Combat and Opposed Rolls

[frogspawner]

Interesting take. That would certainly give combat a different feel. I don't dislike the parry / dodge roll, though. I just want some way for high-skill types to batter through it / cut down heaps of foes / whatever... :-|

A yukky feel! Sorry, that one goes too far!

BTW, the point about the "Parry AND Dodge" mechanism I mentioned before is it's another layer of defence for the PCs, but 'Joe Goblin' and his chums simply won't have it (except special ones the GM says should, like arch-villains). But the PCs don't feel safer, like they would as a D&D-style Sack of *HITs.

On a related note (while we're talking about combat), I'm finding myself very "irked" by the martial arts skill...

What I've done for this one is change MA to give an extra attack, instead of double damage (although unarmed attacks still get double damage too).

And yes, that applies to the extra attack itself as well. But there are limits - and smaller weapons can 'fit' more attacks in the round than larger ones.

[Arch0n]

Frogspawner, the fact that you house-rule the heck out of everything makes me feel better about myself! :-)

Do you use attack/parry as separate skills, or as one skill?

Edited December 8, 2008 by Arch0n

[Al.]

I don't think there's anything fictional about the fact that traditional martial arts weapons tend to be weapons of finesse, where high skill is required to use them successfully, while medieval weapons such as two-handed swords and maces were used in a fighting style that is rather more blunt and straightforward. Historically speaking, the martial arts skill as it appears in BRP should likely NOT be applied to Western medieval fighting at all.

And I'd argue that the big, brutish weapons of the West were in part because of the lack of martial arts, and vice versa. It was a dialectic. If Eastern sword-masters did somehow reach western Europe, western Europeans wouldn't suddenly start doing kendo with claymores, they'd start using sabers more, because the sabers would work with martial arts techniques (fluid fighting, form, etc.).

Assuming one a-historically (i.e. cinematically) wants to bring martial arts into a Western medieval setting, it seems perverse to then turn around and reward the biggest, brutish weapons.

If your interpreation of martial arts is that its just "using the attacking weapon to its best extent" then your view makes sense, but it's hard to see why that would be a separate skill from "weapon skill". Martial arts to me seems to suggest a very specific, advanced type of fighting where skill matters more than the underlying weight of the weapon.

Deep breath Al, deep breath

I very much disagree with a lot of this.

Boxing/Pugilism is a Martial Art.

The various (and there was lots) of schools of Broadsword fighting was Martial Arts.

'Martial Arts' = chop socky is not universally true.

What has happened is that Oriental schools of Martial Arts have stayed alive whilst (most) Occidentals have died or marginalised. For ex. the majority of international Toxophilly (Archery) coaches are Korean. Coz the culture of Archery (and payment from state to study it) is alive and well in S Korea. Don't mean that no one in the West ever learned how to shoot in a Bow.

The No-Datchi is a heavy weapon, so is the Tetsubo. I've seen Sensei use a Bo as quickly as an oik uses a pair of escrima. It are not universally true that Martial Arts weapons are small and light.

A lot of the weapons we* think of as being 'Martial Arts' weapons Sai, Kami, Tonfa, Nunchuka, et al (those weapons whose use is suffixed with the Okinawan Te rather than home islands Jutsu or Do) are peasant's weapons. Developed from agricultural tools to allow the invaded to have some method of fighting armed Samurai. They have specific techniques to cope with someone using an inherently better weapon. I do not believe for a second that a Sai wielded by a Master would be more of a NinjaMegasaurus than a Bokken or Katana wielded by a Master.

But WTF do I know?

Al

* with 'we' being sufficiently loosely defined for me to be able to use this phrase as suits me.

[Arch0n]

Well, you are attacking an argument I didn't make. I didn't say a Sai wielded by a master would be more of a "megasaurus" than a Katana wielded by a master. What I did say is that a master wouldn't get MORE benefit by being a master for using the No-Dachi than he would for using Sai. The current rules say you get an extra +2d8 damage for mastering No-Dachi, an extra +1d6 for mastering the Sai. That wolud suggest Miyamato Musashi should have used a No-Dachi. He actually fought with a Bokken. In BRP terms, he'd have done, what +1D4 with his little bokken, instead of being ability to beat the heck out of folks!

I know there is an argument for the "Broad Sword" schools being martial arts, but most of what we know about those is from manuals from the early Renaissance, not the Middle Ages. I'm not aware of any historical evidence that medieval knights fought with anything that could be called a "martial art". Unless, again, we're just calling any method of fighting a martial art, in which case it becomes really hard to distinguish a martial art with a 110% sword skill, etc. That's not an argument we're really going to come to terms with as its raging in historical circles right now, and also goes to one's definition of what a martial art is, and what's meant by the word in BRP.

From a purely game perspective, I don't think increasing skill should increase damage in proportion to how heavy the weapon is. It should increase damage in proportion to how high the skill is.

[frogspawner]

Frogspawner, the fact that you house-rule the heck out of everything makes me feel better about myself! :-)

Do you use attack/parry as separate skills, or as one skill?

Sigh. And I was trying to keep the houserules to a minimum, I really was... :ohwell:

In my defence, my list of houserules is shorter than the list of BRP options which every GM must give their players - here's mine.

Oh, just the one combined skill for each weapon's attack/parry. I like to keep things simple...

[Al.]

Well, you are attacking an argument I didn't make. I didn't say a Sai wielded by a master would be more of a "megasaurus" than a Katana wielded by a master.

Did you not? Fair point then.

What I did say is that a master wouldn't get MORE benefit by being a master for using the No-Dachi than he would for using Sai.

Ah I see, I inverted the argument you were making.

I do think that a Master would get more benefit from using a No-Dachi than a Sai. As striking with perfect timing with the No-Dachi is going to involve more Force, Mass, (and possibly )Pressure than with the Sai

The current rules say you get an extra +2d8 damage for mastering No-Dachi, an extra +1d6 for mastering the Sai. That wolud suggest Miyamato Musashi should have used a No-Dachi. He actually fought with a Bokken.

He certainly killed a lot of people with his Bokken. According to his own book.

The No-Dachi was not widely used. Why not I know not for sure. Although I could guess.

In BRP terms, he'd have done, what +1D4 with his little bokken, instead of being ability to beat the heck out of folks!

Assume (correctly) for a second that I am too lazy to check my book, is there an entry for Bokken? Off-the-cuff I'd have given it 1d6 (+1d6) but that does not materially affect your argument!

From a purely game perspective, I don't think increasing skill should increase damage in proportion to how heavy the weapon is. It should increase damage in proportion to how high the skill is.

That certainly has merit. Going back to your Bokken dilemna one would expect 'non-existent-romanticised-perfect musashi' to get a bigger bonus than 'real musashi' than 'average kenjutsu sensei' than 'joe slicer-dicer'. Whether that would be best addressed by fiddling with the Martial Arts rules not so sure.

Al

Edited December 8, 2008 by Al.

[deleriad]

I'd just note that in RQ3 criticals did both maximum damage and ignored all armor.

I know. However I'm using MRQ where criticals are 1/10th roll so that would be just too much. In addition, MRQ has the just a tiny bit controversial Armour Skill penalty so having 1/10 successful attacks ignore armour would just make armour useless.

If you tried to run it with full armors available and no, or little magic, I can see how it might bog down.

That's exactly how I ran a lot of RQ3. I ran two major campaigns over several years. One set in Sanctuary and one an adaptation of DragonLance. I would argue that the combat system needs to stand or fall on its own feet without needing a magic system to make it work. The Sanctuary campaign worked because combat was relatively infrequent and often featured daggers and stabbing in the back. In DragonLance I adopted Hero Points so player characters usually dealt with severe damage that way.

My current MRQ campaign is set in Glorantha second age and the pc's are still pre-initiate. 2-H weapons are surprisingly scary and magic is still very low level. The players are new to the system and learning as they go along. So far things are working out well. That said, the system doesn't really bolt on all that well to BRP I suspect and MRQ RAW features - in a roundabout way - all or nothing parries just as BRP does.

[Arch0n]

Sigh. And I was trying to keep the houserules to a minimum, I really was... :ohwell:

In my defence, my list of houserules is shorter than the list of BRP options which every GM must give their players - here's mine.

Oh, just the one combined skill for each weapon's attack/parry. I like to keep things simple...

Woah. You have Houserules at 110%! I can only envy you.

I've just come up with a nifty house-rule for attack/parry. I'm ruling that one-handed weapon skills include either fighting with a shield, or fighting with a second weapon. The shield or the secondary weapon skill is never purchased separately. This puts a "sword and shield" "two handed sword" and "dual sword" fighter all on the same footing in terms of skill points required to learn to be able to effectively attack and defend. Separate attack/parry skill favors sword and shield, while separate sword and shield skill favors anything except shield...

EDIT: On further reflection, not going to implement my weapon master notion. You guys have persuaded me it's wrong. Thanks!

Edited December 8, 2008 by Arch0n

[sdavies2720]

A yukky feel! Sorry, that one goes too far!

Actually, that was my point...I like the attack/parry mechanic and think it's part of what make BRP combat 'feel' real. But, you can get that yukky D&D feel if you want.

I hate the fact that in D&D as a player your character can be in combat and you can think, "Well, the opponent is only doing about 8 points per round, so I should be able to handle him for another 6 rounds."

But I was responding mostly to the comment that "players don't like hitting and then finding out that they didn't hit because they were parried."

Steve

[RMS]

I know. However I'm using MRQ where criticals are 1/10th roll so that would be just too much. In addition, MRQ has the just a tiny bit controversial Armour Skill penalty so having 1/10 successful attacks ignore armour would just make armour useless.

I'll come right and say that the armor skill penalty is plain broken. There's no controversy about it. (This is a gaff that had no business getting through even a casual edit of the text.) However, at 1/10 for criticals I understand where you're headed. Especially if you add in the very broken rule about taking a 40% penalty to bypass all armor: all resulting in the fact that a naked swordsman has an advantage over a similar swordsman in full plate armor.

I would argue that the combat system needs to stand or fall on its own feet without needing a magic system to make it work.

It worked just fine. It just dragged out a little longer at high skill levels due to constant parrying and enough AP to absorb damage. For a game attempting to portray realistic combat, this is all very good. However, it does lead to fairly lengthy battles that tend to be won by virtue of surviving with fatigue or getting a lucky shot in (critical vs. missed parry).

All the magic system really did was make damage high enough that battles didn't drag out so long. The negative is that they tended to result in one shot kills.

[Puck]

Sigh. And I was trying to keep the houserules to a minimum, I really was...

In my defence, my list of houserules is shorter than the list of BRP options which every GM must give their players - here's mine.

Holy smoke! :shocked: That is quit a list Frogspawner. There are several very interesting things you wrote there. I like your ideas for Martial skills and special abilities.

Thanks for sharing :thumb:

[frogspawner]

Woah. You have Houserules at 110%! I can only envy you.

I've just come up with a nifty house-rule for attack/parry. I'm ruling that one-handed weapon skills include either fighting with a shield, or fighting with a second weapon.

Thanks. But now you have one more than me...

Actually, that was my point...I like the attack/parry mechanic and think it's part of what make BRP combat 'feel' real. But, you can get that yukky D&D feel if you want.

I hate the fact that in D&D as a player your character can be in combat and you can think, "Well, the opponent is only doing about 8 points per round, so I should be able to handle him for another 6 rounds."

Glad to hear it. Same here.

Holy smoke! :shocked: That is quit a list Frogspawner. There are several very interesting things you wrote there. I like your ideas for Martial skills and special abilities.

Thanks for sharing :thumb:

You're welcome!

(Is that "quit" Freudian, perhaps? I will stop houseruling very soon, honest. But first I just need a good Hide/Sneak/Surprise mechanism...)

[Pete Nash]

I know there is an argument for the "Broad Sword" schools being martial arts, but most of what we know about those is from manuals from the early Renaissance, not the Middle Ages. I'm not aware of any historical evidence that medieval knights fought with anything that could be called a "martial art". Unless, again, we're just calling any method of fighting a martial art, in which case it becomes really hard to distinguish a martial art with a 110% sword skill, etc. That's not an argument we're really going to come to terms with as its raging in historical circles right now, and also goes to one's definition of what a martial art is, and what's meant by the word in BRP.

Well my perspective from studying both eastern and western martial arts is that any skill which is used to inflict, or defend against, injury in a fight has the right to be called a martial art. And when it comes down to it, both traditions use the same fundamentals of distance, timing, body mechanics, etc. There is very little difference in the 'fluidity' or 'speed' of a master in either form.

The biggest difference - what little there is - in older (pre-gunpowder) styles between the two cultures comes down to availability (or practicality of using) of heavier armour, and the use of shields. Western MA's evolved to handle heavier defences. Yet both cultures have traditions of having massive weapons, polearms for rank and file, heavy armour for horseback nobles, and even the same tenancy for the ruling classes to learn and use a sword for a sidearm. They are really very similar, both in unarmed and armed disciplines.

Although what's left to us of western MA literature is mostly from the early Renaissance, one can still see the modification of the styles as heavier armour was generally abandoned. Besides which, what tangible evidence (i.e. actual readable material) we have of eastern MA's rarely predates the same period and shows the same trend...

All fighting knowledge evolves tactically when faced with changing social and climatic environments, new weaponry and changing protections. But the core fundamentals remain ubiquitous, not matter what their origin.

Personally I'm a fan of Opposed Roll combat (where the higher success level, or higher roll if tied, wins). I like the inherent superiority it gives the higher skilled warrior, no need for mook rules, and it more readily represents what I observe in actual combat, that is to say, the greater the skill differential the faster the fight is over.

Drawn out fights (assuming single combat) only really occur when the two combatants are relatively matched in skill. Mechanically to me it always seems that the amount of damage caused in a hit is normally proportional to the leeway the fighter has to emphasizing his blow - whether that be placing more power, or aiming it more tightly, etc. So the greater the skill difference, the more 'time/experience/awareness' the superior combatant has to be able to make the blow count (i.e. more damage). Mathematically however this is difficult to model easily, especially when BRP & MRQ use fixed damage ranges for weapons.

Of course it is correct to say that 2H weapons are usually capable of inflicting greater mechanical impetus to a blow, however it doesn't reflect the actual 'lethality' of a blow from a more skilled wielder. Skill is far more paramount than the mass/length of the weapon.

If you want to represent this you could go use the skill% divided by 10 or 20 as a bonus dice and perhaps halve all weapon damage dice.

Or you could be more revolutionary, and say that damage is equal to a d(skill%/10) but its capped by the maximum damage value of the weapon - e.g. a master broadswordsman at 120% would roll a d12, but the maximum damage could never exceed 8 points. A nice elegant solution which (on face value) doesn't break anything. :innocent:

[deleriad]

While I'm thinking of it the other way I use opposed rolls in combat is for manoeuvring. E.g. the winner of the roll can shift the direction of the combat a small way in one direction or other. Or, if you want to have a "special effect" instead of damage for an attack then you make an attack and the opponent defends and the winner is fairly obvious.

[Trifletraxor]

I don't think there's anything fictional about the fact that traditional martial arts weapons tend to be weapons of finesse, where high skill is required to use them successfully, while medieval weapons such as two-handed swords and maces were used in a fighting style that is rather more blunt and straightforward. Historically speaking, the martial arts skill as it appears in BRP should likely NOT be applied to Western medieval fighting at all.

Well my perspective from studying both eastern and western martial arts is that any skill which is used to inflict, or defend against, injury in a fight has the right to be called a martial art. And when it comes down to it, both traditions use the same fundamentals of distance, timing, body mechanics, etc. There is very little difference in the 'fluidity' or 'speed' of a master in either form.

I'm with Pete on this one. I actually don't like the martial art skill at all. To me martial arts is combat training. It's a way to increase your skill without risking death in the battle fields.

:beetle:

[RMS]

I'm with Pete on this one. I actually don't like the martial art skill at all. To me martial arts is combat training. It's a way to increase your skill without risking death in the battle fields.

I agree. Martial arts are literally any kind of training in fighting, whether it's with fists, feet, rapiers, broadswords, or a war maul (just for you ). The skill as written (and as taken from RQ) is fine for over-the-top cinematic type games, but really doesn't belong anywhere near something trying to be realistic. Having a bunch of training in the martial arts of a certain weapon should result in a fairly high level in that actual weapon, but doesn't warrant some kind of extra damage. (The same is true of fist and kick attacks too FWIW.)

I can understand where such a distinction could come into play for certain genre's. Just don't attempt to use "realism" or "historic accuracy" to justify anything about the skill, because neither apply to it.

[deleriad]

I can absolutely see the beauty in allowing a 50% skill to stand against a 100% skill, etc. But I need some rules so that the players can heroically wade through lesser foes, too. Maybe what I should do is simply have some variant of a "mook" rule...

One big advantage of opposed rolls is that skill counts for more than it does in normal combat so you don't find such a need for mook rules. E.g. 100% vs 50% results in a win for the 100%er roughly 85% of the time. The dodger still dodges occasionally but not enough to bog the game down.

That said, I find in any combat I run I always seem to end up with one super mook who survives the worst the PCs can do for quite a while. In the last session, a spider-demon worshipping cultist brandishing a piece of wood lasted several rounds against a Humakti, earning the nickname "log ninja." That is until the Uroxi wandered over and cut him in half.

[Nightshade]

I agree. Martial arts are literally any kind of training in fighting, whether it's with fists, feet, rapiers, broadswords, or a war maul (just for you ). The skill as written (and as taken from RQ) is fine for over-the-top cinematic type games, but really doesn't belong anywhere near something trying to be realistic. Having a bunch of training in the martial arts of a certain weapon should result in a fairly high level in that actual weapon, but doesn't warrant some kind of extra damage. (The same is true of fist and kick attacks too FWIW.)

I can't really agree; over and above training in how to get through defenses and land a blow, most formal martial arts hard styles have a lot of technique about specifically how to land a blow _hard_. There's a real difference in getting punched by someone with that training and without, over and above how likely they are to land a blow.

[RosenMcStern]

A thugh who has lived on the street for several years can knock almost any foe out with his bare hands in a matter of seconds, but he cannot break wooden planks with his hands. A character trained in oriental martial arts can, with the appropriate preparation, deal incredibly powerful blows, much beyond the capability of a skilled brawler. On the other hand, there is no guarantee that a Karate blackbelt with no real combat experience can defeat the aforementioned thugh.

The current rules depict this situation rather well, IMO. Combat skill represents your ability to hit a foe in a real fight (and note that you cannot train this beyond 75% if you only train in a dojo) while martial arts represents the ability to use secret techniques that achieve special results - and not the perfect timing that make you a master of your weapon of choice, as mentioned by Pete above, which are subsumed in your weapon skill. For Karate it is double damage, while for other fighting styles it is not necessarily so (frex, it could be the ability to halve your opponent's defence roll for fencing, which is mainly based on feints, and it could be +1d6 damage for Kenjutsu regardless of the blade size).

[RMS]

I can't really agree; over and above training in how to get through defenses and land a blow, most formal martial arts hard styles have a lot of technique about specifically how to land a blow _hard_. There's a real difference in getting punched by someone with that training and without, over and above how likely they are to land a blow.

I would consider the ability to land a blow "hard" to be part of the primary weapon skill. If someone has a high skill in boardsword, for example, I think part of that skill is about landing a blow square with maximum force.

[RMS]

A thugh who has lived on the street for several years can knock almost any foe out with his bare hands in a matter of seconds, but he cannot break wooden planks with his hands. A character trained in oriental martial arts can, with the appropriate preparation, deal incredibly powerful blows, much beyond the capability of a skilled brawler. On the other hand, there is no guarantee that a Karate blackbelt with no real combat experience can defeat the aforementioned thugh.

Sorry, but this is 100% BS if we're talking real world. Not that breaking blocks, etc. isn't an impressive trick, but there's nothing convincing that it translates to a real fight any better than experience in a real fight, including the ability to deal actual damage.

My experience is that a Karate blackbelt with lots of training, and lots of tournament experience is going to get his ass handed to him by someone with just a little street experience, or by your typical football player who's never swung a punch at anyone in his life before, but I digress...

The current rules depict this situation rather well, IMO. Combat skill represents your ability to hit a foe in a real fight (and note that you cannot train this beyond 75% if you only train in a dojo) while martial arts represents the ability to use secret techniques that achieve special results

Which is fine, and I'm all for it, so long as you keep it out of my realistic world and keep it confined to the martial arts action movie genre where it belongs.

[Nightshade]

I would consider the ability to land a blow "hard" to be part of the primary weapon skill. If someone has a high skill in boardsword, for example, I think part of that skill is about landing a blow square with maximum force.

Not to the same degree. I've encountered people entering the martial arts who were trained as, say, boxers, where the focus was primarily on getting through defenses, and while some of them could land a pretty good punch, they did so much more strongly after taking the martial arts classes, even though their general combat skill was higher at start. They really simply aren't the same thing, and since RQ doesn't factor skill into damage, if you want to represent this you have to do something else.

[Al.]

WARNING: THE FOLLOWING IS PRETTY MUCH ALL OPINION WITH BUGGER ALL IN THE WAY OF FACTS TO BACK THEM UP

I have used Japanese terms out of shear laziness. Please insert Cantonese, Danish, Greek, French, Korean, Latin, Mandarin, Min, Wu equivalents as necessary.

Martial Arts = Oriental

Romans with Gladius 'one inch of tip is worth any amount of edge' ooh er missus, fnah, fnah or alternatively Martial Arts maybe have been developed West of Suez

<Insert previous blather about occidental schools dying out and Korean Toxophilly reigning supreme>

Dichotomy between Dojo and Street.

This is all pretty much a modern phenomenon. Us pampered Westerners can avoid physical violence in day-to-day life. A Professional Warrior (Samurai, Hoplite, Housecarl, Gladiator, Legionnaire et al) would have had dojo training AND day-to-day experience. There are people today who train in modern dojos who also do fighting prior to or alongside training as well. Some dojo training is more realistic than others

Thug would own Martial Artist

Hmm maybe. Although I'm forever being emailed a videoclip of a young man walking his partner through a park, getting jumped by two oiks and then unleashing a fury of pugilism. Maybe reference the point above.

Repertoire of Secret Techniques

Hmm maybe. And/Or a Kata is a sequence of moves which might be learned as a physical memory response to a situation. And/Or Training removes the need to learrn everything from scratch.

Pete's groovy skill/10 as damage roll capped by weapon max

Ooh that's clever I like that. I'd probably double the numbers (off the top of ma swede)

My current preferred BRP-stylie Martial Arts rule

Elric! When you hit 101% wit Brawl skill you add +1d3 to unarmed and Cestus damage

My current preferred modification

When any Melee (Weapon) skill hits 101% add 1 extra damage die

Axe 101% Great Axe 2d6+1d6+2+db Pole Axe 3d6+1d6+db

Brawl 101% Unarmed 1d3+1d3+dB, Cestus 1d3+2+1d3+dB

Sword 101% Katana 1d10+1d10+1+dB; No-Dachi 2d8+1d8+dB

Super Ninja Death rule

Elric! also had 'Impales' on a natural roll of 01. I want really stupidly high skills to have a benefit so I changed that to skill/100 (with a minimum of 01 if skill is 100 or less)

Since I already (through laziness really) use the SBIII style skill/10 double damage and ignore armour critical though, the Elric! Impale aren't no use so I make it 'victim is dead or KOd at victor's discretion'

X Rule is more realistic

No it bloody isn't! Realism and RPG rules go together like The Sun and Journalistic Integrity. 'About right' 'sort of believable' and 'not complete loose stool water' are about as much as we can aim for.*

Al

[Arch0n]

Al, I love your rules mods.

[RMS]

Not to the same degree. I've encountered people entering the martial arts who were trained as, say, boxers, where the focus was primarily on getting through defenses, and while some of them could land a pretty good punch, they did so much more strongly after taking the martial arts classes, even though their general combat skill was higher at start. They really simply aren't the same thing, and since RQ doesn't factor skill into damage, if you want to represent this you have to do something else.

I don't buy it, at least in the way it's represented in the rules and the argument that (using your example) those boxers could magically hit harder after gaining more skill. It makes perfect sense that they hit harder because more training increased their strength and possibly even agility (stat training in BRP terms), or what makes the most sense is that they could consistently deliver their best blow, which they couldn't due without additional skill, represented easily by an increase in skill.*

My real issue is with the extent of the shift in the BRP rules. I don't like the doubling rule. It completely breaks my suspension of disbelief. If you want to tie skill to damage in BRP, I can completely see using the martial arts skill, but instead of extra damage, have a roll on the martial arts skill set the (minimum damage) or perhaps add a point or two. For example, someone is rolling a fist attack and has a related martial arts skill:

• A successful attack and failed martial arts results in normal rolled damage.
  
• A success for both results in full damage.
  
• A special in both results in maximum strength bonus in addition to maximum damage. (I'm assuming that attack skill > martial arts skill here.) The idea here is that the martial arts skill allows someone to use their full natural strength to acheive that damage.
  
• I'm at a loss on what to add for a critical martial art. The person already has a critical normal attack that bypasses armor and does completely maximum damage. Maybe add a litte extra here, or maybe allow them to pick hit location if using those. Ideas?
  

The nice thing about this is that it would translate just fine to weapons without causing the problems that originally brought this issue into the thread.

I mean with the current skill, every Humakti is going to get a martial art in two handed sword, and then be dealing 4d8 damage on a regular basis...then they get to add on a Truesword and go to what: 8d8 damage before strength bonuses and that big ass Bladesharp! :eek:

* I would also note that boxing is a sport that's almost completely about landing blows for points (accept for a very specific segment of the pro sport), but then so are most martial arts out there. I'm not sure how relevant either is to martial arts used in an all out fight....and like most things in life, I'm not sure how well those martial arts translate to the actual heat of battle. The discipline and conditioning (mental and physical) are probably more crucial in a real battle than the specific skills, and the discipline and willpower gained aren't represented in BRP, like most traditional RPGs.