Combat Questions

[JohnK]

Hullo, Iz,

Which raises a question... Could a character have one Attitude with his sword hand, and be forced to have the Standard Attitude with his secondary hand?

No change with the sword hand. Why make a change ? ^^

Not really thinking about a change in the rules here, but more a question, tu sais.

Part of the problem with the combat system in the book is that while there was a description of each step in combat as noted on pages 236-237, what was seriously lacking was a complete example of Combat and some of the rules that are mentioned there. Perhaps something like this could be written up with some basic game statistics provided for both protagonist(s) and antagonist(s). Such an example might be good to translate for both French and English gamers.

In such a case, how would you write up the Ambidextrous Advantages, and what point value would you give it?

TWF cost 20xp as the other arts.
Ambidextrous is for me an 40 point advantage.
Because of the asperity of the art of combat "multiple attack" I would exceptionally ascend to the 30xp cost. Or keep it to 20 if potential is include before the dispatch (no application on each attack) => a 10 and 2 in POT will not give a 2x(5+2)=14 attack but two 6 attacks.

While I get the basics of what you're saying here, what would the Ambidexterous Advantage grant the character in actual combat, aside from the ability of being able to use weapons in both hands equally?

[JohnK]

Hullo, Nelyhann,

Hey a lot of interesting stuff there
But sorry I have read quite fast, excuse any poor comprehension or repetition in my post. I am the main author of the game system so I will try to give my point of view.

I was hoping that you'd pop your head in here, and see what you made of some of the issues that have been raised here. And better late, than never.

That said, my real issue with multiple attacks is not the attacker's actions per se, but the way in which a character *defends* against multiple attacks.

As stated in the book, it is managed like normal fights. No penalty, no adjustments but of course the defender can only attack ONE single opponent.

I understand that part of it. What I did wonder why the defender's Defense stays the same for each attack by multiple opponents. Is there something here from the design point of view that I am missing in this regard? Shouldn't there be additional penalties to Defense for each additional attack against the defender in the round? And if not, why not?

The playtest showed that fighting against multiple opponents are so fatal that there is no need to add further adjustments that would slow the whole. I agree, we clearly sacrificed many simulationists aspects for speed and efficiency during the game.

Okay, that provides part of the answer to me. As for sacrificing the simulationist aspects for speed and efficiency, that works for me.

Besides, combat rules are only three pages ... obviously you are free and encouraged to complete according your style of game

Exactly. Just makes me wonder how many house rules for the game exist on the French side of the game, since it's been out since 2010 (?) or so...

[iznurda]

Iz : "Average or weak fighters" sounds me strange while talking about fighting art skills. A character who takes a fighting art skill must have at least 5 in a combat domain, and then spend xp in fighting arts. That means (for me) that only professional fighters will do that, and not casual ones.

Argh, you have the point, except if the riposte attitude is not an art. It's just another attitude so everyone have it.

Part of the problem with the combat system in the book is that while there was a description of each step in combat as noted on pages 236-237, what was seriously lacking was a complete example of Combat and some of the rules that are mentioned there. Perhaps something like this could be written up with some basic game statistics provided for both protagonist(s) and antagonist(s). Such an example might be good to translate for both French and English gamers.

Ok, I'll try to write one asap. 2 fighters. One fight with normal rules, and after the same with some of the rules exposed here.

iz

[AssenG]

Iz : "Average or weak fighters" sounds me strange while talking about fighting art skills. A character who takes a fighting art skill must have at least 5 in a combat domain, and then spend xp in fighting arts. That means (for me) that only professional fighters will do that, and not casual ones.

Argh, you have the point, except if the riposte attitude is not an art. It's just another attitude so everyone have it.

Just for the record, I beg to differ. A Domain of 5 is quite easy to get at character generation, even if you only plan to use it for self-defence and not as a professional.
Now, Disciplines start to get costly, but that only means some fighting arts might be a better investment for a lesser XP value.

[Dragoslav]

To freshen up the discussion, I'll pose a question that came up at the beginning of the thread:

Can a character move up to an enemy and attack it in the same round? Or, in the first round of combat, are the characters who go first going to be at an odd disadvantage because they have to move up to an enemy and then wait until next turn to hit it, meaning that they are going to get hit on the enemy's first turn?

[AssenG]

I think that by RAW, the answer is yes. Unless they've got missile weapons.
And if they've got missile weapons and cover, it could become a really one-sided fight, really fast !

[Ovid]

To freshen up the discussion, I'll pose a question that came up at the beginning of the thread:

Can a character move up to an enemy and attack it in the same round? Or, in the first round of combat, are the characters who go first going to be at an odd disadvantage because they have to move up to an enemy and then wait until next turn to hit it, meaning that they are going to get hit on the enemy's first turn?

I'm not clear on what the problem is. If the character wants to attack someone ten yards away, then they have to give up their attack to do so. You still get an attack if he's close by. So it's often wise to let the opponent come to you or for both to sidle up to one other cautiously, looking for an opening.

[Dragoslav]

First and foremost, it's just surprising to me because I approached the rules from a background in the D&D system, which has always allowed movement and attack in a single turn throughout each edition, even when later editions went from 1-minute rounds to 6-second rounds.

Secondly, I wonder how it works in play given that combat in Esteren is supposed to be fast and brutal (lasting around 3-4 rounds maximum, as they say). If both sides are gradually sidling up to one another, that seems like it will draw things out.

Finally, it seems counter-intuitive because it means that whoever goes first in combat, which is supposed to be an advantage, at least for the first round before everyone has closed in, is at a disadvantage. If you move up to the enemy, you make yourself vulnerable. Given that, it seems like neither side has much of an incentive to close distance with the other -- it makes more sense to stand there and wait, leading to a stalemate.

Granted, that's assuming two evenly matched sides composed entirely of melee combatants, which probably won't often happen.

If one side is at a numerical disadvantage, the other side will want to surround that side to eliminate them before they can get away. The superior force is guaranteed to win, but is still at risk of losing some resources (health) during the battle.

If someone has a projectile weapon, then that changes everything. The opposing side will want to close in as much as possible to reduce that advantage. So every team probably wants at least one person who's handy with a bow or throwing ax.

If you're fighting against an aggressive creature like a Feond, pack of wolves, etc., then such an opponent will probably close in as quickly as possible, meaning that the players only have to wait for the enemy to come to them.

Anyway, that's just me ruminating on the issue.

[JohnK]

Hullo, Iz,

Part of the problem with the combat system in the book is that while there was a description of each step in combat as noted on pages 236-237, what was seriously lacking was a complete example of Combat and some of the rules that are mentioned there. Perhaps something like this could be written up with some basic game statistics provided for both protagonist(s) and antagonist(s). Such an example might be good to translate for both French and English gamers.

Ok, I'll try to write one asap. 2 fighters. One fight with normal rules, and after the same with some of the rules exposed here.

That would be extremely kind and gracious of you, Iz. Not to mention useful to the folks around here on the English forums who are new to the game. Heck, even the French newcomers would find such a thing useful. Look forward to it.

[Ovid]

Anyway, that's just me ruminating on the issue.

I think we're all overthinking this, to be honest. In particular, everything in the Attitudes section implies to me that it's about when a fight has already started. Personally, I'd handle the start of the fight narratively, and then call for initiative only when the hitting starts. Movement is then an Attitude that's used for people doing other things around the ongoing fight.