|
Post by sirgawain on Feb 11, 2013 10:12:09 GMT -5
ewookie: Isn't that alternative for 'charge' the same as your previous example of the to-hit/damage swap?
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 11, 2013 10:27:31 GMT -5
yes. hence the '...now i will probably diminish myself in thine eyes' lead-in. to be more precise, my to-hit/damage swap is an alternative to charge...that allows every weapon to have a 'special attack'.
EDIT: ...but my words, intentions, opinions don't prevent anyone from running a game using both Charge and to-hit/damage swap. i think Charge in Melee was a left-over facet of Steve Jackson's war-gaming passion and it has become a trope of all Melee derived systems. Charge without a to-hit penalty but with extra damage is true to reality in war-gaming where you are fighting with units that represent many soldiers in tight formation. In man to man combat, it betrays reality. If you charge at me, i have plenty of time and room to move out of the way. The momentum of your charge increases your damage but the time it took you to build that momentum decreases your chance to hit me (with the pole-arm). If you adjust the direction of your charge (to increase your to-hit), you lose momentum (damage). even if i don't get out of your way, your long spear will not hurt me. it can be easily deflected. try it out with a buddy and a blunt, spear like object. charging works in large numbers (as in war-gaming and the ancient style war-fare they simulate) because there are too many spears coming at you to deflect or dodge. the fact that you'd be crammed into a tight formation, shoulder to shoulder with other people would hinder your dodge as well.
with the to-hit/damage swap, balance is restored to the force. if you use it with a melee weapon and you had to move toward your enemy before attacking, you can call it a 'charge' or 'bull rush'. if you use it with a melee weapon on an adjacent target, you can call it a savage blow, thrust, whatever. if you use it with a ranged weapon, you can call it an 'aimed shot'.
|
|
|
Post by sirgawain on Feb 11, 2013 17:14:28 GMT -5
Thanks for the insight to your decision.
My rule: Any hero using a long weapon like a pole-arm or spear is granted a slight bonus on their to-hit roll . And that bonus was only for a reach advantage (their opponent has a short sword or dagger). Anything less than a broad sword in size.
I use the charge rule inversely. An enemy moves 1/2 his movement or more toward a pole-armed target engaging them. The target's options are: letting the enemy close the distance (rare) OR stand his ground and get 1 free attack before being engaged, with a penalty to the attack based on size of the enemy (bigger enemy=easier to hit).
Cut down on the number of pole-arms used by my players.
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 11, 2013 17:49:11 GMT -5
i love you, man. seriously though, your rules regarding pole-arms seems to indicate we are like-minded about how they would work or not work in reality. i love finding some like-mindedness because it is rare for me your pole-arm rules are very realistic and balanced, therefore, true to reality. while they aren't rocket-science, they are more complex than the standard trope. i wonder if that is a factor in your players decisions to refrain from using pole-arms. i seek not to discourage or favor a particular weapon. i have a finite amount of storage space in my head and a slow processor to boot, so i like to keep things that are frequently used (like combat rules) in there as simple and abstract as possible, hence, i still prefer my to-hit/damage swap. but i would probably enjoy your pole-arm rules after i fumbled them enough to remember and use them wisely.
|
|
|
Post by madwill on Feb 11, 2013 17:49:56 GMT -5
glad yall like it. another thing about comparing the crits with the +1 damage/-1 to-hit...one has no control, ability, or skill that can 'coax' crits from the dice. +1 damage/-1 to-hit give choice and a measure of control that is influenced by skill. steal away! i'd tweak it by using the base unarmed damage as the bonus. under st 12 is +1, st 12-17 is +2, st 18 would be +3
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 11, 2013 17:56:01 GMT -5
glad yall like it. another thing about comparing the crits with the +1 damage/-1 to-hit...one has no control, ability, or skill that can 'coax' crits from the dice. +1 damage/-1 to-hit give choice and a measure of control that is influenced by skill. steal away! i'd tweak it by using the base unarmed damage as the bonus. under st 12 is +1, st 12-17 is +2, st 18 would be +3 so...if i have ST14 and i take a -1 to-hit penalty, how much bonus damage do i get? how much bonus damage do i get if i take a -2 to-hit penalty? -3 to-hit penalty? i'm not sure how you would compute that.
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 11, 2013 19:30:54 GMT -5
i haven't thought about it or looked at the spells much but i'm sure there are nice ways to apply the -1/+1 rule to spell-casting as well. i think i should change my name to "-1/+1"
|
|
|
Post by sirgawain on Feb 11, 2013 19:59:47 GMT -5
ewookie: Love?? I am thy 'Maiden's Knight' kind sir! Besides, wookies have too much hair. As far as the rules go, I use them more as a tactical skirmish, rather than a rpg. I use the non-combat rules as written (99% or so), and concentrate on combat rules to keep that element of play balanced. I like a little crunch to the system. Mind you, I'm not looking for a simulation with miniatures, but something like the charge rule is an example of what I consider an illogical situation that I distill into a logical practicality. I also think your idea for 1-to-1 to-hit vs. damage equation is excellent and will be playtesting it. madwill: I assume you're equaling out the to-hit modifier? It would be limiting, but could work. Helping to curtail a thief with 8 ST and 18 DEX from adding 7 or 8 points to damage. A max ST damage cap. This post is too long, going back to my beer now.
|
|
|
Post by madwill on Feb 11, 2013 20:52:01 GMT -5
i'd tweak it by using the base unarmed damage as the bonus. under st 12 is +1, st 12-17 is +2, st 18 would be +3 so...if i have ST14 and i take a -1 to-hit penalty, how much bonus damage do i get? how much bonus damage do i get if i take a -2 to-hit penalty? -3 to-hit penalty? i'm not sure how you would compute that. simple, str 14 would give you +2 damage per -1 to hit.
|
|
|
Post by madwill on Feb 11, 2013 20:53:04 GMT -5
ewookie: Love?? I am thy 'Maiden's Knight' kind sir! Besides, wookies have too much hair. As far as the rules go, I use them more as a tactical skirmish, rather than a rpg. I use the non-combat rules as written (99% or so), and concentrate on combat rules to keep that element of play balanced. I like a little crunch to the system. Mind you, I'm not looking for a simulation with miniatures, but something like the charge rule is an example of what I consider an illogical situation that I distill into a logical practicality. I also think your idea for 1-to-1 to-hit vs. damage equation is excellent and will be playtesting it. madwill: I assume you're equaling out the to-hit modifier? It would be limiting, but could work. Helping to curtail a thief with 8 ST and 18 DEX from adding 7 or 8 points to damage. A max ST damage cap. This post is too long, going back to my beer now. a cap based on your actual skill level with the weapon used would suffice, i think.
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 11, 2013 22:16:32 GMT -5
ST/6 bonus to damage per -1 to-hit scales horribly, especially if your cap is weapon skill level. your weapon skill level is going to erase the penalty. what about the afforementioned thief with ST8? he can't use this at all. and you can only use this if you have some skill with the weapon. how would you let an archer use this? this 'tweak' is not a tweak. it's a totally different unholy beast! you blasphemer! i will stick with -1/+1 with a -6/+6 cap. that was the cap i had in mind all along. the aforementioned thief will be somewhat of a badass especially if he has some weapon skill but he should be a badass with DX18. i like that my -1/+1 to -6/+6 is available to every character with or without skill in the weapon used no matter what weapon is used. it scales wonderfully in every situation. no one gets a tremendous amount of power from it. this -1/+1 idea wasn't intended to be based on any one thing. you can 'explain' it with anything. if you're strong or charging, you're putting more power into the blow than control. if you're skilled or dexterous, you're aiming at a small, vulnerable area of the target.
|
|
|
Post by chrisrice on Feb 13, 2013 3:55:58 GMT -5
I like the simplicity of the +1/-1 as its is. It allows a lot of scope for individual player creativity and description without bogging down in additional stuff to remember.
You do need to watch these ideas though, especially with high DX, low ST characters. In TFT there was the infamous "halfling assassin" debacle. A halfling was strong enough to use a dagger which was a low ST weapon. However, if he had a high DX (which was likely since his racial minimum was 12), Thrown weapons talent and used the optional "Dagger Marksmanship" rule from AM, he became an unbeatable death machine.
This is less of a problem in HOW, since very high ATT scores are rarer, and the racial modifiers and skills/talents are different. But it still needs consideration to make sure that DX is not being substituted for ST and therefore starts to become the "uberstat" it was in TFT.
|
|
|
Post by sirgawain on Feb 13, 2013 8:28:17 GMT -5
I'm thinking a cap at +/- 3 would work. I don't think I'd want to go beyond that since this rule benefits low ST/ high DEX characters much more than high ST/ low DEX characters.
|
|
|
Post by ewookie on Feb 13, 2013 10:30:44 GMT -5
capping at 3 or 4 probably is good for HOW because the ST requirements for more damaging weapons are lower in HOW than LAW. i didn't think about that. it has been moderated quite a bit in HOW but i think DX is still the 'uberstat'. i think that's unavoidable as long as all weapons use DX. DX skins hides and saves hides. maybe a 'tweak' of madwill's rule would complement -1/+1. when making an attack, you can use your base unarmed damage as a damage bonus or you can take the -1/+1 route...but not both at the same time. i think the halfling merchant of death is great! why are you tryin to keep a halfling down?! haha
|
|
|
Post by madwill on Jul 19, 2014 23:28:29 GMT -5
my new rules for armor and the dex penalty; each armor has a str requirement, although, not as steep as the option rules in the rulebook. plate mail requires a str 14 half plate requires str 13 etc. a medium shield adds +1 to total requirement and a tower shield adds +2. the dex penalty is -1 per each str point under the required str for the armor/shield.
|
|