Jump to content

Two Questions about Weapons


Recommended Posts

So, I've been away from KAP for a while, but I tried to read through most of this thread as it interested me.  A couple of thoughts/points.

(1) KAP is a genre game so a lot of the design choices are based on the genre, not reality (Greg and I used to email a lot re Book of Castles and other topics, including weapons).  In KAP, the Sword is the best weapon because it is emblematic of knights. The whole thing with it breaking maces etc, is meant to give it an Arthurian advantage. Greg said it was a conscious design choice (I was arguing at the time that I thought the whole sword-breaks-mace type rule was unrealistic).  Obviously YPMV and you can easily ignore the sword-breaks-mace and similar rules, which are not really realistic. Nevertheless, knights in the sources fight either with lance on horseback or sword.  Basic spears are for peasants...in the genre.

(2)  I think of KAP combat mechanics as quite simple.  It isn't clear to me that the range advantage of a spear is worth modeling.  However, if I did, I might just give a +2 to the attack roll or something like that. 

(3) In these various arguments, I think it is always worth recognizing the original poster's intent.  I don't think more realistic combat rules are relevant for KAP, but if that is what you want, I can be interested in how to implement it.  

(4) Cost of armor and horses.  The rising costs were also a specific design choice by Greg.  In part, PKs have probably amassed some wealth by the later periods and the rising costs of horse and armor is supposed to mimic historical trends and stress the player finances a bit.

If you want more complicated combat, I think it would be quite easy to use a Chaosium/BRP cousin. I've toyed with the idea.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  

18 minutes ago, fulk said:

So, I've been away from KAP for a while, but I tried to read through most of this thread as it interested me.  A couple of thoughts/points.

(1) KAP is a genre game so a lot of the design choices are based on the genre, not reality (Greg and I used to email a lot re Book of Castles and other topics, including weapons).  In KAP, the Sword is the best weapon because it is emblematic of knights. The whole thing with it breaking maces etc, is meant to give it an Arthurian advantage. Greg said it was a conscious design choice (I was arguing at the time that I thought the whole sword-breaks-mace type rule was unrealistic).  Obviously YPMV and you can easily ignore the sword-breaks-mace and similar rules, which are not really realistic. Nevertheless, knights in the sources fight either with lance on horseback or sword.  Basic spears are for peasants...in the genre.

Yep.  I totally get that it's a genre game, and I understand the design intent to give swords the "spotlight", so to speak.  I don't have any issue with that.  If you (the rhetorical "you") want to play the game "pure" — that is, without changing any of the rules in order to preserve the genre as Greg Stafford modeled it, not that it should matter to anyone, but I'm fine with it.

For my part, I like to tinker and work towards modeling more realism in the game, in fact in most games I play.  I know we're talking about a game with wizards and faeries and dragons, but I do think that a bit more realism is achievable.  And I don't think that it will necessarily wreck the game or its genre, but of course it would depend on what is changed, how drastically, and on a lot of other things.

In this thread, I don't think I was suggesting that knights necessarily must fight with spears, though I also recognize that of the weapons skills clearly listed as "Knightly", "Spear" is one of them, along with "Dagger", "Lance", and "Sword".  In fact, no other weapons skills are.  If the game is supposed to be modeling the Arthurian genre, and "Spear" is a knightly skill, well you can do the math.

Anyhow, if a knight choses to fight with a spear, both historically and in the context of the game, I wouldn't see anything wrong with it.  YPMV.

(As an aside, since I am tinkering, I do think swords breaking other weapons as often as they do, RAW, makes little sense and I do intend to change it.  And obviously I think spears deserve some kind of reach advantage.  Morien had some good ideas.  (Prost, Morien!)  Gonna have to go back and re-read this whole thing again...)

 

18 minutes ago, fulk said:

(2)  I think of KAP combat mechanics as quite simple. 

Well, I definitely agree that the KAP combat mechanics are simple.  The simplicity of the system is, I think, one of its key strengths.

 

18 minutes ago, fulk said:

(3) In these various arguments, I think it is always worth recognizing the original poster's intent.  I don't think more realistic combat rules are relevant for KAP, but if that is what you want, I can be interested in how to implement it.

Well, what I started out doing was trying to find out why Great Maces as weapons modeled in the game would be an attractive option, and also see if there is an official summary of the weapons published anywhere.  And then, one thing led to another and here we are!

 

18 minutes ago, fulk said:

If you want more complicated combat, I think it would be quite easy to use a Chaosium/BRP cousin. I've toyed with the idea.

Not necessarily more complicated.  Just perhaps a bit more nuanced and realistic.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Okay, but why? Have the NPCs been complaining? :blink:

Why strike a fair balance between PCs and NPCs?

You strike a fair balance so that there is a sense of realism and risk.  The door swings both ways.  If I can hit an NPC with my Great Axe and have it do a certain amount of damage to him, I should expect the same potential result if he hits me.  If I can mitigate potential damage done to me by using the best armor I can afford, I should expect the NPCs I face to try to do the same thing.  If an NPC charges at me on horseback and I use a spear to brace against the charge, I should expect the same tactic to be used against me if I try the same thing.

Without that sense of realism, that sense of risk, the game will come across as obviously rigged in favor of the players.  While you seem concerned about players losing interest playing in a more potentially lethal environment, I would be more concerned about them getting bored because they never really face the same consequences that "the other side" faces.

 

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Remember an RPG is for the benefit of the players. It's not any sort of fair competition between the PCs and the NPCs, it's rigged from the start in favor in the PCs.

Of course the game is a competition.  It might not be a competition between the PCs and all NPCs, but it is definitely a competition between PCs and some NPCs.

Whether or not you decide to make it fair is your call.

My own philosophy is that the players benefit most by presenting them with a challenging, rewarding experience.  Not everyone survives; not everyone is a winner.  If you fail, back to the drawing board.  Try again.  Keep trying until, when you do win, you'll know you beat the odds and earned it.

 

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

The NPCs do not need fair representation. Since the GM gets to create the NPCs they can have pretty much anything the GM wants to give them anyway. Sometimes they even have things the players can't get. 

For instance Arthur can draw the sword from the stone, but the PCs cannot.

I'm not taking about what you give NPCs.  I'm talking about the effects of the game's mechanics being applied equally to both the PCs and the NPCs.

 

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

NPCs serve story and plot functions. RPGs are not any sort of fair contest between the GM and the players. It's not a wargame. 

Well, that certainly is a leap of logic.  Not once did I suggest that the game is a contest between the GM and the PCs.  It is, however, a contest between the PCs and some of the NPCs they'll encounter.  Sure, the GM controls the NPCs, but that's where the fairness kicks in and becomes important.  If a consequence applies to the PCs, especially a negative one, then it should apply to the NPCs.  Otherwise, there's really no game: it's just a foregone conclusion and the PCs don't really exercise any agency: they're just actors in a story that you've already written.  In which case, you might as well go read a book.

IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said:

Why strike a fair balance between PCs and NPCs?

You strike a fair balance so that there is a sense of realism and risk. 

Realism and risk are two separate things. 

Quote

The door swings both ways.  If I can hit an NPC with my Great Axe and have it do a certain amount of damage to him, I should expect the same potential result if he hits me. 

Not if your bigger and stronger than he is. Generally speaking in Pendragon it is less about the weapon and more about the capabilities of the one wielding the weapon.

Quote

If I can mitigate potential damage done to me by using the best armor I can afford, I should expect the NPCs I face to try to do the same thing.  If an NPC charges at me on horseback and I use a spear to brace against the charge, I should expect the same tactic to be used against me if I try the same thing.

That has nothing to do with fairness or realism. 

Quote

Without that sense of realism, that sense of risk, the game will come across as obviously rigged in favor of the players.  While you seem concerned about players losing interest playing in a more potentially lethal environment, I would be more concerned about them getting bored because they never really face the same consequences that "the other side" faces.

Hhave you played this game? There is never a sense of there being no risk. Weapons are deadly. About the only time something along those lines is ever a possibility is when someone ends up with a really really high skill score. None of your "make it fair for the NPC" stuff addressees or alters that. 

Quote

Of course the game is a competition.  It might not be a competition between the PCs and all NPCs, but it is definitely a competition between PCs and some NPCs.

No it isn't. A competuion has winners and losers. It's a contest. An RPG is not a contest is a cooperative form of group entertainment. The goal is to tell a story, enterain each other, and have fun. It not about if the PCs beat the NPCs or not.

All contests in a RPG are rigged to some degree or another. THereis nothing fair about it. The NPCs are written up according to the requirements ofthe adventure. 

 

 

Quote

Whether or not you decide to make it fair is your call.

You can't make it fair. Look, it's not like monooply when everybody starts off with the same amount of money, roll the dice and go around the board. It is a game where the GM sets challeges for the PKs to deal with, people for them to interact with, and so on. Adventures are not written up to be a contest where the players have a 50-50 chance of success against an equally skilled opponent. 

Quote

My own philosophy is that the players benefit most by presenting them with a challenging, rewarding experience.  Not everyone survives; not everyone is a winner.  If you fail, back to the drawing board.  Try again.  Keep trying until,

How can you keep trying if you don't survive? It sounds like you are running old syle D&D where the players keep rolling up new characters to go into the dungeon to fight the monsters that killed thier last group of characters. 

Quote

when you do win, you'll know you beat the odds and earned it.

It sounds more like an obstacle course than a RPG. It assumes that the odds were against the PC in the first place, and that they did indeed earn their victory and didn't just get lucky. 

But, generally speaking, the odds aren't against the PCs most of the time in an adventure. If they were then the PCs wouldn't succeed at many adventures. Most adventures are biased in the favor of the players and need to be in order that the players can actually complete it and have a sense of sotry and accomplishment. If everything was "fair" then the laws of probabilities would make a successful adventure highly unlikely.

Quote

I'm not taking about what you give NPCs.  I'm talking about the effects of the game's mechanics being applied equally to both the PCs and the NPCs.

That is a game mechanic applied to PCs and NPCs. The PCs get to go to London and try to draw the Sword from the stone. They get to roll and everything. And the contest is not "fair". The PKs fail because they are not Arthur. 

Quote

Well, that certainly is a leap of logic.  Not once did I suggest that the game is a contest between the GM and the PCs.  It is, however, a contest between the PCs and some of the NPCs they'll encounter. 

No it isn't. The NPCs are obstacles that serve a purpose-namely they are obstacles. That is their function. They aren't there to contest anything, and don't do anything when there isn't a PC to interact with. Their whole purpose is to provide a challenge. They don't really exist to win. Sure, that can happen, and the possibility of the players losing should be a real thing, but it's not a goal, just a necessary byproduct. It's not a wargame where the points on each side have to balance out. It's an interactive adventure.

Quote

Sure, the GM controls the NPCs, but that's where the fairness kicks in and becomes important.  If a consequence applies to the PCs, especially a negative one, then it should apply to the NPCs.  Otherwise, there's really no game: it's just a foregone conclusion and the PCs don't really exercise any agency: they're just actors in a story that you've already written.  In which case, you might as well go read a book.

Consequences don't really apply to NPCs, they are not real. 

If a PC dies the player grabs a character sheet and goes to work writing up anew character. When a NPC dies the GM moves onto the next part of the adventure. If all the PCs die part way through the adventure  then the adventure is over no matter what the NPCs have planned. 

An RPG isn't like Risk  or monopoly or Yahtzee. The game, such as it is, is about story and role playing. The dice are there as randomizers to keep an air on uncertainty. But it isn't the primary focus of the game. 

 

In fact, from a GM's perspective the the fights tend to be a bit boring. Most of the time the outcome usually  is forgone, for the GM. The GM wrote the adventure and picked/created the NPCs specifically for the adventure with an idea of what the PCs capabilities were. Those footmen with Spear 10 aren't really a challenge for a group of knights with Sword 19. Yes, dice can be fickle and a spearman can get lucky and kill off a PK, but that isn't a desirable result. You need an element of risk to keep the game exciting for the players but you don't need it to be fair to the NPCs. If it were fair to the NPCs they'd get a chance to have better skill scores and equipment, and the players would be rolling up new characters every other weak. That really eliminates player agency. 

And the reverse it true. If a PK challenges Lancelot to a joust he's probably getting his butt kicked because Lancelot has a 39 Lance skill, and the player knight probably doesn't. 

A GM needs to try to be  fair and unbiased when dealing with the players. Give them all a chance to shine, make contributions, and do stuff. The GM doesn't have to be fair to the NPCs. No campaign has ever ran into trouble because the NPCs weren't getting a fair shake. 

 

 

Edited by Atgxtg

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

No it isn't. A competuion has winners and losers. It's a contest. An RPG is not a contest is a cooperative form of group entertainment. The goal is to tell a story, enterain each other, and have fun. It not about if the PCs beat the NPCs or not.

That is your opinion.  For me and those with whom I play, an RPG is also a contest, and the story emerges from the actions and interactions of the players while they're engaged in it.

 

Quote

You can't make it fair.

Sure you can.

 

Quote

How can you keep trying if you don't survive?

You, as the player, try again.

 

Quote

It sounds more like an obstacle course than a RPG.

Sure, you can look at it that way if you choose.

 

Quote

But, generally speaking, the odds aren't against the PCs most of the time in an adventure.

It depends on how you write the adventure, but I'd say in general they are.

 

Quote

That is a game mechanic applied to PCs and NPCs. The PCs get to go to London and try to draw the Sword from the stone. They get to roll and everything. And the contest is not "fair". The PKs fail because they are not Arthur. 

That is a story element that I think anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence and appreciation of Arthuriana can accept.

But you know, that raises some interesting possibilities.  Maybe the characters, for some reason, can draw the sword from the stone?  Could they also be sons of Uther?  Maybe the PCs bum-rush Arthur right after he draws the sword and make off with it?  Could some other mysterious force be at work?  What if Arthur had to fight not only to establish his realm, but to claim Excalibur from someone else?

With a little imagination, that could be a lot of fun to see play out.

 

Quote

No it isn't. The NPCs are obstacles that serve a purpose-namely they are obstacles. That is their function. They aren't there to contest anything

NPCs are, or can be, more than just obstacles, though of course they also serve that function.

And, of course some NPCs exist to contest the PCs.  That should be self-evident.

 

Quote

Consequences don't really apply to NPCs, they are not real. 

The characters arent real, either.  At the end of the day, this is all make-believe.

Maybe you dont have NPCs suffer consequences.  That to me seems far less interesting than giving a reasonable boost to spears.

 

Quote

If a PC dies the player grabs a character sheet and goes to work writing up anew character.

Right!

 

Quote

An RPG isn't like Risk  or monopoly or Yahtzee. The game, such as it is, is about story and role playing. The dice are there as randomizers to keep an air on uncertainty. But it isn't the primary focus of the game.

That is your opinion.

 

Quote

A GM needs to try to be  fair and unbiased when dealing with the players.

In your opinion.  In mine, a GM simply needs to implement the rules fairly, across the board.

Edited by Wolfpack Six
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to toss my two denarii in...

The game system is like the physics engine of the game world. It determines the results of the PK and NPK actions. Both PKs and NPKs play with the same rules, even though some of the NPCs might have special abilities (e.g. Merlin) that the PKs don't have access to. But yes, if there is a new weapon or armor or horse on the market for the PKs to buy, then the suitably wealthy NPKs would be able to buy it too. And the mounted vs. unmounted bonus applies both ways, whether it is a PK on horseback fighting against a man on the ground or vice versa.

Now this does not mean that I throw dice each time an NPK does something, quite the opposite. If it is simply an NPC vs. NPC, then story trumps rules. That being said, if it is something that can have major impact on a PK, then I usually roll for the NPKs as well, for instance to see if the PK gets there in time to save a friendly NPK. But for instance, when the PKs are dealing with potentially impassioned foes, then I do roll the Passion rolls for the NPKs and apply penalties if they fail (the exception to this is that a foe might be "pre-impassioned" to motivate them to seek out the PK in a fight: if they had failed the roll, there would be no encounter, so they must have succeeded in order for this story beat to happen).

As for adventure design, I generally tilt the odds to favor the PKs, since I do want them to succeed in the adventure if they are not stupid about it. Not always, though. If they are wet-behind-the-ears young knights, they should expect to get their butts kicked if they are challenging the King's Champion into a duel. But in general, the PKs are more minmaxed than the average NPKs, and have Chivalric bonuses that most NPKs lack. Usually, the PKs are also on the cutting edge of armor, since as soon as new armor becomes available, upgrading becomes number one priority for the players.

As an example, here are typical PKs and NPKs during Uther period:

PKs (vassal knights): DMG 6d6, HP 32+, Armor 10+6, Horse 7d6, Skill 18-ish

NPKs (household knights): DMG 5d6, HP: 28, Armor 10+6, Horse 6d6, Skill 15-18, often on the lower end.

Currently (end of Conquest), the armors have been upgraded to 12+6 across the board, but the PKs might be getting Partial Plate soon, and they have horses that do 8d6 vs. 7d6 of the average household knights. Also, being more experienced, the typical PK skill is now closer to 20. The big advantage for the PKs is also that many of them have +2 Armor from Chivalric bonus (we use a tier system, a house rule), and one is on the verge of getting the full +3 Armor. This, combined with the higher base damage, tends to mean that they come out on top in any usual duel.

Now, if the PKs go against bodyguards of some enemy noble, then they are often wrestling in their own weight class or even above it. In those cases, "high risk high reward", and I don't make it easy for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said:

That is your opinion.  For me and those with whom I play, an RPG is also a contest, and the story emerges from the actions and interactions of the players while they're engaged in it.

Not it's not just my opion. It's a core foundation upon which RPGs are designed.

 

If it were a contest all the battles wouldn't be scripted. It it were a contest then you wouldn't have advntures that were tests of worthiness

2 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said:

Sure you can.

No you can't. I'ts baised from the start. All RPGs focus upon the actions of the player characters. Mostof the situations are biased,  towards the player characters too.

An RPP has to be that way or the players would just died off due to the laws of probability. It like how in a TV show the heroes get into life threatneing situations every episode yet stillpull through and survive. THat wouldn't happen if the show was fair.

2 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said:

You, as the player, try again.

But the situation has passed. It is neither fair not realistic to send an never ending stream of player characters at a problem until it is overcome. The Count can't afford to keep sending off his knights to get slaughter over and over by some menace. He'd run out of knights.

2 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said:

Sure, you can look at it that way if you choose.

But that isn't an RPG or what RPGs are about. 

2 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said:

It depends on how you write the adventure, but I'd say in general they are.

Not in most RPGs or in most adventures. In most RPGs the adventure is balanced for (that means biased in favor of) the player characters. Some games, such as Pendragon, tend to use a more absolute scale where the opposition in the adventure is more or less set on a absolute scale and the player character are either up to a given challenge or not, or someone gets lucky. 

Can you cite some examples where the oods are against the players. If it is a general thing then there should be lots of them.I can only think of a haldful, and they are all infamous deathtraps that are deliberately known for being so. 

 

2 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said:

That is a story element that I think anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence and appreciation of Arthuriana can accept.

But it flies completely against your core concepts of fairness and realism. Becuase those are not key elemets of PEndragon.

2 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said:

But you know, that raises some interesting possibilities.  Maybe the characters, for some reason, can draw the sword from the stone?  Could they also be sons of Uther?  Maybe the PCs bum-rush Arthur right after he draws the sword and make off with it?  Could some other mysterious force be at work?  What if Arthur had to fight not only to establish his realm, but to claim Excalibur from someone else?

With a little imagination, that could be a lot of fun to see play out.

Yes it could. I once had the idea of letting one of the player characters draw the sword and turn out to really be prince Arthur, raised under a false name to protect him. THe the player would have to go through Arthur's early years and battles (good luck to Player King Arthur) with the other PKs in some of the major supporting roles (make that great luck to Player King Arthur). I mentioned the idea to some of my players and now they get antsy whenever we get to the sword in the stone.

2 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said:

NPCs are, or can be, more than just obstacles, though of course they also serve that function.

And, of course some NPCs exist to contest the PCs.  That should be self-evident.

Yes, and both those statements show that NPCs are tools that serve functions. THey do not require things to be "fair" for them.

2 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said:

The characters arent real, either.  At the end of the day, this is all make-believe.

Yes, but the players are real. Look if the NPC die off every game session, that's just the adventure. If the player characters die off every session, that's a one shot, not a campaing. And it will probably have no character development (no one lasts long enough to develop) nor much roleplaying (not much time to get a feel for the character).

2 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said:

Maybe you dont have NPCs suffer consequences.  That to me seems far less interesting than giving a reasonable boost to spears.

Oh they suffer consequences, but ultimately, it doesn't matter- or it only matters when it matters for story purposes. If some random spearman takes a major wound on the battlefield and drops, he is out of story and probably never going to show up again in the campaign. If a PK  takes a major wound on the battlefield and drops, the other PKS might rescue him, the group will want to know if he survived or not, make first aid and chriguery rolls, and determine if he recovers or expires, and if they need to get the heir ready to play or not.

The game is about and for the players, first and foremost. 

2 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said:

Right!

But the GM doesn't stop to write up a new NPC under those same circumstances. PCs are more important than NPCs. Hence the game is written is favor of the PCs.

2 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said:

 

That is your opinion.

Not, it isn't It's a core foundation that RPGs are built on. With YAtzee risk, and monolpoly somebody wins and everybody else looses. With an RPG the game doesn't really have an end (although Pendragon is unsusal in that the campaing does end with Arthur) and there isn't a winneing player and a bunch of losers. It's a cooperative game where everybody can win. 

2 hours ago, Wolfpack Six said:

In your opinion.  In mine, a GM simply needs to implement the rules fairly, across the board.

But the NPCs aren't on the board. King Lot can't beat the players and kill off Arthur. If he does, the players are dead and the campaign ended.

How you you think the game is fair when the battles are scripted, and several things happen during the campaing that the players have little to no choice over? 

It's not a fair contest from the start, becuase the GM gets to create the NPCs as he sees fit. If the NPKs are built to exploit a PKS weakness then it's not something that happened fairly but instead was something deliberately chosen to make that NPK a more difficult opponent for that particular character. The whole thing is unfair, and is supposed to be.

 

If the game were fair the NPCs would get roll for stats, skills improvement and get all the other breaks that the players get in the game. What what happens to your game if every NPK gets to roll on one of thre Luck tables from K&L.

 

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Morien said:

As for adventure design, I generally tilt the odds to favor the PKs, since I do want them to succeed in the adventure if they are not stupid about it. Not always, though.

Exactly. If ever adventure were an even contest then the players would loose half the time and the campaign would become unsustainable. Even a simple adventure would become unsustainable. On the other hand, there are tasks and opponents that are supposed to be difficult, where the players could be overmatched. Young knights being a common example, since their skills aren't usually much better than their opponents. And of coruse there are black knights, giants, dragons and other such opponents that might outclass the PKS. 

 

But for an GM to think that an RPG is fair when things have been biased towards the players since charegen is silly. RPGs are unfair, by design. THey favor the players. Because the game is about the players.THe players are more important. There are games without NPCs, but no games without players.

 

Edited by Atgxtg

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

But for an GM to think that an RPG is fair

I think you and Wolfpack mean different things with 'fair'. And for my two denarii, 'fair' in this context means that both PKs and NPKs occupy the same fictional reality. If a PK can go and buy a new, better armor for £4 from the armorer, so too can an NPK, if they are wealthy enough*. If a PK gets +5/-5 situational modifier when fighting against a footman, then the PK takes -5/+5 situational modifier when he is fighting on foot against a horseman.

It doesn't mean that everything would be perfectly balanced between PKs and NPKs. There are NPKs like Lancelot who outclass the PKs in ever conceivable way, and of course the majority of the NPCs are not even knights (and some are even non-humans). Nor does it mean that the NPCs have to be followed by the exact same rules as PKs: I don't roll yearly experience checks for the NPCs, but if there is a recurring enemy NPK showing up a few years later, I might bump up their skills a bit to represent experience and training. But I wouldn't introduce a 15-year old squire with combat skills in 30s. Heck, I would be very hesitant to even let them break skill 15 limit that the PKs have at chargen. Now, I could introduce a faerie or a demon who looks like a 15-year old kid, but has 10d6 damage and Bash PK 30. I probably wouldn't, but I could.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Morien said:

I think you and Wolfpack mean different things with 'fair'.

Except that he has  claimed that gaming in a fair contest bettween the PKS and NPKS with the odds against the PKs.He seems to believe that an RPG is like a board game.

41 minutes ago, Morien said:

If a PK can go and buy a new, better armor for £4 from the armorer, so too can an NPK, if they are wealthy enough*.

Except that the NPK doesn't actually do that. He either has the better armor when created by the writer/GM or is upgraded off-screen. 

I'm perfectly fine with running NPKs with realstic behavior, and logical thinking. The NPCs do not act like they are fanatical suicidal pawns, except when they are, and can run away, surrender, gang up on PK and do all sort of other stuff to improve thier own situation as best as they can figure out how to and manage under the circumstances.

But the deck is stacked against them. 

41 minutes ago, Morien said:

If a PK gets +5/-5 situational modifier when fighting against a footman, then the PK takes -5/+5 situational modifier when he is fighting on foot against a horseman.

Certainly. Unless there is some other factor that would apply.

41 minutes ago, Morien said:

It doesn't mean that everything would be perfectly balanced between PKs and NPKs. There are NPKs like Lancelot who outclass the PKs in ever conceivable way, and of course the majority of the NPCs are not even knights (and some are even non-humans). Nor does it mean that the NPCs have to be followed by the exact same rules as PKs: I don't roll yearly experience checks for the NPCs, but if there is a recurring enemy NPK showing up a few years later, I might bump up their skills a bit to represent experience and training. But I wouldn't introduce a 15-year old squire with combat skills in 30s. Heck, I would be very hesitant to even let them break skill 15 limit that the PKs have at chargen. Now, I could introduce a faerie or a demon who looks like a 15-year old kid, but has 10d6 damage and Bash PK 30. I probably wouldn't, but I could.

Exactly. And the thing is all those NPC characters, even the 15 year old kid with 10d6 damage and Bash PK 30 exist to serve a game purpose. Your not doing it to ensurie fairness or parity between the PKs and the NPKs- you are doing it for story and adventure purposes. The thing with an RPG is that it is a form of interactive story. Adventures have beginning, middles and ends, and the elements of story telling apply.  

It's not a wargame where each side has X number of points to build thier army and have an even contest to see who wins. If the NPKswin, then generally everybody looses. 

 

 

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Not it's not just my opion. It's a core foundation upon which RPGs are designed.

Yes, it is your opinion.  And you seem to think that everyone should share it.

Look, you're free to believe what you want about the purpose of RPGs.  And if some, perhaps many, people agree with you, that's fine.  It's your opinion.  I'm good with that.

But you are insisting upon one view of what you think RPGs are or ought to be, and then you seem to be trying to pass off your personal view as "the core foundation".  That is a load of nonsense.

All this broo-ha-hah over a possible tweak in spears that you don't have to use if you choose not to.  You seem terribly afraid of something in this world of make-believe.

So, if it gets your nose so out of joint, just keep things as they are.  Dont tweak anything.  Put your knights in a plastic bubble and give them juice boxes and coloring books.

Me, I'll probably keep tinkering.

Cheers!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said:

Yes, it is your opinion. 

No it isn't. Look at the "What is an RPG section that is ususally part of the first chapter of an RPG. Look at the designer's notes. Look at how the games are structured, how chargen is done, etc. etc.

 

Or just read the definition of a RPG online. Chances are it will be notes as a form of coperatibe storytelling where the players assume the roles of characters. I doubt realism or fairness will be part of the definition.

Nowhere are RPGs set up as a contest between the players and the NPCs. That this is fact and not just an opinion can be proven by the existence of such things as diceless RPGs, Fate/Hero Points, and die rolling fudging as a legitimate GMing tool. 

 

59 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said:

All this broo-ha-hah over a possible tweak in spears that you don't have to use if you choose not to.  You seem terribly afraid of something in this world of make-believe.

No, this isn't about the proposed change, but the reasons why to make a change and the consequences of those changes. A GM should understand that the game is created and run to entertain the players, not to compete with them. 

Your whole argument is that making a game more realistic and more fair to the NPCs is intrinsically better, even though that is not neccearily the case. RPGs are centered around the player characters, and biased towards them. 

 

59 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said:

So, if it gets your nose so out of joint, just keep things as they are.  Dont tweak anything. 

Again it's not the change that is the problem, but your underlying misconcentions that this is some sort of contest to be won or lost, and that it is a fair contest. 

59 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said:

Put your knights in a plastic bubble and give them juice boxes and coloring books.

You seem to think that the PKs in my campaigns are safe and pampered, and live risk free lives. They don't. I nor any other Pendragon GM needs to change the rules in order to challenge the players. The game is notably dangerous enough as is. It has something of a reputation for it. BTW, how long to PKS last in your campaign?

59 minutes ago, Wolfpack Six said:

Me, I'll probably keep tinkering.

Why not? You're not the one who will suffer for it. You can sit back and throw all sorts of stuff at your players citing "fairness" and "realism" as excuses to justify something that you didn't need to do. 

The thing about any change is what the pros and cons are, and if the change is worth the effort. You argument for the change her is to be fair to some NPCs who won't notice or appreciate the change (they aren't real). That's the benefit. 

If I were to aks someone like Morien why, he'd respond with how it would improve particluar situations in the game in a particular way, and not just give vague, general statements. 

 

As far as I can tell your goal seems to be just to up the bar and make things tougher for your players because you can, because making it tougher somehow makes it better automatically, as if we should all know that to be true.

 

You seem to think that knights have it way too easy against spearmen, specifically, and that this is something that needs to be addressed to keep the game fair, and that this change will make the game more realistic and more fun for them, because you believe that the game is about realism and fairness and if I, or even the people who designed the game, think otherwise that's just our opinion. 

 

I've asked you to point out some examples of games adventures that are not biased towards the players, and you haven't even attempted to do so. Instead you adopt a condescending and mocking tone with references to juice boxes and coloring books. That was uncalled for. I attacked your beliefs and assumptions, I didn't attack you. 

 

If you want to convince someone else of something that you have to put together information that supports your view. If you don't wan't to convince someone, then you can just agree to disagree, but you shouldn't take smug pot shots about juice boxes. 

 

I find most of your core gaming beliefs to be unsound and unjustified. Player really don't earn most of their success in most, if not all RPGs, as the games are stacked in thier favor. The advice of how to write an adventure that comes with most RPGs points stuff like that out. 

 

 

 

 

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

No it isn't. Look at the "What is an RPG section that is ususally part of the first chapter of an RPG. Look at the designer's notes. Look at how the games are structured, how chargen is done, etc. etc.

Yes, it is your opinion.  You refuse to acknowledge that fact, but it remains a fact.  The authors of RPGs decide what RPGs are, according to their own tastes.  There is no objective definition of an RPG other than perhaps to say that they are games in which you play the role of fictitious characters.

 

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

No, this isn't about the proposed change, but the reasons why to make a change and the consequences of those changes. A GM should understand that the game is created and run to entertain the players, not to compete with them. 

Your arrogance and condescension are only outmatched by your stubborn adherence to what you think is true.  "A GM should..."  According to whom?  You?

Not that I disagree with the notion that games should be enjoyable, but dude, get over yourself.

And again, I don't think I've ever said that the GM is or should be competing with the players.  The NPCs?  Yes.  The GM?  No.

 

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Your whole argument is that making a game more realistic and more fair to the NPCs is intrinsically better, even though that is not neccearily the case. RPGs are centered around the player characters, and biased towards them. 

Again, in your opinion.  RPGs are indeed focused on the players: they are the real actors on the stage.  But biased towards them?  Assuming that you are talking about the rules, no the rules shouldn't be biased towards the players.  Or the NPCs, for that matter.  They should be fair to both sides.

And again, that is my opinion.

 

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Again it's not the change that is the problem, but your underlying misconcentions that this is some sort of contest to be won or lost, and that it is a fair contest. 

Games are contests: there is no misconception there.  Will my character die if he attacks this dragon?  Will he be successful in wooing the damsel?  Those are contests.  There are even contests within the games themselves.  Jousts, tournaments, etc.  It is ludicrous to assert that games are not contests.

 

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

As far as I can tell your goal seems to be just to up the bar and make things tougher for your players because you can, because making it tougher somehow makes it better automatically, as if we should all know that to be true.

Go back to Page 1.  My goal was simply to determine whether or not there was a difference between great maces and morningstars.  Then the conversation shifted towards spears, and I gave my opinion on how the rules for them could be changed to make them more realistic in terms of reach.

Yes, I do think that things that are tougher on the characters will, generally speaking, make for a more satisfying game... should the characters win/survive/thrive.  I think that it isn't too hard to grasp that something earned has more value than something simply given, or earned more easily.

 

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I've asked you to point out some examples of games adventures that are not biased towards the players, and you haven't even attempted to do so.

I could point out plenty, but it would serve no purpose.  Your incessant condescension aside, you've demonstrated that you are determined to hold your opinion regardless.  Moreover, I'm not really trying to convince you of anything.  Was I supposed to be trying?  If so, I was not aware.  I've simply made my point; you don't agree; end of story.

 

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Instead you adopt a condescending and mocking tone with references to juice boxes and coloring books. That was uncalled for. I attacked your beliefs and assumptions, I didn't attack you.

I most wholeheartedly agree that condescension is uncalled for.  So, start with yourself.  You've been repeatedly going on and on about being careful about changing rules, as if the thought hadn't crossed the minds of anyone else reading this thread... while at the same time you're neck-deep in a thread that you started about changing the rules for bows and crossbows.

You know, you really should consider the impact of the changes you're considering when tinkering with bow and crossbow rules.  Please be sure that you don't cause any unintended consequences.  Or ripple effects.  Et ceteraAd nauseam infinitum.

 

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

If you want to convince someone else of something that you have to put together information that supports your view. If you don't wan't to convince someone, then you can just agree to disagree, but you shouldn't take smug pot shots about juice boxes. 

Let me try this again: I am not trying to convince you of anything.  (Well, other than the fact that I'm not trying to convince you of anything, which I am going to stop doing after this response.)

Your entire objection to giving spears a reach advantage, or any advantage at all, apparently boils down to, "But that will make it harder on the player knights."

I don't care.  Maybe it will, maybe it won't.  I guess I'll find out when I playtest the change.

And here's the best part: you don't have to use anything I've suggested.  I think I only made the one suggestion -- i.e., to have a combatant fighting a spear-wielding opponent fight defensively until he wins a round, then fight normally.  You don't have to understand the logic behind it, agree with it, like it, use it, or even pay any attention to it.

 

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I find most of your core gaming beliefs to be unsound and unjustified.

Well, from what I can ascertain of your own core gaming beliefs, I at least find them to be unsound, though I'm sure you think they're justified from your own point of view.

 

30 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Player really don't earn most of their success in most, if not all RPGs, as the games are stacked in thier favor. The advice of how to write an adventure that comes with most RPGs points stuff like that out. 

Well, maybe in the games you play, everyone gets a participation trophy along with the juice box.  In the games I play, the players earn their successes... and failures.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Morien said:

The game system is like the physics engine of the game world. It determines the results of the PK and NPK actions. Both PKs and NPKs play with the same rules, even though some of the NPCs might have special abilities (e.g. Merlin) that the PKs don't have access to. But yes, if there is a new weapon or armor or horse on the market for the PKs to buy, then the suitably wealthy NPKs would be able to buy it too. And the mounted vs. unmounted bonus applies both ways, whether it is a PK on horseback fighting against a man on the ground or vice versa.

Well said.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your Pendragon May Vary.  Play it how you want. 

I tend to agree that the PCs in an RPG are supposed to be successful overall as long as they don't do stupid things.  However, different games are different.  In RPGs like DnD or Palladium, PCs are supposed to be better than the average joe.  They are heroes.  In Pendragon, knights are, by design, better than everyone else because that is the genre. In Chaosium-BRP games, PCs are often much more realistically powered.  If your group is perfectly happy having your PCs die all the time, that's fine.  Might even be fun to change characters more frequently.  As a corollary, I think one of the things that made Game of Thrones interesting was that major characters could die and often did.  It add real risk to your PK and make 'winning' more satisfying. 

I also think that a good way of thinking about NPCs it to understand their place in the story and purpose in the game.  In some cases, they're just mooks to let the group have a fight and win.  If might be essential to the story that the PKs defeat a bunch of bandits and move onto some mystery uncovered while searching the bodies.  In other cases the NPCs are major elements and are as powerful or more powerful than the PCs. I don't think that worrying about "fairness" really matters all the time. Other times, the PCs should lose...running away can be fun too.  I mean half of the Lord of the Rings is the Fellowship running away from orcs. 

That said, after some though...if you want to make spears better, I might give the spearman's opponent a -5 modifier (or maybe -2).  That gives the spearman an advantage of reach, but doesn't make a critical by the spearman more likely (at higher skills). 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, fulk said:

That said, after some though...if you want to make spears better, I might give the spearman's opponent a -5 modifier (or maybe -2).  That gives the spearman an advantage of reach, but doesn't make a critical by the spearman more likely (at higher skills). 

I dislike this, since Great Spear doesn't give any such reach bonus for the footman vs. another footman, it simply removes the Lance's charge bonus vs. non-lances. I am really much more into the idea of spears removing the -5 penalty against horsemen, like other long poleweapons (Great Spear, Halberd) do. This seems much cleaner to me. Being able to give an opponent -5 to skill by your weapon choice seems like a huge advantage, making a skill 10 spearman equal (in skill) to a skill 15 knight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Morien said:

I dislike this, since Great Spear doesn't give any such reach bonus for the footman vs. another footman, it simply removes the Lance's charge bonus vs. non-lances. I am really much more into the idea of spears removing the -5 penalty against horsemen,

Excapt spears really don't extent reach unless you hold them far back, and that either requires two hands or makes them harder to wield. 

 

Plus it could lead to some odd situations like knight with lance not having an advage against footman with spear.

 

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Plus it could lead to some odd situations like knight with lance not having an advage against footman with spear.

Lance in a charge against a Spearman: +10/0

Lance used from horseback against a Spearman: +5/0

Advantage: Lance, both instances. (By RAW, -5 to Spearman in both examples.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Morien said:

Lance in a charge against a Spearman: +10/0

Lance used from horseback against a Spearman: +5/0

Advantage: Lance, both instances. (By RAW, -5 to Spearman in both examples.)

OH, so you mean just the -5 as per greatspear, not -5 reflexive. I misunderstood your intention, I thought you mean getting rid of the modifier entirely.

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Morien said:

I am really much more into the idea of spears removing the -5 penalty against horsemen, like other long poleweapons (Great Spear, Halberd) do. This seems much cleaner to me. Being able to give an opponent -5 to skill by your weapon choice seems like a huge advantage, making a skill 10 spearman equal (in skill) to a skill 15 knight.

I can see the logic behind this idea: it is a bonus consistent with the bonus afforded a Great Spear.

What this solution doesnt address is dismounted combat between an opponent with, say, a sword and one with a spear.  This is why I suggested fighting defensively vs. a spearman until you win a round, then close in with the sword.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

What this solution doesn't address is dismounted combat between an opponent with, say, a sword and one with a spear.  This is why I suggested fighting defensively vs. a spearman until you win a round, then close in with the sword.

I don't think that really helps the spearman, according to the game mechanics. Let's say you got a spearman and a swordsman both with skill 15. 

By RAW it's a even fight, with a slight edge tot he swordsman due to the breakage rules.

Now if you force the swordmsn to fight defensively and close, it becomes 15 vs 25. This reduces the chances of the spearman scoring a win from 37.5% to 25% , slightly increases the chances of his spear getting broken on a tie, and eliminates the chances of the swordsman fumbling. All it all, I think it hurts the spearman more than it helps him. 

The ability to fight defensively while closing shifts things too much for the swordsman. Besides if he is trying to close, he's not exactly being defensive. 

And why couldn't some crazy berserk just run up the spear to attack the spearman? It was done. 

 

What if instead you just gave spearmen the old version of fighting defenativey as as option? That is the spearman could do damage on a critical when they fought defensively? Then the math would shift in favor of the spearman.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Atgxtg

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I don't think that really helps the spearman, according to the game mechanics. Let's say you got a spearman and a swordsman both with skill 15. 

By RAW it's a even fight, with a slight edge tot he swordsman due to the breakage rules.

I would like to address breakage separately, but okay for the sake or argument.

 

38 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Now if you force the swordmsn to fight defensively and close, it becomes 15 vs 25. This reduces the chances of the spearman scoring a win from 37.5% to 25% , slightly increases the chances of his spear getting broken on a tie, and eliminates the chances of the swordsman fumbling. All it all, I think it hurts the spearman more than it helps him. 

Well, the key point here is to model, simply, the effect of the spear's reach versus someone wielding a significantly shorter weapon.  As in the Lindbeige videos you offered as an example previously.

I am thinking that by forcing a sword-armed knight to fight defensively againt a spear armed opponent, the effect is that even if the knight wins the round, he cannot yet do damage.  While if the spearman wins, he can.  Even if the spearman has less of a chance of succes, if he hits, he really hits.  If the swordsman "hits", he has to win again next round in order to do damage.

 

38 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

The ability to fight defensively while closing shifts things too much for the swordsman. Besides if he is trying to close, he's not exactly being defensive. 

Conceptually, I'm okay if the swordsman actually had a better chance in this instance, because he is holding back, calculating, waiting for the oportunity to deflect the spearhead and then rush in for the kill.  Fighting defensively, in this case, is a temporary defensive technique with an overall offensive purpose.  The swordsman is still trying to close, he's just trying to avoid running himself through in the process.

 

38 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

And why couldn't some crazy berserk just run up the spear to attack the spearman? It was done. 

Sure, that could happen.  If the berserk is willing to risk the damage, I don't see an issue at face value.

 

38 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

What if instead you just gave spearmen the old version of fighting defenativey as as option? That is the spearman could do damage on a critical when they fought defensively? Then the math would shift in favor of the spearman.

I'm not familiar with that rule, but I have to say that I like it in principle.

Realise that I'm not suggesting that the spearman should be fighting defensively in this scenario: he's still trying his best to hit normally.  Just the swordsman till he wins a round.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wolfpack Six said:

What this solution doesnt address is dismounted combat between an opponent with, say, a sword and one with a spear.  This is why I suggested fighting defensively vs. a spearman until you win a round, then close in with the sword.

As I have said at least a couple of times already, the advantage of the spear is very much diminished by the use of the shield and/or heavy armor. Also, no other weapon, with the exception of a lance charge, gets any such reach advantage over other weapons. If spear would get this, how about when fighting against a Great Sword? Or a Halberd or a Great Spear? It swiftly becomes a complicated mess.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

What if instead you just gave spearmen the old version of fighting defenativey as as option? That is the spearman could do damage on a critical when they fought defensively? Then the math would shift in favor of the spearman.

This is way too much of an advantage to the spearman. There is a good reason why the Defensive no longer does any damage even on a critical. Also, see above about the mess the comparative reach advantage would cause.

Keep it simple. Spears, Great Spears and Halberds negate the -5 vs. horsemen. Easy and simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Morien said:

As I have said at least a couple of times already, the advantage of the spear is very much diminished by the use of the shield and/or heavy armor. Also, no other weapon, with the exception of a lance charge, gets any such reach advantage over other weapons.

The Halbard does. As does KAP4's Coriseach.

26 minutes ago, Morien said:

If spear would get this, how about when fighting against a Great Sword? Or a Halberd or a Great Spear? It swiftly becomes a complicated mess.

Yes, it could get that way, although it could be simplfied by categorizing the weapons. 

26 minutes ago, Morien said:

This is way too much of an advantage to the spearman. There is a good reason why the Defensive no longer does any damage even on a critical. Also, see above about the mess the comparative reach advantage would cause.

I don't think so, at least not by RAW, because of the increased chances of the swordman fightinbg defenaviely and lopping the speartrip off with tied rolls.

 

26 minutes ago, Morien said:

Keep it simple. Spears, Great Spears and Halberds negate the -5 vs. horsemen. Easy and simple.

I don't think Spears should be as good as Great spears or halbards as far a reach does. I'd probably just rule them as -2 or -3. Enough to help but not as good a reach as a greatspear. 

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wolfpack Six said:

I would like to address breakage separately, but okay for the sake or argument.

Alright, but that is the key snag, as far as the game mechanics go. By RAW a swordsman fighting defenaviely has a greater chance of breaking the opponent's weapon. I don't like that, but it is how it works by RAW.

Quote

Well, the key point here is to model, simply, the effect of the spear's reach versus someone wielding a significantly shorter weapon.  As in the Lindbeige videos you offered as an example previously.

Yup. 

Quote

I am thinking that by forcing a sword-armed knight to fight defensively againt a spear armed opponent, the effect is that even if the knight wins the round, he cannot yet do damage.  While if the spearman wins, he can.  Even if the spearman has less of a chance of succes, if he hits, he really hits.  If the swordsman "hits", he has to win again next round in order to do damage.

Yes, if you ignore weapon breakage. 

Quote

Conceptually, I'm okay if the swordsman actually had a better chance in this instance, because he is holding back, calculating, waiting for the oportunity to deflect the spearhead and then rush in for the kill.  Fighting defensively, in this case, is a temporary defensive technique with an overall offensive purpose.  The swordsman is still trying to close, he's just trying to avoid running himself through in the process.

THat isn't much of an advantage for the spearman though. Unless the spearman is very good his chance of a crtical is the same as his chance of a fumble, and most hits won't do much against an opponent with good armor and a shield. 

 

Plus if the opponent is well armored he could just run up with his shield in front and take the hit. Warriors in good armor  actually did that against a single spearman

Quote

Sure, that could happen.  If the berserk is willing to risk the damage, I don't see an issue at face value.

Well the way you have it stated, that the opponent must close and  the requirment to fight defensively eliminated the option. 

I think that the fighting defenatively thing should be optional for the swordman. Maybe he just can't do damage on the first turn or something would be better. 

Or maybe just have Spears trump DEX in determining the order of damage. So the spearman does damage before the opponent. 

 

Quote

I'm not familiar with that rule, but I have to say that I like it in principle.

In previous editions of Pendragon, a character who fought defensively did normal (not double) damage on a critical success. This was dropped because a character with 20+ skill might opt to fight defensively all the time, and end up being better offensively due to the increased chance of criticals. Fore example if two characters have a 20 skill then either has a 50% chance of winning a given round of combat. If one fought defensively, it would be a 30 vs a 20, ans the odds would shift to something like 55%/22.5% chance of either doing damage, greatly shifting the odds in favor of the guy fighting defensively. Combine that with inspriation or the hieght bonus and some players could be automatically getting a crit. 

 

Quote

Realise that I'm not suggesting that the spearman should be fighting defensively in this scenario: he's still trying his best to hit normally.  Just the swordsman till he wins a round.

Oh I get that. It's just that the way the game mechanics work, I don't think the rule change would actually benefit the spearman. The bonus his opponent gets from fighting defensively reduces the chance of the spearman winning, ensures the benefits of a shield for when the spearman does win (16-20 points of armor will make most hits bounce), and increases the chances of ties slightly (problematic against swords). 

Unless the spearman has a very high skill or does a lot of damage, this actually helps his opponent.

 

 

Edited by Atgxtg

Chaos stalks my world, but she's a big girl and can take of herself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...