Basic roleplaying combat system

[RosenMcStern]

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.

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.

[frogspawner]

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).

Yep, nowhere. Of course they parry. But not necessarily in the same round as attacking, or at full chance. (And I doubt the art shows that much detail).

It's just about answering the perennial problem "Why should I have a shield?". Axe-elf's Rule seems to solve it pretty well, too - and more simply than Combat Styles. (Sorry, but it's true).

[axe-elf]

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.

[RosenMcStern]

Yep, nowhere. Of course they parry. But not necessarily in the same round as attacking, or at full chance. (And I doubt the art shows that much detail).

I doubt that the BRP modelization of combat can really support such a concept as "Yes, this Parry skill is represented in the game, but you do not use it every round, especially if you happen to attack". As described in the houserules, the Parry skill is pointless.

As for the double attack against the same target: axe-elf, I have already explained why this does NOT suit BRP combat system. Damage is balanced towards a one-blow-per-round model, making attacks very frequent for some weapons can only work if you restructure also damage heavily. For instance, this DAR rule is awfully in contrast with your nerfing of axes (which also have DAR of 100): in more detailed system like GURPS, an axe does a helluva lot of damage more than a sword, but the sword is "balanced", so it compensates the smaller damage by attacking more frequently. With your rules as described here, a sword can deliver 2,3 times more damage per round than an axe (!!!)., as it both does more damage and attacks more often. Multi-attack rules work only in conjunction with a damage system devised specifically to work with them.

It's just about answering the perennial problem "Why should I have a shield?". Axe-elf's Rule seems to solve it pretty well, too - and more simply than Combat Styles. (Sorry, but it's true).

Ehm, no. It is your opinion, not "true". And it is not very kind towards Peter, either.

Everyone's opinions deserve respect and consideration here. And arguing with people about why they think what they think is - as strange as it may sound - a display of consideration of their opinion. However, hastily comparing a three-paragraph set of non-playtested houserules provided by our newest member with a heavily playtested ruleset that has already undergone a post-publication revision, made by a seasoned writer who also happens to be a master of swordplay, is... okay, let me phrase it so: do you really think you placed your bet on the right horse?

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.

[RosenMcStern]

This is all in the rules I have described, and is easy to understand, if you read them carefully.

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.

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.

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.

Your description sounds like the Riddle of Steel model of combat to me. TRoS is a nice game, written by a swordsmaster, too, that emulates initiative very well. But it is designed in a totally different way. I doubt you can change the BRP combat model to the RoS combat model with just a few design notes here and there.

[Atgxtg]

I'm for the old RQ3 idea of allowing parries in the same round, just not in the same SR. So if somebody wants to parry on the same SR as thier attack, they have to delay their attack.

I'd also favor the inclusion of a counterattack option. You sacrfice your defense to try and beat the opponent to the strike with an opposed roll. If you win, you hit first, but if the opponent is still able to attack, you have to take it. THat is more what Samurai would be doing.

[frogspawner]

Ehm, no. It is your opinion, not "true". And it is not very kind towards Peter, either.

Something can be my opinion and true as well. It happens - more than once every 3 years or so, too.

I know it's a bit of a blow to Pete if play-testing does show this as a better solution than RQ6-type Combat Styles - but I already said "sorry". And the truth ain't even my fault! Glad you are willing to allow it to be tested now, though.

I am generally on the side of supporting promising new ideas (not bashing them in case they hurt sales). Yes, I'm happy to back that horse.

[axe-elf]

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.

[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.

[nclarke]

I rather suspect that stating that you've read BRP4e and don't think that it does a good job of dealing with combat strikes many here as very arrogant. After all the rules in one form or another have been used for 30 years by thousands of GMs and players, many of whom have at least as much experience of weapon handling as you mention you have. To specify that all those players and GMs are wrong and you with your testing of the rules, not even in an actual game of course, deem them inaccurate and wrong really irritates many people.

You have been told the concepts behind the way the rules are and still persist in your own way as being superior to those of the collective membership here who suggest that making your changes is not going to work that well.

I recommend that you go away and test the rules as-is, test them again with your own house rules, try out the suggestions that people have offered to make your combat more to your taste and then come back and report on how those tests work in actual games rather than paper simulations.

[rust]

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.

Hmm ... you want to make a shield more useful because you consider this more realistic,

but you accept dodge as a standard defense although this is extremely unrealistic ?

[axe-elf]

Hmm ... you want to make a shield more useful because you consider this more realistic,

but you accept dodge as a standard defense although this is extremely unrealistic ?

Yea, OK I´ll change that around. It is actually more in line with what i learned training kendo. Dodging will get you out of reach for an attack while a parry will not. So:

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 dodge, you loose your attack that round, and if you have already attacked you cannot dodge. Shields and weapons in off-hand give you an extra free parry - but this parry has to be done with the off-hand.

[RosenMcStern]

Wait...

[axe-elf]

I rather suspect that stating that you've read BRP4e and don't think that it does a good job of dealing with combat strikes many here as very arrogant. After all the rules in one form or another have been used for 30 years by thousands of GMs and players, many of whom have at least as much experience of weapon handling as you mention you have. To specify that all those players and GMs are wrong and you with your testing of the rules, not even in an actual game of course, deem them inaccurate and wrong really irritates many people.

You have been told the concepts behind the way the rules are and still persist in your own way as being superior to those of the collective membership here who suggest that making your changes is not going to work that well.

I recommend that you go away and test the rules as-is, test them again with your own house rules, try out the suggestions that people have offered to make your combat more to your taste and then come back and report on how those tests work in actual games rather than paper simulations.

I´m not the only one thinking BRP combat is flawed. I try to fix it, and if that´s irritating, so be it.

[Pete Nash]

Something can be my opinion and true as well. It happens - more than once every 3 years or so, too.

I know it's a bit of a blow to Pete if play-testing does show this as a better solution than RQ6-type Combat Styles - but I already said "sorry". And the truth ain't even my fault! Glad you are willing to allow it to be tested now, though.

No problem Frogspawner, no offence taken. I have a mental filter which automatically interprets most of your observations as being somewhat subjective.

On the objective truth side of things axe-elf (and game mechanic balancing aside), surely you are aware that whilst wielding a two-handed weapon you can simultaneously attack and parry with the same movement? I haven't got time to give a comprehensive list of historical illustrations of the few available on the web, but here's a few from the Goliath Fechtbuch....

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/78.jpg

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/83.jpg

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/94.jpg

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/106.jpg

[axe-elf]

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/78.jpg

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/83.jpg

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/94.jpg

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/106.jpg

Yes, this is better simulated by the last parry and dodge rule I posted. Better?

[RosenMcStern]

Well, I am afraid I have started the unpleasant facets of this threads and I will take the responsibility to cool things down.

Axe-elf, you may have noticed that your latest comments have triggered a negative response that was the exact opposite of the initial reaction. I saw this coming through that initial wave of "Awesome!" that your comments elicited before they were properly discussed. Your rules need a lot of re-thinking before becoming really functional. I am sorry that you were mislead by what sounded like a general praise, but people were just trying to be polite to you. Once you started criticising the authors, things changed, as you noticed. But you have understood this, haven't you?

Life is not all candies. Making good rules requires A LOT of effort and thinking. I hope you are on the right way, but there is little doubt that you are on the first mile of a long trail. nclarke asked you to go away. I disagree. Please stay and discuss your ideas with us. Please, just try to understand that you will not "fix" in a week or so what others have been trying to improve for THIRTY-FIVE YEARS.

Edited September 12, 2012 by RosenMcStern

[axe-elf]

Well, I am afraid I have started the unpleasant facets of this threads and I will take the responsibility to cool things down.

Axe-elf, you may have noticed that your latest comments have triggered a negative response that was the exact opposite of the initial reaction. I knew perfectly that this would come, and I was able to see through that initial wave of "Awesome!" that your comments elicited before they were properly discussed. Your rules need a lot of re-thinking before becoming really functional. I am sorry that you were mislead by what sounded like a general praise, but people were just trying to be polite to you. Once you started criticising the authors, things changed, as you noticed.

Life is not all candies. Making good rules requires A LOT of effort and thinking. I hope you are on the right way, but there is little doubt that you are on the first mile of a long trail. nclarke asked you to go away. I disagree. Please stay and discuss your ideas with us. Please, just change your attitude. You will not "fix" in a week or so what others have been trying to improve for THIRTY-FIVE YEARS.

Yea, let´s cool down, and focus on what is important

[Atgxtg]

As the comments show, we do not all agree on what works best.

[frogspawner]

OK, so now we're considering...

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 dodge, you lose your attack that round, and if you have already attacked you cannot dodge. Shields and weapons in off-hand give you an extra free parry [with that 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.

[frogspawner]

No problem Frogspawner, no offence taken.

I'm glad.

I have a mental filter which automatically interprets most of your observations as being somewhat subjective.

Well then

Of course they parry. But not necessarily in the same round as attacking, or at full chance. (And I doubt the art shows that much detail).

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/78.jpg

...

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/106.jpg

...And it may also be possible that I'm wrong more than once every 3 years.

To quibble though, we can't see from the pics whether the parries (or attacks) they're doing are at full chance. (Which was the actual thought behind my earlier comment).

But these pics do rather blow the "No attack and parry on the same SR with a 2h Weapon" idea out of the water, eh...?

[nclarke]

I would point out that I suggested Mr Axe-Elf went away, tested his changes in actual play, compared them to the existing rules and the suggestions made here and came back and reported his conclusions. I, in no way, suggested that he permanently depart however offensive his attitude might be.

[Atgxtg]

I'm glad.

But these pics do rather blow the "No attack and parry on the same SR with a 2h Weapon" idea out of the water, eh...?

No, not unless it blows the "attack on a single SR" and "one attack for the round" ideas out of the water too. The idea behind RQ/BRP combat is that one attack constitutes a series of blows. So what we are seeing, in BRP terms, is the maneuvers that constitute part of an attack.

Realistically, people are fighting throughout the round, not just on the SRs that they make an attack or defense roll.

[axe-elf]

I would point out that I suggested Mr Axe-Elf went away, tested his changes in actual play, compared them to the existing rules and the suggestions made here and came back and reported his conclusions. I, in no way, suggested that he permanently depart however offensive his attitude might be.

I´ll do that But it´s nice to test the rule in silico first, to use an experimental term.

[axe-elf]

OK, so now we're considering...

Yes, the only thing is that this would make creatures that are unable to parry a lot weaker in the game. They would have to rely on dodge, and defy their attack. On the other hand, this is maybe more realistic. An unarmed man fighting one with an axe, would have to wait to get the initiative (if using initiative rolls) or an unsuccessful axe attack, to attack himself.