Combat Questions

[Dragoslav]

Yes, I have played systems that do that over the last few years. Usually, the Defense penalty is a -1 or a -2 for each attack after the first, but these penalties can be countered somewhat by having an Advantage of some sort. (The Fighting Arts provided with SoE are different enough that I had thought about the possibility of adding a new FA pertaining to this.]

I thought so! That explains some of the confusion.

Actually, the penalties from wounds to the Health Condition affect *all* rolls in combat, and do reduce Defense as far as I understand them. (If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.) That's completely different than being attacked by two or three opponents at once, and having a reduction to one's Defense just as part of each attack after the first.

You are right, and that's what I meant in my explanation (sorry if it was unclear). It's not the same as a penalty specifically for being attacked multiple times, but it's the closest thing in the rules.

I suppose that's viable and quite workable, though I have to wonder about this. I understand why the rules for combat have been kept down to relatively simplicity, but given the game has a grittiness and realistic feel to it, especially where combat is sooooooooo deadly, it just seems to me--- Ah, never mind, I'll get over it.

I think it depends on the game's focus. You can have a dark, gritty, realistic setting with complex combat resolution rules, or an equally dark, gritty, realistic setting with simple, abstract combat resolution mechanics, and I don't think either setting would be more or less dark and gritty as long as both systems lead to similar outcomes. That said, the rules-light nature of Esteren's system means you can layer whatever additional complexity you want on top of it, if that's what you and your players want. For example, I like that there are some optional rules presented in Book 1 for things like equipment maintenance and skill upkeep, because even though I wouldn't use them, other groups might enjoy them.

To go on another D&D-related tangent, D&D had an increasing amount of mechanical precision in the combat rules with successive editions because people wanted clear rules on how to adjudicate common things ("What do I roll to trip the ogre?" "How far can I shove this enemy?"), and many argue that the amount of rules for combat in later editions changed the game's focus from exploration and story-telling to a greater emphasis on combat. I don't necessarily agree, but I do think it's absolutely true that the more choices you have to make and the more calculation you have to do during combat (adding and remembering modifiers for different things), the slower combat goes. I absolutely love 4th Edition combat, but I find Esteren's simplicity to be a refreshing change of pace.

[JohnK]

Hullo, Iz,

TWF art don't allow you another attack but helps you during battle. The bonus is finally granted roughly equivalent to another weapon damage (1-3), the damage is calculated on the margin of success. More bonus = more margin = more damage.

I can see where the rules encourage a better margin of success = more damage. Perhaps I just don't understand what the purpose and benefit of the Two-weapon Fighting is...

Hmm, that's an interesting idea on the Riposte, Iz. How about giving me an example here of how that mechanic would work?

Hmm after some simulation I think the best way to play ripost is simply to add a new attitude : riposte. Add your potential to the attack and substract it to the speed rating. To avoid errors, considers that the ennemy always hit before even the speed scores say otherwise.

That would, indeed, be an interesting way of handling the Riposte, and treating it as an Attitude may work well. Des que maintenant, I'm going to leave the rules on the Parry stuff as they are, but I prefer my optional rule better. It's not that Ripostes shouldn't be done, it's that they only come after a Parry.

here are my personnals rules :

• shields : I add their protection score to the defense. I think the current rule is not sufficient. Protections score are 1 to 3 depending on the model.

I had wondered about that with shields, but was going to bring this up as a separate topic. I like the personal rule that you suggest here.

[*]hast (spears, halberds) : you can choose to keep the opponent away. No damage but the adversary must succeed an attack to be again able to hurt you.

I like this one as well, but not sure about whether I intend to implement it.

[*]axe : with a battle axe you can use the hooked part to unbalance the opponent. If you succeed you interrupt your attack if he is slower than you and you gain a +2 to your roll on the next turn.

Good rule, this. May well add that to my game as well.

The new ones :
[*]ambidextry : in a TWF add your potential the part you want. TWF give no maluses or bonuses without these advantage. Hit with his no primary hand invalidate the potential (=always in standard attitude).

My only debate about this is what I mentioned at the beginning of this message. I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the TWF, to be honest.

[*]multiple attack : dispatch your attack score between the differents attacks.

I like this one a lot, and will use that.

Not sure what to do about a target being attacked by multiple attackers and how he handles his Defense against each of them...

[JohnK]

Hullo, Dragonslav,

Yes, I have played systems that do that over the last few years. Usually, the Defense penalty is a -1 or a -2 for each attack after the first, but these penalties can be countered somewhat by having an Advantage of some sort. (The Fighting Arts provided with SoE are different enough that I had thought about the possibility of adding a new FA pertaining to this.]

I thought so! That explains some of the confusion.

So it would appear. The logic is that when you have more than one opponent attacking you, you can't defend yourself adequately against the second and third and so forth opponent. And that's realistically speaking, not talking in terms of what we see in most movies these days.

Actually, the penalties from wounds to the Health Condition affect *all* rolls in combat, and do reduce Defense as far as I understand them. (If I'm wrong, someone please correct me.) That's completely different than being attacked by two or three opponents at once, and having a reduction to one's Defense just as part of each attack after the first.

You are right, and that's what I meant in my explanation (sorry if it was unclear). It's not the same as a penalty specifically for being attacked multiple times, but it's the closest thing in the rules.

As you said, it's the closest thing in the rules, but the problem is I don't find it adequate.

I think it depends on the game's focus. You can have a dark, gritty, realistic setting with complex combat resolution rules, or an equally dark, gritty, realistic setting with simple, abstract combat resolution mechanics, and I don't think either setting would be more or less dark and gritty as long as both systems lead to similar outcomes. That said, the rules-light nature of Esteren's system means you can layer whatever additional complexity you want on top of it, if that's what you and your players want. For example, I like that there are some optional rules presented in Book 1 for things like equipment maintenance and skill upkeep, because even though I wouldn't use them, other groups might enjoy them.

I agree with you on the matter of the layering of additional complexity, but the rules as presented really don't cover the multiple opponents on one character all that well at all. Bear in mind, this has nothing to do with the style of the rules in terms of their grittiness and realism, it's got to do with a situation that may arise in play. When five brigands attack a group of three player characters, do two of the brigands just stand back and watch? Of course not!

<.....> I absolutely love 4th Edition combat, but I find Esteren's simplicity to be a refreshing change of pace.

Oh, I do, too. I just want a few of the combat elements clarified and cleaned up a bit, and this is one of them.

[iznurda]

Hi John !

Well I see TWF like that :

No art => no change on rules. If you hit with the wrong hand you can't use attitude, so you are always in standard attitude (no bonus with potential)

With art (no ambidextrous) : maybe, if you want valorize the art, consider it's add +1 to your potential. The second weapon helps on the global purpose.

Art + ambidextrous advantage : TW and the aptitude give you a virtual free action. That's mean you have free potential points to add in whatever you want during the rnd.
Example : the character as 2 in potential.
In offensive attitude he have ATT+2 DEF-2 AND have 2 potential point to spend more. He can choose to make a dual attack (ATT+2+2 DEF-2), make a quick strike with one hand and a hit with the second (ATT+2 DEF-2 SPD +2), be prudent and keep his second hand to help defend (ATT+2 DEF-2+2).
And so on.

iz

[Arthus]

Hello! I havent'read the whole topic, so I'll answer only on two specific points : multiple attacks and riposte.

Concerning multiple attacks, the optional rule would be (if I've understood) :

- create a fighting art (20xp)
- possibility to dispatch the combat points between several attacks


My question is : what with potential if you use the agressive posture?
It could be a good idea to say that in case of multiple attacks, potential is applied on EVERY attack roll. It would valorize that fighting art by increasing the hit ratio of every attack.

About riposte: is such an art useful?
The combat mechanic is that the fastest is the last to choose his attitude, and the first to strike. It is explained by the fact that the fastest has the time to see what the opponent will do, and to act in consequence (the last to choose his attitude in function of what the opponent will do).
Isn't it a form of riposte already?

I hope I could help

[iznurda]

Hello! I havent'read the whole topic, so I'll answer only on two specific points : multiple attacks and riposte.
Concerning multiple attacks, the optional rule would be (if I've understood) :
- create a fighting art (20xp)
- possibility to dispatch the combat points between several attacks
My question is : what with potential if you use the agressive posture?
It could be a good idea to say that in case of multiple attacks, potential is applied on EVERY attack roll. It would valorize that fighting art by increasing the hit ratio of every attack.

Well 20 pt it's cheap I think. Maybe 30 or + will be best and more realist. Or you give it a limit like "if you miss an attack, you cancel all attacks following".

About riposte: is such an art useful?
The combat mechanic is that the fastest is the last to choose his attitude, and the first to strike. It is explained by the fact that the fastest has the time to see what the opponent will do, and to act in consequence (the last to choose his attitude in function of what the opponent will do). Isn't it a form of riposte already?

It's true if you are the fastest or a good fighter. If you are average (or weak) in combat maybe sometimes it could be interesting to improve attack with no raise of def. Here comes the riposte attitude.

iz

[JohnK]

Hullo, Iz,

Hi John !
Well I see TWF like that :

No art => no change on rules. If you hit with the wrong hand you can't use attitude, so you are always in standard attitude (no bonus with potential)

Okay, Iz, this actually makes sense to me.

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

With art (no ambidextrous) : maybe, if you want valorize the art, consider it's add +1 to your potential. The second weapon helps on the global purpose.

I had actually considered doing that, but I don't know if the art needs to be given an element of valor/courage...

Art + ambidextrous advantage : TW and the aptitude give you a virtual free action. That's mean you have free potential points to add in whatever you want during the rnd.
Example : the character has 2 in potential.
In offensive attitude he have ATT+2 DEF-2 AND have 2 potential point to spend more. He can choose to make a dual attack (ATT+2+2 DEF-2), make a quick strike with one hand and a hit with the second (ATT+2 DEF-2 SPD +2), be prudent and keep his second hand to help defend (ATT+2 DEF-2+2).
And so on.

Ah, now this makes a lot of sense to me, and I think I will go with "resolution" to the situation I'm having with the Art of Two-weapon Fighting.

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

[JohnK]

Hullo, Arthus,

Hello! I havent'read the whole topic, so I'll answer only on two specific points : multiple attacks and riposte.

Everything's good, and I'm interested in all the viewpoints on this I can get.

Concerning multiple attacks, the optional rule would be (if I've understood) :

- create a fighting art (20xp)
- possibility to dispatch the combat points between several attacks


My question is : what with potential if you use the agressive posture?
It could be a good idea to say that in case of multiple attacks, potential is applied on EVERY attack roll. It would valorize that fighting art by increasing the hit ratio of every attack.

To be honest, rather than creating a new Fighting Art for the Multiple Attacks, I would rather just handle this as a penalty of some sort to the attacks being made. 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.

About riposte: is such an art useful?
The combat mechanic is that the fastest is the last to choose his attitude, and the first to strike. It is explained by the fact that the fastest has the time to see what the opponent will do, and to act in consequence (the last to choose his attitude in function of what the opponent will do).
Isn't it a form of riposte already?

Not really. A Riposte is defined (usually in fencing) as a quick return thrust following a parry. For me, only someone who is truly skilled with a weapon should be able to make a Riposte, but only if he's used the Parry Fighting Art in the first place.

Whether such an Art is useful depends on one question: Does the combat system and the game simulate any type of swashbuckling style?, as this is the style where ripostes tend to occur. If not, then the answer is that the Riposte is not needed. If yes, then it needs to be added. But then the question is whether it needs to be a Fighting Art on its own, or whether it can just be added to the Parry to begin with, with just a rule on a modifier that allows the Riposte.

[iznurda]

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

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

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.

iz

[Arthus]

Hi!

About riposte :

John : I think I see what you mean.

In fact, you want to allow the one who parries (with the "parry" art) to keep his attack...
I think that French speaking Dm's already use that rule.

After reflexion, I find it difficult. In the case of a combat with several opponents, the one who "ripostes" to one opponent's attack will open his guard to all other opponents.

And to simulate this, you'll have to create complicated systems based on bonus/malus in addition of the "parry" attitude, and/or on changing combat attitude during the round (stop parrying to take an agressive posture).

I think it's easier to take the existing rules and to boost defense (to block or avoid) and quikness (last to choose, first to strike...) to simulate it.

After all, if I've well understood,

defense = avoid, block, etc (and not only avoid)
Parry = full defense : you focus all your attention to block the opponent's attack, and to do so you decide not to attack...

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.


about multiple attack :

A precision : by "multiple attack", I meant "attack several targets in one move" (like circle attack, or the fighting art of Brad Pitt in "Troy"...), and not "attack one target several times".

It was clear in my head, but I hadn't written it.