Just idling through the TROS book recently and thinking about something which I think is usually off kilter in most 'more successes equals more damage'.

And that is that even if you get just one success, all your strength or what have you is applied. Hit or miss systems like D&D get away with it because they don't judge the quality of the hit...if I get dead on the AC it can still be considered a dead on ninja punch if you want, since hit or miss is so abstract.

But when the quality of the hit is judged...well, let me give an example (an extreme one, to make things clear). Imagine a dragon manages to miss a character by one success...all that incredible strength but none of it got applied because it just missed, although it was close. But what if it was that bit closer, and got that one extra success needed to hit? Okay, the opponent explodes. One success and ALL of the strength is applied? All of it? One success less and none of it's applied.

And from a story point of view, can't something that big only nick something smaller in such a killing attempt? Just the knuckles of that big fist clipping the enemy, hurting him like hell but the majority of the force misses, because it just wasn't aimed well enough to apply every ounce of force. If it were a sword, does one success mean you always get a solid strike in with most of the blade connecting after a full swing, or can it mean only hitting with the tip, or hitting before putting in enough swing to use all of ones strength?

I get the feeling most 'quantified hit' systems do this, stuff like bullets either missing or appling all their strength/power AND the users accuracy as well.

Anyway, if you got this far you can see some blarney house rule suggestion will be coming, so here it is.
Okay, successes tell you how much of your strength you can use. For example, each success might let you use 3 points of strength. So if you get three successes, you can use up to 9 points of strength (obviously if this is higher than your strength, just use your normal, full strength score. It doesn't add anything when its higher than your strength)

In fact you might want to consider strength as being the users strength and the current weapon added together (and how much you can use of that total), rather than just applying this to the users strength alone. Because the swords with a bonus to strength will continue the problem if they aren't taken into acount (very extreme example, sure I can only use three points of my strength, but I got one hit and that's enough for my strength plus ten points weapon to kill ya, ha!)

I had a look in the directory but I couldn't find a category where something like this might have been covered (or covered and easy to find).

Anyway, the main prob with it is that its a new rule that takes but doesn't really give anything, except more of a chance against high strength foes. Any other thoughts out there?

Noon wrote:


But when the quality of the hit is judged...well, let me give an example (an extreme one, to make things clear). Imagine a dragon manages to miss a character by one success...all that incredible strength but none of it got applied because it just missed, although it was close. But what if it was that bit closer, and got that one extra success needed to hit? Okay, the opponent explodes. One success and ALL of the strength is applied? All of it? One success less and none of it's applied.

And from a story point of view, can't something that big only nick something smaller in such a killing attempt? Just the knuckles of that big fist clipping the enemy, hurting him like hell but the majority of the force misses, because it just wasn't aimed well enough to apply every ounce of force. If it were a sword, does one success mean you always get a solid strike in with most of the blade connecting after a full swing, or can it mean only hitting with the tip, or hitting before putting in enough swing to use all of ones strength?

Anyway, if you got this far you can see some blarney house rule suggestion will be coming, so here it is.


In fact you might want to consider strength as being the users strength and the current weapon added together (and how much you can use of that total), rather than just applying this to the users strength alone. Because the swords with a bonus to strength will continue the problem if they aren't taken into acount (very extreme example, sure I can only use three points of my strength, but I got one hit and that's enough for my strength plus ten points weapon to kill ya, ha!)

Anyway, the main prob with it is that its a new rule that takes but doesn't really give anything, except more of a chance against high strength foes. Any other thoughts out there?

Or, just use the Soak system, assuming you don't mind a bit more rolling. Have the MOS+ST+Dam roll as a pool with a TN of 4. Compare that to the result of TO+AR rolled against a TN of 4.

The fun thing is that you can adjust these TNs to represent different sorts of combat. If it's just a fistfight, then use a 6 or 7 for sparring. If it's fists against armor use a TN of 8 for the fists. If it's swords against naked dwarves, use a TN of 8 for the dwarfs TO.

This way there's always variability, it's always based on all the data points, and you can consider the combination of armor and weapons more closely if you like. Lots more complicated, but it takes care of the problems.

Tony (Durgil) has a post with better details somewhere around here.

Mike

The damage vs armor vs toughness rules are the weakest link in the combat system. They are only weak because the range of things they were modeled on were pretty narrow and so some of the assumptions that make them work (such as the range of ST & TO scores) don't scale well.

The soak concept works exceptionally well without needing to rewrite any rules, although it does add a fairly significant level of additional die rolling (significant enough to be a negative to my mind).

An alternative is to make successes and damage state multiplicative instead of additive. Meaning instead of taking an STR+1 weapon (call it 7) and adding it to the number of successes, multiply it by the number of successes. Then subtract the opponent's TO and divide by his Armor.

Take the above weapon with 3 successes against an opponent with toughness 5 and armor 3.

Currently this would be a level 2 wound: 6+1 + 3 - 5 - 3 =2
Using the alternate it becomes: (6+1) * 3 = 21 - 5 = 16/3 = level 5.

This would thus require fiddling with the numbers to bring the range for the "normal" situation back in line, but once done the extreme situations would scale much better.

I'll leave it to the reader to decide whether the added math is quicker or longer than the added dice.

which requires more math than I would ever want to do for a recreational game.

Play it as is first, then as seneschal make any adjustments necessary for the game to be fun through cheating/narration.

By cheating, I mean telling the players that the one margin of success hit was actually a level zero tie because you mis counted the successes and the dragon nicks him, leaving a nasty gash but he's still alive and well.

and narration would be the last part obviously.

If the rules make sense use them, if not, use your common sense to make whatever changes you think will make the game more fun through narration/cheating.

Works for me but as brian says "YMMV" or whatever it was, I forget...

Ashren Va'Hale: I knew someone would say 'ITS A DRAGON' and miss the point. I wont be looking at that monster thread wherever it is as its not the point, its an extreme example. Quite frankly just a really strong man could have been used in my example, but the principle extends to 20 strength as well, and should be clearer there. As long as the focus doesn't end up in the wrong place!

As for zero level wounds, where do I see that? Search or what? I'm not sure what your talking about.

As for one success being a solid hit...are they? I thought this was a 'miss/quality of strike' not a 'hit or miss system, with extra damage for a good hit'. Whats the general perception on this?

I mean, the current system does operate in the 'one success is a solid hit' principle. And that's the entire point of my post! It has struck me that the books portray a world (in their texts) where even a strong guy can fail and only do a level one wound one someone, even a weakling. Well, technically he can't, that's my point. Can you imagine a big strong guy only just getting through the superb sword defence of a little guy, and only slashing him lightly for a level one wound (in this example, a level one...lets not try to stick in what you call a zero level wound. That changes the example). I can imagine it quite easily. But technically it can't happen.

Mike Holmes, Vallamir: Ouch, the dice rolling or math seems a bit more complicated than mine (Each success means you can use another 3 points of your strength, eg 2 successes means you could use up to 6 points of strength if you have it).

Basically the idea is like this: If someone is hit by a car, their not 'hit completely or not at all'.
Now, if they get hit dead in the middle of the front bumper and go under the car, man, they got hit. That certainly is being hit completely.
If they got hit but went over the car, man, they got hit but atleast a car didn't go over them.
If they got hit at the edge of the front bumper, near the head lights, that's even better than going under or going over.
If they got sideswiped and hit by a rear view mirror, it could still break bones but that's better than any of the above accidents. And its pretty clear they weren't hit completely.

A full strength plus successes system says that they get hit right in the middle of the front bumper and go under every time, even on one success. I think a few systems use this all or nothing mechanic, just as many use hit or miss systems. It could do with some industry change.

Noon wrote: Ashren Va'Hale: I knew someone would say 'ITS A DRAGON' and miss the point. I wont be looking at that monster thread wherever it is as its not the point, its an extreme example. Quite frankly just a really strong man could have been used in my example, but the principle extends to 20 strength as well, and should be clearer there. As long as the focus doesn't end up in the wrong place!

As for zero level wounds, where do I see that? Search or what? I'm not sure what your talking about.

As for one success being a solid hit...are they? I thought this was a 'miss/quality of strike' not a 'hit or miss system, with extra damage for a good hit'. Whats the general perception on this?

I mean, the current system does operate in the 'one success is a solid hit' principle. And that's the entire point of my post! It has struck me that the books portray a world (in their texts) where even a strong guy can fail and only do a level one wound one someone, even a weakling. Well, technically he can't, that's my point. Can you imagine a big strong guy only just getting through the superb sword defence of a little guy, and only slashing him lightly for a level one wound (in this example, a level one...lets not try to stick in what you call a zero level wound. That changes the example). I can imagine it quite easily. But technically it can't happen.

Basically the idea is like this: If someone is hit by a car, their not 'hit completely or not at all'.
Now, if they get hit dead in the middle of the front bumper and go under the car, man, they got hit. That certainly is being hit completely.
If they got hit but went over the car, man, they got hit but atleast a car didn't go over them.
If they got hit at the edge of the front bumper, near the head lights, that's even better than going under or going over.
If they got sideswiped and hit by a rear view mirror, it could still break bones but that's better than any of the above accidents. And its pretty clear they weren't hit completely.

Let's ask this another way: what are the chances that a person gets hit by a <dragon><cannonball><car> and doesn't suffer major damage? I think the math involved to describe this tiny chance of getting hit without taking major damage isn't worth the trouble - just narrate zero dice different, or consider this the result of spent luck points, etc.

IMO, the weakness of the game is that humans can be made of platemail e.g. tough 10, or even 11 from certain homelands. That's where the silly end is, IMO. But I don't worry about it, just limit the max tough on characters.

-Jeff

I'm a moderately-sized guy. My target is a moderately-sized guy.

I take an overhand vertical swing at him with a sledgehammer. I'm an inch to his right. Whoosh.

If that same swing is an inch to his left, I shatter the ball-and-socket joint of his shoulder. His arm is probably dislocated, at least, and is entirely useless. The pain will be excruciating enough that I can take ten seconds to do the next thing to him that I plan on doing.

When the damage values (an attacker with high STR, a weapon with a big damage bonus, a defender with pitiful TO) get really big, the damage on the tiniest hit gets really big. Grazing someone on the forehead with a claymore does more damage than grazing someone on the forehead with a putty knife. That's just the way physics works.

Okay, my TO for my character started at 7. It would take quit alot of SA points being spent to make it into an 11. And I hope you guys don't go out of the rules on character creation... there are limits to the maximum stat points at the start of a character's adventuring life you know... as well as maximums for his race, etc. etc etc.(At least there was in the character generator)

-Ingenious
Shit, having TO at 11 and 6 for platemail still sometimes wouldnt block someone with even a putty knife and all of their SA's going.
One time I rolled 14 dice, and 10 were sucesses. That was WITHOUT any SA's firing... so the possibility of an even bigger hit is possible.
However, my character has at one time blocked a 19 damage rating attack, with 20 defense points. However we discovered that using a shield to absorb damage like that was not in the rules. But that's in retrospect...

having TO at 11 and 6 for platemail still sometimes wouldnt block someone with even a putty knife and all of their SA's going.

Regarding the "no glancing blow from dragons is possible" (as minimum damage is str + weapon + hit quality which has a minimum value of dead).

I think this comes down to the hit quality adding to the successes when it should multiply. However the maths behind that would slow the game down somewhat. But it should be something like damage = (weapon + strength) x (hit success / 4) or something (so a 4 success hit = 100% damage, 2 successes = 50% and so forth).

Okay, let me clarify and re-iterate some common sense logic here.
Weapon strength(size, shape, composition, how it is used etc) combines with strength(you can and probably should opt to allow the use of strength lower than the PC's current str score, to show for 'holding back' where applicable in a game), but normally when you're aiming to kill someone with a sword.. you're using full strength. Hit successes to me tells me how well I hit someone. The number of successes should not dictate percentiles of damage.
If I were to hit someone and get 5 sucesses... I would have hit him extraordinarily well. I would not have just 'hit' him.

I hope you see my point here.
Now, as to the dragons. They're magical, and their strength has to do with their size and possibly having some magically enhanced strength. So of course if the thing took a swing at you with its tail and 'barely' hit you, you'd go flying or be broken in half. A glancing blow in that situation would still hit you like a ton of bricks. Think momentum, force, velocity/speed and then impact. That makes for a pretty clear interpretation of that IMO.

Ashren Va'Hale wrote: *snip*

DUDE: I knew someone would miss the point and realize that my comment was pointing out that it was an unuseful extreme example and really a bad way of getting your point across.

in fact it was counter productive. And it served instead to validify my point that if you get knicked by something huge, be it a giant, a man, or a freaking dragon, and you are a pansy little wuss (or mere mortal as case may be) then you should be a case lesson for your companions on the exact appearance of the human spleen.

Noon wrote:
As for zero level wounds, where do I see that? Search or what? I'm not sure what your talking about.

Its a nifty book called, "The riddle of steel." Of course, I don't know if its in the quick start or not... so if you haven't read the core book then I cant really rough you up too much on that...

*snip myself*

There are varying degrees of "quality of strike" and I consider "solid hit" to be the base from which you begin. Basically, if you do damage, End Of story, then its a "solid hit". My opinion though.

*snip myself*

Thats the whole point of the level 0, or tied margin of success thing I mentioned earlier. If the big bad ass gets a tie with wimpo-the-swordsman then you can rule that he gets in there and knicks the bugger. The defense kept him from getting creamed across the room but didn't keep him unscathed.

And that was intellectually dishonest when you say, "(in this example, a level one...lets not try to stick in what you call a zero level wound. That changes the example)."

Thats like saying, "since your argument can counter mine, please don't use it as I am going to simply ignore it." So pardon me for ignoring that bit of advice you gave.

beyond that, I recommend that you remember that armor was worn for a reason.

Basically the idea is like this: If someone is hit by a car, their not 'hit completely or not at all'.
Now, if they get hit dead in the middle of the front bumper and go under the car, man, they got hit. That certainly is being hit completely.
If they got hit but went over the car, man, they got hit but atleast a car didn't go over them.
If they got hit at the edge of the front bumper, near the head lights, that's even better than going under or going over.
If they got sideswiped and hit by a rear view mirror, it could still break bones but that's better than any of the above accidents. And its pretty clear they weren't hit completely.

of course, if the car is going 80 MPH, then even a knick from the bumper is gonna smear Sr. Dumb-as-rocks-pedestrian-who-walked-in-front-of-a-speeding-car all over the road. ANd in sword play, if the guy is swinging his sword with intent the analogy holds. If the swords man is pulling his punch then he isnt using full strength. Thats what gets me with your whole point, why should the strength ever not be fully applied assuming I connect? I was sparring with a freaking behemoth the other week and he only knicked me but he was swinging full force and this was sufficient to break my finger and jack up my hand. even if it was only a margin of one his strength was enough for a can of whoop to be unleashed.

your example is also poor since it ignores the fact that the variations you describe are accounted for with the hit locations and damage tables. Basically, in your example the differences are getting hit all over, or in the leg, or in teh arm with the mirror. You will notice that a level 4 wound varies in terms of ingame effect depending on the location.

Anyways, I just don't see a problem where you do, and after two years of playing its never been a problem for my players either, perhaps I just see the scale of variations differently than you do.

Deacon Blues wrote: I'm a moderately-sized guy. My target is a moderately-sized guy.

I take an overhand vertical swing at him with a sledgehammer. I'm an inch to his right. Whoosh.

If that same swing is an inch to his left, I shatter the ball-and-socket joint of his shoulder. His arm is probably dislocated, at least, and is entirely useless. The pain will be excruciating enough that I can take ten seconds to do the next thing to him that I plan on doing.

When the damage values (an attacker with high STR, a weapon with a big damage bonus, a defender with pitiful TO) get really big, the damage on the tiniest hit gets really big. Grazing someone on the forehead with a claymore does more damage than grazing someone on the forehead with a putty knife. That's just the way physics works.

Jaif wrote:

having TO at 11 and 6 for platemail still sometimes wouldnt block someone with even a putty knife and all of their SA's going.

Sometimes? Yup, you're right, but how much is sometimes? A PC with very good armor is very, very tough. Since most encounters (at least in my campaign) don't involve NPCs with SAs, there isn't much that can stand up to a PC with heavy armor*snip*
-Jeff

spacedragon wrote: Regarding the "no glancing blow from dragons is possible" (as minimum damage is str + weapon + hit quality which has a minimum value of dead).

I think this comes down to the hit quality adding to the successes when it should multiply. However the maths behind that would slow the game down somewhat. But it should be something like damage = (weapon + strength) x (hit success / 4) or something (so a 4 success hit = 100% damage, 2 successes = 50% and so forth).

more abstract but more simple at the same time... yeah... that made sense.

Well so long as you understand the definition of abstract, Ash.. it does make sense. abstract:

adjective
1. considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept. 2. not applied or practical; theoretical. c synonyms at theoretical.
While the next definiton states: 3. difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract philosophical problems.
So, you just have to understand which definition is being used and in what context... same with any other word.

Now, as to these abstract and simple rules.. I would like to see them.

However, I do take note that the use of a dragon as an example of instant death regarldess of hit quality is not a good one. What is exactly the same however, is a lance. Lances use the strength of the horse that is charging.. combine that with the weapon and hit quality and a one success hit means death or near-death.
If you play your game so that running into a dragon isn't a common occurance, I'm reasonably certain that this is a non-issue. If 5 people are not strong enough to take on a dragon by themselves due to strength and one success killings... then have a whole town participate in the slaying of the thing. In other words, get some dragon-fodder in there.
This however, is only skirting the issue. But like what was said before, IT'S A FREAKIN DRAGON!!!!! It isn't a D&D dragon that someone can go toe-to-toe with for 30 minutes of real-time. It's big, it's nasty, it can bite you in half at a moment's notice... and it can send you flying like someone being launched from a cannon. It's supposed to be that brutal.

-Ingenious
Random fact: Jake currently resides in Murfreesboro, TN.... or so it says under his name in here. It also happens to be the home-town of General Douglas MacArthur's wife.

...I have too much time on my hands.

This is really turning into more of an argument than any kind of real discussion, so...

With each game, the designers and players must determine their abstraction level. All games require a level of abstraction, unless they are being played out by humans with actual consequences, at which point it becomes real life. See... so the only way you will ever have completely accurate wounds is to actually get hit with a weapon. Otherwise, you're going to deal with wounds in some other, symbolic and inaccurate, manner.

I posit that TROS's wound system is fair within the tactics as presented. It's an adequate abstraction, and to attempt anything more accurate would only beleaguer the game... and it would STILL only be somewhat accurate.

Ingenious wrote: Well so long as you understand the definition of abstract, Ash.. it does make sense. abstract:

adjective
1. considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept. 2. not applied or practical; theoretical. c synonyms at theoretical.
While the next definiton states: 3. difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract philosophical problems.
So, you just have to understand which definition is being used and in what context... same with any other word.

Noon wrote:

Deacon Blues wrote: "my sledgehammer example"

Two things:
1. He parries, but fails to do so enough. Your sledge hammers handle runs down the edge of his sword, bleeding off kinetic energy through it. When it hits the shoulder, sliding down it because its been pushed off course slightly (only slightly) by the parry...so it doesn't get to deliver all of it's kinetic energy to his body. Will this apply all your strength to him, or less?

2. Your doing an overhand vertical swing at him...what gave you this opportunity? Doing a massive swing looks great in the movies, but if someone parries your reduced to doing a follow up short chop or such (or drawing fully back and getting gutted). Short chops can't use the full strength of someone like the move you described can. Well, I hypothesize that, anyway.

The argument seems to be getting too complicated and the examples are too extreme. To pare it down to a simpler example, it is mathematically impossible for a str 6 (fairly strong) person to successfully hit a toughness 4 (average) person with a str+2 weapon and deliver less than a level 5 wound (gruesomely messy). However, in real life this would be quite possible for any number of reasons. In addition to reducing realism, this makes any such attack an all or nothing proposition since a level 5 wound is the maximum effect. There are no longer any degrees of success.

I agree that this is a flaw in the system that could somehow be improved upon, but I think that the solutions suggested detract more from the game in complexity than they add in realism to make them worthwhile for me.

In Kenjib's post his example seems to assume that you would want to hit your opponent with less than full strength- if you're trying to kill some one it makes sense that your blows are being delivered with full strength-and it's really hard to hit someone with a sword or mace or and other real weapon with the intent to kill them and not do so. I know this was discussed on this forum before.... here is a quote from Jake dealing with this

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

Jake

What this discussion comes down to, what all discussions of this nature come down to, is very simply where we individually draw the line between reality and playability. The rules as they stand are imminently playable, but sacrifice a bit of reality. If the level of reality isn't high enough, every player should feel free to cuss and discuss until they find a house-rule that brings the level of reality up enough, but doesn't cross the line from the playability side. As we all draw that line at different places, your "one extra roll" may be my "way too many extra rolls".

As for me, I have a few houserules which aren't so much for the sake of reality as the "whoa, cool" factor, and just my personal preferences. I like the level of reality that TRoS defaults to, so I feel no need to make additional rules to add to that. My Over-damage rule doesn't really add much to the reality of the game, but it definitely adds, IMO, to the "whoa cool" factor, as it makes it possible (tho' difficult) to cut a man entirely in half.

Just keep in mind when having these discussions that unless there is a rule universally liked by everyone, including Jake and/or Brian, that everything discussed here is a house rule, and will not enter the game proper. Remember also that any rules which may enter the books that you don't like you don't have to use. (I hear tell Ron Edwards still uses the ST+3 damage for rapiers..) So while it is constructive to point out the weaknesses in a proposed idea so that the person proposing it can better consider how to do it, there is absolutely no reason to attack something simply because you dislike it or feel it unnecessary. If the discussion irritates you, don't participate, or read.

Ingenious wrote: Well so long as you understand the definition of abstract, Ash.. it does make sense. abstract:

adjective
1. considered apart from concrete existence: an abstract concept. 2. not applied or practical; theoretical. c synonyms at theoretical.
While the next definiton states: 3. difficult to understand; abstruse: abstract philosophical problems.
So, you just have to understand which definition is being used and in what context... same with any other word.

Now, as to these abstract and simple rules.. I would like to see them.

However, I do take note that the use of a dragon as an example of instant death regarldess of hit quality is not a good one. What is exactly the same however, is a lance. Lances use the strength of the horse that is charging.. combine that with the weapon and hit quality and a one success hit means death or near-death.

If you play your game so that running into a dragon isn't a common occurance, I'm reasonably certain that this is a non-issue. If 5 people are not strong enough to take on a dragon by themselves due to strength and one success killings... then have a whole town participate in the slaying of the thing. In other words, get some dragon-fodder in there.
This however, is only skirting the issue. But like what was said before, IT'S A FREAKIN DRAGON!!!!! It isn't a D&D dragon that someone can go toe-to-toe with for 30 minutes of real-time. It's big, it's nasty, it can bite you in half at a moment's notice... and it can send you flying like someone being launched from a cannon. It's supposed to be that brutal.

*snip*

Deacon Blues wrote:

Noon wrote:

Deacon Blues wrote: "my sledgehammer example"

Two things:
1. He parries, but fails to do so enough. Your sledge hammers handle runs down the edge of his sword, bleeding off kinetic energy through it. When it hits the shoulder, sliding down it because its been pushed off course slightly (only slightly) by the parry...so it doesn't get to deliver all of it's kinetic energy to his body. Will this apply all your strength to him, or less?

Okay, let's say, for the sake of argument, he throws up a weak parry and my attack smashes through it. The way that's represented, in the game, is that I lose some of the net successes on my attack. So I still do a significant amount of damage to him, but not quite as much. To answer your question: yes, I would apply less damage to him. In conclusion, TRoS' damage system seems true to life in that regard.

In real life, my untrained, instinctual response to a huge overhead swing from a sledgehammer would be to back way the f. up, not to try and parry it. If I had my head about me, I might try to sidestep and close distance with him, taking advantage of his over-commitment to attack him once the blow missed.

In TRoS, both of those options are represented by the Full Evasion dodge and the Duck and Weave dodge. In conclusion, TRoS' combat system seems true to life in that regard.

(In retrospect, I realize that it wasn't clear, in my original post, that I was defending TRoS's method of representing damage from a successful hit. But I am, and I used that example to illustrate it, and, unless I'm missing something, you're just adding more strength to my point)

2. Your doing an overhand vertical swing at him...what gave you this opportunity? Doing a massive swing looks great in the movies, but if someone parries your reduced to doing a follow up short chop or such (or drawing fully back and getting gutted). Short chops can't use the full strength of someone like the move you described can. Well, I hypothesize that, anyway.

I never said it was the most tactically sound attack. The debate was whether damage from Significant Attacks (a sledgehammer, a huge sword, a gigantic dragon's claw) was accurately represented by TRoS. I don't see how your point #2 applies to that.

Kenjib: That's exaclty what I mean! Even though you don't like the complexity of my suggestion, at least you get the principle I was trying to reach with it. Do you have any suggestions of your own?

Anthony I: Kenjib isn't talking about someone who wants to use less strength on a hit. He's talking about someone who wants to use their full strength, but for whatever combat reasons, he doesn't get too. Although I appreciate the point of that quote from Jake, just because someone is 'really going' for someone else, doesn't mean they get what they want. I may want to start a swing from behind my head and cleave my foe in half, but if most of the force is bled off against a shield and I only get one success, I'm more likely to just crack a rib, surely? However, as in Kenjib's example, no, I don't just manage to crack a rib, I basically slam a level five attack into him. It's what the attacker wants (to use full strength), but is it REALLY what he deserves to do on that poor a hit?.

Wolfen: I think it's me. I'm not sure I'm getting my point across and people are instead recieving a really wierd idea that they think I'm pushing. My mentioning dragons didn't help either (eek, it was just supposed to represent an extreme that helps clarify things!). Things might be better if the concept I'm trying to get across was clear. But I'm out of ideas...the only two other posters who got it, got it right away (it sounded like they'd already thought about it before this thread). Anyone else I don't seem to be able to describe it to adequately. ARGH!

Okay I see your point with that, however... I still dislike the whole thing. Strength is added to weapon damage which is added to # of successes. Everyone always swings with full strength, unless feinting or stopping short or aiming to disable rather than kill. This is an optional rule of selecting how much force was behind your attack.

I have a strength of 7(almost double 'average'), hit someone with a flail to the chest with 1 success.
So that's 7+2+1. or 10.
Target has a toughness of 4, and has a breastplate of AV 6. i.e. a total of 10.
I barely scratched him. This shows what margin of success does in terms of hit quality.
Take a horse and a lance for example.
I hit someone with a lance riding on my destrier quality horse with one success.(str 14)
14+2+1. Or 17.
I hit same person in the chest and we end up with a level 7 wound there.
That still doesn't seem like a problem to me, being that there is a tremendous amount of kinetic energy involved.(Equal to one half the mass of the body times the square of its speed.)
So your only options in these types of situations, IMO... is either to duck n weave or run like hell.
Tired of 1 success level 7 wounds? Pick your fights better, or just fight smarter.
To kenjib: mathematically impossible for a character with a strength of 6 to successfully hit 'average Joe' who has a toughness of 4 with a strength +2 weapon and deliver less than a level 5 wound? Excuse me?
6+2+1 equals 9-4(TO) which in fact is a level 5 wound... however, Average Joe is not wearing armor. If Average Joe was wearing only leather armor at the location hit, we'd be talking about a level 3 wound... far less lethal, but sets up the character to swiftly die soon there-after.
If you're tired of that, maybe you can start going after someone in plate with that character... and see what happens.
Now, as to the strength compared to quality of the hit and such.
Why not just make it so that with each success over the margin, means 1 or 2 points of strength can be applied.
For example... my character has a strength of 7, but I only hit someone for 5 successes. I should then be limited to 5 strength, how this plays out in combat I do not know as I have not the time to playtest it.
This takes into account some of the strength was absorbed due to a parry(hence a hypothetical 5 successes instead of 7 or 8).

I guess that is all I can think of at the moment.
-Ingenious

Ingenious wrote: *snip*
Now, as to the strength compared to quality of the hit and such.
Why not just make it so that with each success over the margin, means 1 or 2 points of strength can be applied.
For example... my character has a strength of 7, but I only hit someone for 5 successes. I should then be limited to 5 strength, how this plays out in combat I do not know as I have not the time to playtest it.
This takes into account some of the strength was absorbed due to a parry(hence a hypothetical 5 successes instead of 7 or 8).

I guess that is all I can think of at the moment.
-Ingenious

And I did it all by myself too, without attempting what-so-ever to read your version.
After-all I am too lazy for that.

-Ingenious

Noon: Ohhhhh. I must have missed that the first time. My apologies for any confusion.

So the question is: how can TRoS simulate attacks at less than full force? I actually started thinking about that question on my own terms, after posting my response. My answer is two-fold:

(1) An attack at less than full force is represented by fewer CP dice being thrown in. Yes, you apply your full strength to a 1 CP attack, but your chances of doing critical wounds are significantly smaller. And, if you're using a weapon that does a lot of minimum damage (like a greatsword), then ...

(2) It's not easy to "jab" with a greatsword. A greatsword needs a lot of momentum to be used properly; otherwise, it's not going to do any damage. A "graze" with a greatsword still means that you got enough momentum going to heft a six-foot piece of steel from your shoulder / hip to contact a moving opponent. That's a lot of acceleration; add that to the raw mass of a greatsword, and it's going to be a sizable cut regardless of how light the contact.

In other words, the "Strength" attribute does not represent your full exertion of strength - adding all 5 points of your Str 5 to each attack doesn't mean that you're exerting 100% of your Strength. Your exertion is simulated by the expenditure of CP (do I slash with 4 dice or 9?) and by the base damage of the weapon, which has a minimum floor based on size and sharpness.

So I think TRoS, as written, already answers your concern.

I side with the last remark. If you want to use your mod in your campaign, do it, play it to your hearts content. Even let us know how it went. But it really is a difference in perspective that I at least have not had a problem with and thus see no reason to modify the game mechanics at all.

Deacon Blues wrote: Noon: Ohhhhh. I must have missed that the first time. My apologies for any confusion.

So the question is: how can TRoS simulate attacks at less than full force? I actually started thinking about that question on my own terms, after posting my response. My answer is two-fold:

(1) An attack at less than full force is represented by fewer CP dice being thrown in. Yes, you apply your full strength to a 1 CP attack, but your chances of doing critical wounds are significantly smaller. And, if you're using a weapon that does a lot of minimum damage (like a greatsword), then ...

(2) It's not easy to "jab" with a greatsword. A greatsword needs a lot of momentum to be used properly; otherwise, it's not going to do any damage. A "graze" with a greatsword still means that you got enough momentum going to heft a six-foot piece of steel from your shoulder / hip to contact a moving opponent. That's a lot of acceleration; add that to the raw mass of a greatsword, and it's going to be a sizable cut regardless of how light the contact.

I'd like to point out that in my suggestion even one success means using 3 strength (and I'm begining to think four might be better). That plus the one success plus the weapons damage itself IS a nasty hit when it comes to a great sword. Perhaps not to all people, but certainly to unarmoured me in real life.

I'd also wonder if the menace in such a weapon that yes, if swung there is so much momentum it's nasty, but also, even if you slow it down, its enough like a club to just crack you that way too. So its not so much the jabbing ability, but the way such a large piece of steel can club rather than cut a foe.

In other words, the "Strength" attribute does not represent your full exertion of strength - adding all 5 points of your Str 5 to each attack doesn't mean that you're exerting 100% of your Strength. Your exertion is simulated by the expenditure of CP (do I slash with 4 dice or 9?) and by the base damage of the weapon, which has a minimum floor based on size and sharpness.

So I think TRoS, as written, already answers your concern.

Well, if the big issue here is the gradient between no strength and every ounce of it, why don't we stop skirting the issue and come up with something we can mostly agree on? Even though I think this has already occured, with just one or two people.

Like most of us have come up with, each success means X strength gets applied. But how much strength per success? 1-2? 2-3?
We could do it in percentages I guess, even though I personally would not be using the whole variable strength...unless it is done by the player attacking, say for a tournament where the objective is hitting your opponent.. not killing him.

In the book, under skill tests I think and margin of success and such.. it says that five successes is 'flawlessly done' Yea, Table 1.2 on page 6.
Use this and apply damage accordingly. One success means that 1/5th of the strength is applied, or 20%. Two successes over the margin means 40%.. all the way up to 5 successes.. or full damage. Any additional successes can be used as additional damage.(See over-damage idea of Wolfen's if that makes a level 6+ wound) This takes into account the margin of success being absorbed by defensive manouvers.
But essentially, it just changes the equation of how damage is dealt.

Strength used=%of successes+#of successes+weapon damage.
Minus #of defensive successes and toughness and armor.
Playtest this to see if it works, if not.. tweak it.

-Ingenious
Oh, don't forget to round-down on the strength that comes out of the percentile.