axe-elf

As for the rest, this debate has gone past the point of its utility. Axe-elf wants swords and shield to be superior to anything in his game. It is his game, so what about letting him play his rules and see how they fare? I suggest only to cool down the enthusiasm: I doubt he has just invented "the ultimate form of BRP combat". Professional people have tried this before him, and still there is no silver bullet.

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.

Contrarily to what you believe, you did not explain it clearly. Nowhere in your rules is it said that you can split your attack chance and then replace each single attack roll with a parry. You just wrote "You cannot parry if you attack", and this is quite different. Especially because the DAR rule is labeled as OPTIONAL, so the above example is not a proof of the solidity of your houserules, as it is 100% based on an optional rule. Please consider that writing rules that survive the test of play takes some experience. It is not a criticism, it is a recommendation so that you can improve your work.

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.

Also, it sounds like you are basing your reasoning about "Winning initiative". There is no per-round rolling of initiative in BRP, just an OPTIONAL rule of adding 1d10 to DEX at the start of combat, and not at every combat round. Again, your combat model appears to only work in conjunction with other alterations of the rules you have not explained.

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.

Secondly, I have read your description. You are free to try it out in play, but I already know that such a combat model cannot work in BRP. Lowering your parry chance to 50% or 25% in order to attack with the remaining percentile of your 75% skill is folly in a D100 game, where each blow can easily sever a limb. No character can survive long in this game if he does not keep his defense chance at 70%+ level. This means that with your houserules as written, all players will ALWAYS dodge if they have a decent Dodge score. Those who do not will be rolling a character per session. Trust me. This isn't WHFRP.

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.

You may not have that idea, but your proposed rules state that Mr. Samurai with 75% Kenjutsu cannot parry if he attacks because he is using a 2H weapon, so he must dodge to remain alive, as Frogspawner pointed out. And that the swashbuckler cannot parry with the rapier but only with the Main Gauche, but always at half skill - again he will dodge if he is not a moron.

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.

Where on earth do you guys get the idea that samurai dodge and don't parry? Kenjutsu is full of parrying, and it is seen frequently in Japanese art all the way back to the Sengoku (if not earlier). Parrying is a fundamental part of any close quarters fighting style which uses weapons. This is another of those weird fallacies such as swashbucklers dodge and don't parry. A strange artefact of watching old movies and the mind remembering the flashy leaps down staircases or over furniture, yet blanking out the twenty parries between each acrobatic stunt.

Go and look at an Errol Flynn movie or better yet the 1973 version of the Three Musketeers which has probably the most authentically portrayed fighting sequences of that particular period. After that go and watch a few Japanese samurai movies, ignore all the cutting down of multiple goon scenes (which is simply Hero gets initiative and hits first) and watch the bouts the main protagonist and chief antagonist, where the hero is matched against someone of close to his own skill. Even though stylised in older films, you'll still see plenty of parrying and very little dodging at all.

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.

This is not true: you have written that all parries with an off-hand weapon that is not a shield are Difficult. You always have an edge with a shield, because it parries at full score! Please check the phrasing of your combat rules and provide examples and comparisons. I have a feeling that everyone is reading your proposals in a different way.

As for Katanas and Bastard Swords: they are not real 2H weapons, they are called 1H-and-a-half weapons, that is they are wielded with 2H by preference, but they can be used one-handed, too. A greatsword can only be used 2H, instead. A Katana, in fact, is not much heavier than a broadsword.

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 do agree thought that the proposed house rules seem to be a bit harsh on 2-h weapons.

SDLeary

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.

Really? Why did samurai stop using them? They fought hand to hand, and they stopped used shields long before they adopted gunpowder for their militiamen. If shields were so effective, why did the Japanese drop them?

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.

Looks quite neat. A bit harsh on two-handed weapons though.

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.

That it makes shields overpowered. You simply cannot parry effectively with a weapon unless you forfeit your attack, as having anything but a shield in your off hand means you parry at half %ile. With these rules, Joe the Average Shield Wielder would beat the crap out of Miyamoto Musashi.

Remember, shields fell into disuse after 1600, and generally they lasted less than armor in general use. There must be a historical reason for this. If they were THAT good, armies would not have abandoned them.

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.

How is the DAR rule useful? I would not exchange a single 70% blow with two 35% ones.

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?

I think the RQ too lethal thing is more a factor of using hit points, hit locations, and weapon damages with adds. It turns some situations into kills simply by addition. For example, no one in RQ can survive having two locations disabled as the damage required to do so it would exceed their total hit points. But in real life people can surviving with four limbs disabled. THe whole hit point attrition concept is erroneous. Two 5 points wounds do not equal one 10 point wound.

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).

BRP, RQ and similar systems work well with the "I hit you and you hit me and we dodge about a bit" way of fighting. I.e. the kind of thing that I would do if I wanted to work a combat out.

It doesn't handle all the intricacies of martial arts.

That's why I always say that any rule in roleplaying games will satisfy most people, but experts will say that it is rubbish.

Look at all the debate over unarmed combat - Experts in judo, ju-jitsu and aikido don;t like the throwing/grappling rules as they are too limited and don't reflect real life. Experts in taekwondo, karate and kung fu don't like the moving/blocking/parrying/flurry rules as they don;t reflect real life. Experts in fencing or the various martial arts that use weapons don't like the combat rules for the exact same reasons.

It all depends on what level you like. RQ/BRP still reflects what I see in my head when imagining combat, even with the little bit of martial arts that I did when I was younger. For me, that is fine. For experts, it will never be fine.

A roleplaying system that handles all the intricacies of fencing, kendo, aikido swordplay, kung fu weaponplay and all the other martial art forms out there would be far too complicated for my tastes and, I think, would not work particularly well.

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.

BUT, since Dodge is an attempt to not only avoid a strike, but also puts you out of position some, I would rule that either once you Dodge in a round, you must continue to Dodge and may no longer Parry, or, every time you Dodge, the your very next Attack or Parry has a penalty applied since you have taken yourself out of position.

Ian

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 really think you'd prefer RQ3 to BRP. It's more like what you are looking for.

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?

Yes, there is. It is the basic assumption of BRP, that what you do in a round you decide at the beginning and carry on for the rest of the round. Once you have opted for Parry, it will be Parry for the rest of the round. This is somehow negated by the Fighting Defensively option, but that is an exceptional situation.

BRP is a simple ruleset and it has several viable options in it. But it does rely on some basic assumptions that you have to "grok" before you master it. This one, that you DO NOT make decisions DEX Rank by DEX Rank but go with a previously determined strategy, is rather important.

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.

Hmmm.. I don´t get it. First i don´t find any rules for riposte. Do you mean attack after a parry? The attack is unaffected by the cumulative -30% as I understand the rules.

Even if the defender has two skills, he can only use one of them against any one attack.

I don´t see any advantage.

For example, using cumulative -30%, if defender has dodge 70% and melee attack/parry 50%:

Dodge chance of 70, 40 and 10%, is still better than say parry 50 and dodge 40%. Or parry 50, parry 20 and dodge 10%.

Using the best skill all the way is always the best choice, but one do not have to impose it on the players.

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.

Answer: no. Even if you change your defense technique, including Dodge, the -30% stays. Only if you go all-out defense you can do the first two defensive rolls at full %ile (and one must be a Dodge) and then suffer the cumulative penalty from the third defense roll.

Of course you could rule that when you have two weapons you can parry with both at full %ile, too. But this should be possible only on an all-out defense maneuver.

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?

Well, THAT weapon should have the stats of the broadsword or better the bastard sword, NOT the long sword listed in the BGB. It is your game, but I see no point whatsoever in nerfing the battleaxe to the point of making it useless against an armoured foe just because you have mistaken the entry for the slashing renaissance sword for the weapon of choice of the Vikings.

If you want a good representation of Viking equipment, try Mythic Iceland or Vikings of Legend.

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.

You are focusing on a weapon entry that does not correspond at all to what you think. The longsword that is described in the example is NOT the equivalent of the D&D longsword: look at the stats, it requires STR 7, shoud it do the same damage as a battleaxe that requirese STR 9? It has 15 HP and the same average damage as a rapier or shortsword, what else do you need to show you that it is a variant of the rapier and not Conan's or Aragorn's weapon? The weapon to which you should compare the battleaxe is the Bastard Sword, and it already does the same damage (actually 1 extra point on a crit). THAT is Conan's or Beowulf's weapon.

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

The thing is, from those of use who have played this game a lot, minor incremental skill modifiers might seem like they give you more precision and accuracy, but in play they just aren't worth the trouble to track. Just ask about RQ3's fatigue points to open up a floodgate of complaints over just that. A percent or two here or there isn't worth the bother.

AS far as changing specials go, the -5% is, as Rosen says, just a nuisence. If you want a weapon to be less effective impaling or what not, just reduce it's impale damage. It was done with halbard. So you could have a boradsword do 1D8+1, or 2D6+2 on an impale. It's easier to deal with since it the players don't have to add a modifier.

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

It is a bit awkward as a rule. It requires adding non-decimal numbers, and a swashbuckler is better off using a hoplite shield than a main gauche (yuck!). Try this instead:

"The final chance of parrying with a shield cannot be inferior to its automatic chance of blocking an incoming missile, that is 15/30/60 according to shield size".

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.

This way, cutting an inanimate wooden object with an axe is harder than doing the same with a sword. And a warrior in full plate is invulnerable to axes. Swords do not do less damage than axes, they are just easier to wield. If your really want to give swords an edge, make Parry with an axe Difficult.

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.

-5% is a nuisance to remember and nothing else. Either you make it Difficult, or you allow all weapons to do all kinds of plausible special damages at no penalty. Also, why on Earth should one pre-declare what he is doing? It is just a complication inherited from RQ3.

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.