Re: Mechanical discussion

[Baelon Drakeson]

I found someone with fighting 6! He's not here sadly.

viewtopic.php?f=77&
t=107

I was talking about player characters .
Anyone sparring against the Lord Commander of the Kingsguard had aught to know that they are in for a world of hurt.

[Athelstan]

I think most PC's fall under the "
Knights of Quality"
or "
Specialists"
which makes us valuable to a noble House in fighting power.

[Loreia]

Those stats would put the lord commander at an older age, I'd say older than middle age, so he's bound to ave a couple flaws that level the field for the younger generation.

[Reader]

Ser Criston cole is 38 at this point.

His stats don't determine his age or vice versa, not sure why they should. Old NPCs can have rubbish stats, young ones very high stats (subject to sanity limits).

[Nathaniel Mason]

Might I suggest for the Joust it be restricted to three tilts.

We ran into an issue on our first Tourney many years ago and one Joust ran 13 tilts.

Now, if neither are unhorsed after three tilts, the winner is declared on points (Total DoS for the three tilts). It would only go to a fourth tilt if there is still a tie (which is relatively rare).

[Reader]

Sensible suggestion meant to include that, it's what we did in BITW. Will add that.

[Reader]

Pointed out to me that with my adjustments, the battleaxes is strictly better than the bastard sword when used two handed (both powerful, athletics +1 damage, but bastard sword has 1B training requirement). This was not intended - to cover this corner case, two handed battle axe imposes a 1B trainin requirement.

The original adjustment was intended to spur weapon variety, not make something stronger than the bastard sword.

[Athelstan]

Meh, I would rarely use a battleaxe two-handed, I think there's not many players with them.

[Reader]

Meh, I would rarely use a battleaxe two-handed, I think there's not many players with them.

Indeed, I foolishly didn't consider it for this very reason, but it was rightly pointed out to me. Doubt it will come up much.

[Reader]

Further - moving in, attacking and moving out again is silly and I'm probably going to make it provoke passive attacks (so you can do this if you've got a high defence or strong armour, otherwise it'll let your opponents get lots of free hits).

[Athelstan]

I only moved in and attacked.

[Reader]

Yes, sorry to imply otherwise! Was just preparing people that the opposite would have consequences!

Hooray for moving in to attack like a proper Ironborn, just catching up with the threads now and like the pre-fight stuff.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Further - moving in, attacking and moving out again is silly and I'm probably going to make it provoke passive attacks (so you can do this if you've got a high defence or strong armour, otherwise it'll let your opponents get lots of free hits).

How would this even be done, other than with a DP for extra actions?
EDIT: Nevermind, just saw the discussion in the other thread. I don't thing it'll be an issue in this fight, as most of the movement may be a result of Baelon throwing Athelstan around the tourney field.

[Reader]

Fatigue or over multiple rounds.

[Theomore Tullison]

[OOC: axe fighter only kicks in if you took damage from the original attack. I know the version in the errata pdf is slightly different, but I'm going with the printed version and the version implied by the errata pdf (http://freeronin.com/gr_files/GRR2707e_ ... Errata.pdf) which matches the printed version.

"
Whenever you are armed with an axe and roll a Fighting test to attack a foe, you can sacrifice a number of bonus dice to threaten a nasty gash. If you damage your foe, that opponent takes additional damage at the start of his next turn. The amount of damage is equal to the number of bonus dice sacrificed. This damage ignores AR."

Are we doing case by case analysis here? There's a free version of the updated chapter 5, which says: "
On a hit"
. Baelon's beloved BoV is considerably better with errata than in the book as well.

It's kinda like, IMO, we either use all the errata on the benefits, or none of the errata on the benefits. Unless it's clear to us that the errata fixes ambiguities and such things.

As for the free attack on moving away, you remove a lot of tactical elements. If you have a movement speed advantage, you can continuously choose to hit and move, forcing opponent to charge you, which is a tactic that will be advantageous in some circumstances. A guy with a Reach Weapon must move out to hit, and then shouldn't that guy get the free attack whenever you pass out of his range? It's this sort of mess that makes advanced reach a horrible horrible thing one should rethink one's life if one wants to use it in play.

[Athelstan]

I was going with the errata, but I got ruled otherwise, so Axe Fighter I is like a useless as shit quality, I would have not invested on.

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

Well, it turns a hit that pierces armor into bloody murder. That's not useless. Just gotta get that hit in.

[Athelstan]

Not really, if you are facing high armor which is anything beyond breastplate, is kind of useless and lowers your chance of hitting just to get a bonus.

While if it's on hit, it can build a nice tactic of a shallow hit, for greater return next round.

Edit: Besides the ruling of disengaging, I just must as well throw this PC away, it was going of be kind of his style and why I took Fast + Axe Fighter I, so yup, wreck the shit out of my PC, rethink an entire way to beat Baelon awesomeness, will post something later on.

[Baelon Drakeson]

I was going with the errata, but I got ruled otherwise, so Axe Fighter I is like a useless as shit quality, I would have not invested on.

It's not useless, but it does weaken it considerably.

Takes it from being the ultimate anti-fullplate benefit to simply useful in certain circumstances - much like the other "
Weapon Fighter I"
benefits.
Compared to long blade fighter I, you are not going to do as much extra damage, but have the flexibility to only give up some of your bonus dice.

EDIT: to be clear, I can see both sides of the argument, and I will accept a decision in either direction without complaint.

[Athelstan]

Unless you build your fating style around your axe fighter I and Fast, then you are now saddle with 2 useless qualities for combat, which wait hold on, is the only plae to use them, again, see you guys later, I'm having a beer and post later.

[Theomore Tullison]

It's kinda like, sacrifice 2b, get two more damage. Not base damage, 2 damage.

Those 2b raises the average result up by 3.3, at base damage 5, that's 3.3 more damage per hit. So even with the errata it's kinda shit.

I'd take expertise (axes) any time of the year over that. Axe Fighter I is something you take because it's a prereq for Axe Fighter II, just like language 4 is something you take as a prereq for eloquent.

[Athelstan]

Meh, still it's a big change in damage output/round, that I was counting on my hit &
run skirmish like fighting, that now kind of became useless, since aperantly I suffer damage if I disengage unless it was clarified, and just basically makes taking Axe Fighter 1 useless unless you start with Axe Fighter I

All I can do now is trow the battleaxe and grave the long Axe which will end up killing me by round 3 give or take with his nice fighting dice pool?

3.3 dmg extra lets say 2 DoS which is possible rolling 6d6k4 it's 5x2 =10 +3 = 13 dmg, he would take 3 or 6 dmg each other round (assuming I pull it off), so yeah its a BIG difference in damage output with a battle axe, which is now kind of a bleh weapon and that change to Axe Fighter is more punishing that you make it seem if my strategy is a hit and run tactics, hence why I took fast, but meh, I will resolve this after I think how to do it changing my entire strategy do to a I hope not pick and choose Errata to take into account.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Meh, still it's a big change in damage output/round, that I was counting on my hit &
run skirmish like fighting, that now kind of became useless, since aperantly I suffer damage if I disengage unless it was clarified, and just basically makes taking Axe Fighter 1 useless unless you start with Axe Fighter I

All I can do now is trow the battleaxe and grave the long Axe which will end up killing me by round 3 give or take with his nice fighting dice pool?

3.3 dmg extra lets say 2 DoS which is possible rolling 6d6k4 it's 5x2 =10 +3 = 13 dmg, he would take 3 or 6 dmg each other round (assuming I pull it off), so yeah its a BIG difference in damage output with a battle axe, which is now kind of a bleh weapon and that change to Axe Fighter is more punishing that you make it seem if my strategy is a hit and run tactics, hence why I took fast, but meh, I will resolve this after I think how to do it changing my entire strategy do to a I hope not pick and choose Errata to take into account.

Before you go that far, I would actually like to make an argument in favor of consistency - we were presented with an errata'd chapter 5, and I seriously doubt any of us were comparing the original text(s) to the errata to the updated chapter 5;
I was under the impression that the chapter 5 document was the latest version, though I have no evidence for that.
The point is, I think we all built our characters off of those rules, and unless something is game-breakingly bad (or rendered useless by other changes), I think we should more or less stick with the revised chapter 5.

As Axe Fighter I stands in that document, it is VERY powerful, making it very easy to do consistent (albeit low) damage to heavy armor wearers, at the cost of reducing the likelihood of exceeding the AR altogether (I find Theomore's analysis insufficient at best;
it completely ignores AR). But is it game breaking? Probably not (though it does mean that more defensive tactics are called for against axe wielders, much as I have done in round 1 of the trial).

As for the free attacks for disengaging, if it is as written in the section "
Free Attacks"
on pg175 I have no problem with it. You can't hit and run away without penalty, but you can still disengage (take one move action to step 1 foot, then a second one to move the distance you want).

[Athelstan]

Yeah, but if that's the case Long Blades I gives you a DoS which is anything from 4 to 5 damage, if you sacrifice the same amount of dice (if you have Long Blades 2B) than I do, to do significantly a ton more damage than a tiny Damage over time of 1 to 3 damage. Well damn, that's is a hughe difference in power, let's nerf Long Blades I. Then again you also gain +1 Fighting vs. enemies with no shield, so hmm... yeah, you can't say Axe Fighter is strong it can't compare with Long Blades I in damage out put at all.

Edit: That first round would have also be VERY different if I would have known this as I would have just rolled more dice and probably get that 2DoS for 10 dmg, so yeah, my strategy to win this fight by attrition eating away your health with damage over time is no longer viable, but basically now I'm in a total different fight than I had set out to do lol, will post eventually don't worry you have like 75% chance to just out right slaughter and humiliate me during the fight I would just yield, which sounds about better and get over with my interest in even finishing the fight.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Yeah, but if that's the case Long Blades I gives you a DoS which is anything from 4 to 5 damage, if you sacrifice the same amount of dice (if you have Long Blades 2B) than I do, to do significantly a ton more damage than a tiny Damage over time of 1 to 3 damage. Well damn, that's is a hughe difference in power, let's nerf Long Blades I. Then again you also gain +1 Fighting vs. enemies with no shield, so hmm... yeah, you can't say Axe Fighter is strong it can't compare with Long Blades I in damage out put at all.

The advantages of Axe Warrior I over Long Blades I are getting past AR (as written in the revised CH 5 document, which I think is what we should go by).
If you do 5 or less base damage, but can (after the sacrifice) only get 1 DoS, LB1 is useless against fullplate, but AF1 is consistent, low damage.

The +1 to hit against those without shields is a nice bonus, but it is against those you need it on the least.
The flexibility of being able to retain some of your bonus dice to your Fighting Test is, I think, a bit better.

[Sponsored content]