axe-elf

I don´t trust the professional people. They sent BRP 4th ed to the print anyway As for your exaggeration on me wanting shields and swords to be superior, I think it is a bit childish. I just want them to be useful, like they would be in reality.

Well, the DAR-rule say: The fractions can also be used for parries. With sword skill rating 75% you could for example parry at 35%, and attack at 40%. Yes it is optional, and the rules works fine without them I think. If you are not using DAR, you have to attack i an other round if you parry with your main weapon. This is because your weapon is occupied parrying, end not attacking. Criticism is fine. Gives me the chance to look at things I have not considered, and maybe even improve the rules It is nice if you could be a bit positive also, about new ideas. Having higher DEX rank could also be considered winning the initiative. Then it all depends on what opponent you have. Anyway, I tested BRP combat some days ago as a player, and i clearly prefer some randomization of combat order. It makes battle less predictable, and more exciting. We use d20, not d10, to randomize more. Yea, you would always dodge if you have a high score in dodge, as the first line of defense. For me that is not a problem. If you want parry to be the first line of defense, you could say that dodge count towards your attack, while parry not. Something has to be the first line of defense anyway.

In the situation where the samurai meet a person with a shield, he would be better off dodging , and concentrating on a single, precise strike. He would then get the most out of his superior Weapon. He could of course choose to divide his attack, making two less precise strikes, at a lower chance to hit, but with a chance of making greater damage (as we discussed before). This is particularly useful if his adversary win the initiative, but miss. Also, he could divide his attack in one parry and one attack; parry an incoming blow, and then make an attack (riposte). The multiple attack is probably most useful for the samurai fighting other samurai and opponents without shields. A swashbuckler of skill 75% could parry once at 50%, and attack once at 25%, for example. If he has the initiative, he would probably be best off making three attacks at 25%. If he not has it, he would probably be best off dodging the first blow, parry the next with his Main Gauche (or use it first, if its better than dodge), and parry any further attack with fractions of his attack. This is all in the rules I have described, and is easy to understand, if you read them carefully.

I don´t have that idea. The samurai can even do a nice riposte, or kaeshi, by using the DAR-rules. Swashbucklers are even more flexible, with rapiers.

As frogspawner say, mr. Samurai would dodge, not parry. It is only if mr.Viking starts being fancy using the DAR of his sword, mr.Samurai will get problems. Attacking twice, mr.Vikinging will most likely give more damage each round. I think a good addition to the DAR rules is that you cannot combine DAR multiple attacks with the extra off-hand parry, in the same round. It is an "all-out-attack" anyway. This way, mr. Viking will not outclass mr.Samurai when doing multiple attacks.

I think that is only the case for katanas and bastard swords, and that is because these weapons are not balanced towards 1H weapons anyway. A 2H katana do same damage as an axe in average (6,5). Other 2H weapons do 9 or more damage in average, compared to 1H weapons with 6,5 or less. Remember, you have only an edge with the shield if you get attacked more than once in the round: Imagine mr. Viking with sword and shield meet mr. Samurai on the battlefield. They both have sword skill of 75% and dodge of 50%, mr. Viking has shield skill of 50%. In a battle they have the same chance to hit, since mr. Viking can only use one defensive action against any one attack. But mr. Samurai do more damage with his 2H katana. Maybe the weakness of katanas and bastard swords can be compensated for by giving them DAR of 50, or 50 and 60 respectively.

As many say here, there can be a number of reasons. Anyway, the katana is a fast and powerful 2H weapon. Like other 2H weapons, it is a trade-off.

Well, I always thought of this as a trade-off. Either you fight more defensively, with a shield, or you fight more offensively with a 2H weapon. All the 2H weapons do more damage than their 1H cousins. It might be the 2H weapons do too little damage relative to 1H now, with the new shield rules. I´m not sure.

Shields are powerful, as anyone who have tried one will know I think your example that shields were used until 1600, actually proves you wrong. Shields were standard equipment until the development of gunpowder. And that is because they are powerful in hand to hand combat. In game terms I don´t think they are to powerful either. I´we played a lot of WFRP, whit quite similar rules, whithout problems. Anyway, I will playtest these rules soon. That is the true test. I would, if I felt lucky. Remember you get a chance to do double amount damage in the same round. And even if you miss, you have a chance to normal damage. This also can also be used tactically, depleting opponents for defensive actions. Mathematically you trade a 70% chance for doing a normal hit, for a chance of (1-(1-0.35)^2)*100% = 58% chance of doing normal or double damage. I´d call that a good deal.

I´ve made this alternative combat system for BRP, mostly based on WFRP 2nd ed. It may look more complex, but I think it is actually less complex than genuine BRP, in real play. It fixes the shield-issue, makes rules for two weapon use more streamlined, and also makes swords the fast weapons they are in reality, if you choose to add the DAR-rules. Parries and dodges In a round you can parry once and dodge once. Only one defensive action can be done against any one attack. If you parry, you loose your attack that round, and if you have already attacked you cannot parry. Shields and weapons in off-hand give you an extra free parry which does not count towards your attack - but this parry has to be done with the off-hand. Shields and off-hand weapons Shields and off-hand weapons give an extra parry each round, but no extra attack. You may attack with the shield or off-hand weapon though, after or before parry with weapon in your primary hand. Parrying with off-hand weapons except shields is difficult. Attacking with shields and off-hand weapons is difficult, except for bucklers and parrying daggers. Double action rating (optional) Most weapons give the ability to divide skill rating in two (or more) attacks when skill rating is at least 100% (BRP p.198). These weapons are therefore are said to have Double Action Rating (DAR) of 100. Some weapons are faster, such as swords (except great swords) and have DAR of 70. More attacks in fractions of at least 35% can therefore be done with swords. Rapiers are even faster and have DAR of 50. The fractions can also be used for parries. With sword skill rating 75% you could for example parry at 35%, and attack at 40%. For the dodge skill, humanoids and most other creatures have DAR of 60. (Good discussion about axes and swords:Axe vs Sword - NetSword Discussion Forums Yes, swords may do less damage, but they are faster.) So what do you think?

Agree. Limbs are not pieces of wood that are chopped off after a certain number of blows. I will use hit locations for armour, but not for HP. Major wound table can be used to hurt and chop off limbs (just roll until a suitable result for the hit location appears).

I think it is quite possible to create a system that is reasonably realistic but also playable. It all depends on game design. The combat system I like best is that of WFRP 2nd ed. Its fast, quite realistic, with parry, dodge and feinting (and good shield rules!) and very playable. WFRP is in fact a "spiritual descendant" of RQ. I´ve read through rules for combat in RQII and RQ mongoose, and they are much too clumsy for my taste. Too much calculating kills the flow. BRP designers were right in simplifying, even if they did not succeed making a good combat system.

Bullet points. I have a few episodes, most of them connected by storyline. They are triggered during play by being at certain places, meeting certain people, and so on. The rest is filled in by the players during play. I think this makes the most entertaining adventures, since the players have very big impact on the story, and I do not really know what is going to happen. To do this, I need quite a good grip on the city/environment the characters are in, to be able to improvise. It´s therefore best if I have created the environment myself. I don´t like railroad-games.

Hmmm.. I just wonder why make it so complicated. The players have no interest in choosing anything else than their best defencive skill for the whole round (except maybe for dramatic purposes), because this will always give the largest amount of defencive actions.

I hear what you say. It´s just that I have spent money on this baby and want to fix it. And also, my group want a generic system with possibilities for more genres, since we all like to do some GMing, moving characters around in different settings. Anyway, RQ3 , that is 6th edition is it, the new one?

Hmpf...then the game designers should have tried some real fencing. Sticking to the plan always, is deadly. I´ve done bushido for a period, and anyone designing an rpg combat system should have tried something like that And even so, you could plan to parry, dodge, parry for example.

Brings me to another question: Is there any good explanation why it is not possible to dodge and parry in the same round (except when you go all defencive)? It seems to me unrealistic and contraintuitive. And there is no real advantage to be able to both parry and dodge in the same round.

Ok, thanks!

Question: Is shield skill and the melee weapon skill treated separately when it comes to the cumulative -30% for multiple parries? So that you could first parry with the sword, and then parry with the shield in the same round, without -30% to the shield skill?

So MI has equipment also. Interesting. I was planning to manage without it and make my own world. Anyway, I was going to use broad sword for the viking sword. Then it does +1 more damage than the battle axe, and is worth extra investment. It is absolutely not a bastard sword; no space for two hands. Viking sword - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And axe is never useless against armored foe, I don´t understand where you get that from. There are damage bonuses and there are special hits, and If you need to roll max with +2 to hurt anyone, he is heavily protected anyway.

I do actually think on a viking sword, not a D&D Conan sword, when I imagine the longsword. This was a one handed weapon purchased by those wealthy enough to replace it with the 1H battle axe. As the BRP rules are now, battle axe is even mightier than the broad sword. Seems like the game designers loved axes and hated shields

We´ll see what my players will say. Players may continue to do listed special damage. But if they want that special attack, I´ll make it a little bit more difficult. If I forget the -5%, I´ll come crawling back to this forum and ask you for forgiveness

Hehe.. I don´t think adding non decimals is a problem. I think it´s fun having shields loose AP/HP during combat (because of crushing or special attack), also loosing some of their effectiveness. It adds to the visualization of combat. Also I don´t see how a swashbuckler is better of with the hoplite shield. True, it requires more skill to parry with the main gauche (something I think is realistic), but it is also a much better offensive weapon. Remember, shield attack skill rating is halved (halved, not difficult, p.206) and shield AP is not added to skill when attacking. With my rules a swashbuckler could entangle an opponents weapon, and then attack with the main gauche next round (or same round, if he is good). The shield parrying rule you describe seems OK, also. True, but I would just make the task difficult or impossible, if players start chopping wood with swords. With my rule a longsword and a battle axe actually gives the same damage. I like the pre-declare. Then players would say something like "I try to impale his face with my broadsword (-5% for impaling, halved for difficult aimed strike)", rather than "I whack at my opponent". More graphical violence! They would say: "I try to entangle my opponents sword with my rapier guard, so I can stab him with my parrying dagger next round." ... and so on.

CoC is a nice game, but it hasn´t much shield wielding I have read through the BRP rules now, and my initial indignation on game designer sloppy work has faded a bit. It is a good generic game, when investing some work in it. I have decided on three small fixes on the game combat mechanic that makes a big difference for me 1. Add shield AP to skill rating when shield is used to parry. 2. Axe (battle and wood) do damage of d8+db 3. Weapons may do other special damage than the one listed if plausible, with a -5% to hit (declare before roll). That sums it up... I hope. Now it only has to be tested in real play.