Combat Stats - Fighting PCs almost always hit?

[Clovis]

As for load type calculations - I would imagine having a flat penalty to physical activities (like wound pen.) would work well; meaning plate is more cumbersome than leather... perhaps to speed and Feat rolls, or something like that.

It's true such specificities are not included in the basic system, but every GL is free to include them if he wishes so. I would actually approve of it, as far as I'm concerned!

[Yepesnopes]

Yes indeed, by taking the stats of weapons and armors from Ars Magica, combat becomes extremely deadly if you are not properly equipped and / or trained. This is something I like. For non combat oriented characters in clothes and wielding a walking stick entering combat is a bad idea, especially if he faces someone armed with sword and armor. This is not for the taste of everyone, I am aware.

[James Harrison]

I think you misunderstand - a properly equipped untrained person is too dangerous! Simply purchasing the mall and untrained individuals become amazing... Trained fighters would not care who they we against: +6 accuracy and +12 damage equates to +18 damage... we have already seen how (in all likelihood) fighters always hit - now they always hit and kill: And non- fighters become massively combat proficient via some cash.

Even against a fully armoured and shielded Tank (With an excellent defence of 16 and Protection of 11), our starting fighter is getting around 1d10+16 to hit with his maul... he's always hitting, and dealing his 1d10+1 damage...

This is not a problem, but it is a starting fighter vs the heaviest armoured opponent - an experienced fighter, with some advantages is terrifying.

Anyway my main gripe is with that Maul being so good with it's +6 accuracy - It feels that it makes it to easy to be very good at combat.

Thoughts?


I was considering tinkering with he combat rules a little: making weapon damage simply dealt on a hit, and armour level indicating the damage of the overshoot; i.e. Protection 2 would mean you take additional damage equal to half the margin of success... Protection 3 equal to 1/3rd the margin of success; fighters don't kill in one blow, and being just o.k. at fighting means you contribute (due to a hit still dealing your weapons damage), just not as much as the expert. The numbers four armour may need tinkering with... O.K. off now things to do.

[Clovis]

Thoughts?

In my opinion, simply giving too much importance to what weapon is being used is kinda inadequate. It making a bit of difference makes sense, obviously, but it being the deciding factor is going too far. It doesn't matter if you have a top-quality weapon as long as you don't know how to use it.

Moreover, I'd say making detailed stats for the weapons sorta takes one's mind away from the more grounded, less video game-like aspects of an RPG.

I was considering tinkering with he combat rules a little: making weapon damage simply dealt on a hit, and armour level indicating the damage of the overshoot; i.e. Protection 2 would mean you take additional damage equal to half the margin of success... Protection 3 equal to 1/3rd the margin of success; fighters don't kill in one blow, and being just o.k. at fighting means you contribute (due to a hit still dealing your weapons damage), just not as much as the expert. The numbers four armour may need tinkering with... O.K. off now things to do.

I've played a game that used this system once, and I found it quite clever. It makes calculation a tad more difficult, but it seems more sensible and realistic to me, instead of heavy armor making you capable of shrugging off blows like nobody's business.

[Pierstoval]

Sorry for that but I didn't read all the posts, I just want to add a note to all of you about statistic differences between combat and defense in Shadows of Esteren.

Currently, I have 832 characters saved on Corahn-Rin.

I made some statistics about all these characters, and some are really interesting to study, for all the characters :
Average Defense score : 11.43
Average Close Combat score : 3.06
I also have an average value which is calculated by doing the average with all Close Combat scores added to their Combativeness Way, so it includes EVERY character (regardless of their ability to use Close Combat or not).
This results in an "average Close Combat dice roll bonus" of 6.55. According to an average value of 5.5 (half way from 1 to 10) in your d10 roll, it makes the calculation very simple :
6.55 + 5.5 = 12.05 average close combat attack

With an average defense value of 11.43, then we can say that in general, any character has 6 chances on 10 to hit any other character.
If the Game Leaders make their NPCs the same way you create a normal character, then it's almost the same chances for any character to hit another...

Might think about such stats

Now let's go back to your own analyzes

[Yepesnopes]

I think you misunderstand - a properly equipped untrained person is too dangerous! Simply purchasing the mall and untrained individuals become amazing... Trained fighters would not care who they we against: +6 accuracy and +12 damage equates to +18 damage... we have already seen how (in all likelihood) fighters always hit - now they always hit and kill: And non- fighters become massively combat proficient via some cash.

Even against a fully armoured and shielded Tank (With an excellent defence of 16 and Protection of 11), our starting fighter is getting around 1d10+16 to hit with his maul... he's always hitting, and dealing his 1d10+1 damage...

This is not a problem, but it is a starting fighter vs the heaviest armoured opponent - an experienced fighter, with some advantages is terrifying.

Anyway my main gripe is with that Maul being so good with it's +6 accuracy - It feels that it makes it to easy to be very good at combat.

I have to admit that in Ars Magica I always had issues with the maul because it is extremly deadly because of its +6 to attack.

Said that, I quite do not get your numbers.
Lets suppose we have a character who is not really trained in combat and he has a maul.
Way of Combativeness:3, Melee: 2, Maul: +6. Total attack rating = 11
and for his defence...Way of Reason:4 + Way of Empathy:2 +5 and he raised it by 1 more point. Total defence rating = 12

This guy is fighting a rather good fighter (tank as you suggested)
-Way of Combativeness: 4, Melee, 6, Long Sword +4. Total attack rating = 14
-as for his defence 8 (5 + 3 from his ways of Reason and Empathy) + 5 +4 (from skill points) + 4 (shield and sword bonus). Total defence rating = 21

The untrained guy with the maul will only hit the warrior on a roll of 10, for a damage of 12 - armour. While the trained warrior will hit him always. Moreover, a weapon like the longsword confers a bonus to the initiative, which the maul does not.

[James Harrison]

Ok, when you spend points on defence the non-combatant cannot hit. Fair; still it is a great leaver; against the opponents you face in the prologue, even adjusting for there new shield and sword bonuses a starting Maul wielder will be rocking!

I expect I hadn't fully comprehended the shield and sword bonuses to Defence. On the flip side our untrained buy hefts up a maul and attacks commoners - they will likely be being one shot... Which might be flavourful, but makes me feel edgy! My image of an enraged guy who's just picked up a maul is he'd be dangerous if it connected, but you could dodge it!

Still pit out maul wielder against a barbarian built as below; the barbarian wields a battleaxe and an osag shield; suddenly we are hitting on a 8, 9 or 10... then take a creatively offensive stance (our non-combatant wither has conviction 5 and some kind of priestly magic... or creativity 5 and can get a heft bonus to hit) and we are hitting on 6+ or 5+... that's pretty good for having spent 100+ less xp on being a fighter.

However I may be like you and it is the maul glaring out at me that I find the offending article! I am swayed by the argument clovis gave:

I'd say making detailed stats for the weapons sorta takes one's mind away from the more grounded, less video game-like aspects of an RPG.

Normally I'm quite Simulationist (and Love Ars Magica by the way) but for this RPG I'm wanting to be more Narrativist, so less is more. But you have convinced me your weapon table could be balanced - I feel I want to go with something simpler (as I mentioned previously). I might write it up and post it

[Yepesnopes]

Please do post it, I would love to see it. My weapon table is by no means something I consider done and finished for my house rules, I am sure that I will be tweaking it as I have more games under my belt.

P.S: Regarding the Maul, two things occur to me:
1) Give the maul a slight malus tu initiative (-1 or -2) to represent its cumbersomness.
2) The attack bonus listed for weapons is equal to your weapon skill up to the maximum listed on the weapon chart. So a peasent with weapon skill 2 will get only a +2 from the maul, while a warrior with weapon skill 8 will get the full +6 bonus.

[Yepesnopes]

Moreover, I'd say making detailed stats for the weapons sorta takes one's mind away from the more grounded, less video game-like aspects of an RPG.

I don't agree and I agree

I really don't like rpg's which try to emulate video games, like D&D or Warhammer 3, where a lot of weight is put on how awesome you are in combat with all your fancy talents and actions. I rather prefer games where combat is brutal and gritty for both, PCs and NPCs alike. (Interestingly enough, warhammer 3 has a strange combination of video game + very gritty combat styles).

On the other hand, making weapons an armors more detailed does not necessarily bring the game towards a more video game style direction (of course it kind of diverts weight towards combat).

Some examples of RPGs where weapons and armors have a bigger impact (versus non weapon or no armor) which don't have a video game feeling (at least in my opinion) are: The One Ring, Rune Quest, Cthulhu, The Burning Wheel, Pendragon.

[Clovis]

On the other hand, making weapons an armors more detailed does not necessarily bring the game towards a more video game style direction (of course it kind of diverts weight towards combat).

Not necessarily, indeed, it all depends on the GM and Players, but it is my belief that the lighter the system is, the more you will encourage the participants to take a narrativist approach rather than a simulationist one.

That's my own stance, of course! Other Players may feel much more comfortable having a very thorough and complete system, and that's fine too!