sorry).

The Two-Fisted Fighting rules in BW describe using a Defensive weapon in your off hand. This allows knives, sword sheaths and table legs to act like shields for the wielder.

For Double Attacks, we play that the Striker just dvides his skill dice between his two targets and then rolls as per normal (so long as he is ambidextrous or has two-fisted fighting training. Other characters do this at an obstacle penalty).

-L

Claymore wrote: Double Attack: as written

:-)

No additional rules need to be worked then. In RoS, you can attack the same person with two attacks (you always have the option of splitting your pool against multiple foes, it's just a really bad idea).

-Claymore

Durgil wrote:

Claymore wrote: Double Attack: as written

:-)

No additional rules need to be worked then. In RoS, you can attack the same person with two attacks (you always have the option of splitting your pool against multiple foes, it's just a really bad idea).

-Claymore

Unless you have a really big dice pool to work with (i.e. very high reflex and weapon proficiency, and/or a lot of bonus dice from your spiritual attributes).

Claymore wrote: I prefer the 1 pager, but I'm sure you will get as many opinions in my groups as there are character sheets.

Wow, I own both games as well, you have merged the systems together very well! I might just have to start using these rules, I really prefer them to the scripting rules in the book. I could not find the defensive actions listed though. Have you posted them yet? I run every Sunday, I'd love to be able to show them to my group by them.

I just got Burning Wheel two weeks ago. I like it a lot, but when I showed it to my group they didn't like the way combat worked. I convinced them to play the demo adventure anyways, but let them make up their own characters. They still weren't crazy about it (combat), but loved making up characters. I am hoping (3 of them also play Riddle of Steel) with your new rules I can get them to give the game another try. Thanks!

Bracken

Claymore wrote: very true friend, very true ;-) BTW, did your copy of BW show up yet? Hope you are enjoying it!


-Claymore

Durgil wrote:

Claymore wrote: very true friend, very true ;-) BTW, did your copy of BW show up yet? Hope you are enjoying it!


-Claymore

It has and I am, thanks!

Bracken wrote: Wow, I own both games as well, you have merged the systems together very well! I might just have to start using these rules, I really prefer them to the scripting rules in the book. I could not find the defensive actions listed though. Have you posted them yet? I run every Sunday, I'd love to be able to show them to my group by them.

I just got Burning Wheel two weeks ago. I like it a lot, but when I showed it to my group they didn't like the way combat worked. I convinced them to play the demo adventure anyways, but let them make up their own characters. They still weren't crazy about it (combat), but loved making up characters. I am hoping (3 of them also play Riddle of Steel) with your new rules I can get them to give the game another try. Thanks!

Bracken

The Riddle of Steel combat in Burning Wheel Combat Maneuvers

All notes refer to The Riddle of steel unless noted. To find out more about The Riddle of steel, or to purchase a copy, please go to: www.theriddleofsteel.net

Defensive Maneuvers

Block: All weapons block at a TN equal to your shade in the skill (usually 4+). Parry blades and shields add dice to your pool for defense only. These bonus dice refresh every exchange, therefore if you are attacked two exchanges in a row, your extra defensive dice refresh at the start of each exchange. The bonus dice your receive depend on the parrying/blocking weapon used. Consult the chart below:

Buckler +1
Parrying Blade +1
Target +2
Heater/Great Shield +3

Block Open and Strike: as written, but change “available at proficiency level 6” to “skill exponent 5”

Counter: as written
Note: The counter maneuver has two charts listed; one based on a d6, the other a d10. You can either use only the d6 chart (the half sword chart), use both and get a d10, or wait until I make an alternate chart ;-)

Expulsion: as written, but change “available at proficiency level 6” to “skill exponent 4”

Grapple: under review

Half Sword: as written, see offensive half sword.

Parry: As Block


A note about Evasion:
I’m also re-working the Evasion rules, which need more work than I originally thought. I’ll try to have them up by Saturday.

-Claymore

Thanks for getting the rules up so quick! Hopefully with these mechanics I can gets my players into the game!

Bracken

well claymore? did you get a chance to playtest these rules? i am very curious as to how it went.

-L

abzu wrote: well claymore? did you get a chance to playtest these rules? i am very curious as to how it went.

-L

Wanted to ask a few questions. I just ordered Burning Wheel on great review, and I can’t wait. Claymore, I agree that I have NEVER been satisfied with the treatment of medieval armor in any fantasy rpg. I posted an article in the TROS forum, which I included below for reference. I think it’s relevant for your conversion, which I think is an awesome idea, as the combat system for Burning Wheel is the one thing I read about that DID NOT excite (will give it a shot, though). Heavier metal armors probably should deflect a little as well as absorb. As one source I’ve consulted stated: a knights shield grew smaller as plate armor improved, since the knight was effectively wearing his shield. That sounds light deflection to me.

How does Burning Wheel handle armor? Or should I just wait until it arrives? AARGGHH!

-impatient Alan

*************************************************************************

I just bought TROS, and it’s a great realistic system, with one major exception in IMO (easily fixed, though). Does anyone have a problem with the way that plate armor versus chain mail is represented? The penalties for a full plate suit are just too steep according to my research (and I’ve been doing a lot of research on this lately, will take time to compile all the resources though). TROS isn’t alone though, many other systems represent Plate poorly as well, even more poorly (d20 and gurps come to mind).

A typical full suit of chain mail (including mail coif) weighed approximately 50 to 60 pounds, about the same weight as a suit of full plate. For chain this includes the hauberk (which weighed anywhere from 20 to 35 pounds, possibly because some were actually two pieces, front and back), the coif – up to ten pounds, the leggings – up to ten pounds, plus all other areas (hands, etc.) and most importantly it included the significant padding/cloth armor worn underneath. This was mostly necessary to reduce impact and piercing blows, AND to prevent infection from the chain mail being embedded in your flesh when you were hit with a strong sword blow.

Full Plate also had this padding/cloth/leather underneath the metal, but needed less of it. Considering these facts and that plate was form fitted to its wearer, I can’t think of any reason a designer would choose to represent a suit of full plate as being more difficult to fight in than chain mail. If anything, since they are about the same weight and plate was evenly distributed (chain hung on the shoulders, but also fastened to the belt –leggings and hauberk – to put some weight on the waist), I would think plate would incur LESS of a penalty. Was the higher CP penalty for full plate implemented in TROS for game balance? It really does not seem realistic, the penalty should be the same as for chain. Plate just cost ridiculously more!

And please don’t say that the shoulder pauldrons were so large they were restrictive. These kinds of shoulder guards did not come into use for plate until the later stages of plate: Gothic and Maximillian. Then, yes, the –3 cp modifier would make sense, but so would an AV of 7 for the shoulder (something like that).

The only time plate was really cumbersome was during the mid-fourteenth century, a transitional period between full chain and full plate suits, when Plate (especially breast plates) were combined with full suits of chain. Then, it makes sense for a total –3 cp to apply.

Also, I think helmets incur to high a penalty. Why a –1 cp for a chain coif? Other than decreased perception (which probably should be a higher penalty for that attribute), did it really restrict combat ability that much? Perhaps the increased perception penalty, plus an increased chance that a mobile opponent could take advantage (a chance to surprise his opponent as per surprise rules in TROS by performing certain maneuvers). All in all, I would only give a –1 CP penalty to those full helmets that had those narrow eyeslits. I will admit, perhaps I am wrong on the helmet.

But in general, it seems that most of the TROS research really focused on weapons research, particularly swordplay. I looked at the list of sources in the back of TROS, which confirms my suspicion further. No significant sources on the details of armor. It really seems like this system is skewed towards unarmored (or lightly armored) combatants. The fact of the matter was that the armor knight was a greatly feared Sherman tank of the MA’s unless you were similarly armored, or you had superior numbers with weapons designed to penetrate plate or exploit its weaknesses (like polearms that hooked plated riders and pulled them off their horses).

Overall, I was significantly disappointed in the treatment of armor in the TROS book, even more so because so FEW kinds of armor are listed! What about the important “coat of plates?” I’m sure other people can list other kinds of armor as well. I would think with all the weapons listed in the book (and the existing rules for them in this book are good enough to cover all the bases, IMO), and the $35 price tag, that more armor types would have been listed. Are more listed in TFOB? Even if so, should have been in the original TROS.

Otherwise, I think the system is great, and a much needed step towards better fantasy combat systems.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

-Alan

Alan,

well, if you are dead set on historical accuracy, I don't know how you are going to feel about BW.

BW takes a very general approach to armor -- i don't trouble too too much with the myriad armor types. Mechanically there are only 5 types, and I don't even really talk about one of the five (full plate).

I also follow the opposite philisophy as ROS in regard to absorbtion -- BW armor only deflects.

It also causes "clumsy weight penalties" and breaks.

Overall, I really just tried to use a simple system that was fun and representative. I am sure that is what Jake was doing as well with the Riddle of Steel. That's an impeccably researched game, and I trust in his judgement almost more than I trust in mine!

-L

Very interesting stuff you talked about.
It would be great if Claymore, Durgil or somebody else could sent me his complete "house rules" via email.
I like the combat system of TROS, but from what i learned about Burning Wheel i prefer the Lifepaths, skills and traits and the d6 mechanics.
I'm really looking forward to playtest these add-on rules now that my copy of Burning Wheel is on its way to Germany.
My e-mail is
s.fenrich@web.de


Greetings from cold Germany.
Baron Guthwulf

Baron Guthwulf wrote: Very interesting stuff you talked about.
It would be great if Claymore, Durgil or somebody else could sent me his complete "house rules" via email.
I like the combat system of TROS, but from what i learned about Burning Wheel i prefer the Lifepaths, skills and traits and the d6 mechanics.
I'm really looking forward to playtest these add-on rules now that my copy of Burning Wheel is on its way to Germany.
My e-mail is
s.fenrich@web.de


Greetings from cold Germany.
Baron Guthwulf