Re: Mechanical discussion

[Loreia]

Impale
If you hit your enemy for 3 degrees of success, you impale him. This invariably means that you will be doing three times the weapon's base damage(+modifiers and weapon qualities like Powerful). For example, a War lance for someone with Animal Handling 2 deals 6 base damage with no Strength, which is 18 damage on a successful impale. There is still armor in the way, however, so someone in full plate reduces that to 8 damage. This only applies to spears though, which are the only type of weapon that can have the impale quality(I'm assuming, as no weapon under any other type listed in the corebook does). Once your weapon has impaled someone, you need to succeed Athletics TN9, or else your weapon stays in your oponent, leaving you disarmed. You can still hold onto your weapon, but you're basically grappling with it to get it free - if you decide to, that is. To get it free after a failed Athletics test, you have to make another Athletics test - this time against a difficulty equal to 3 plus your opponent's AR (hard leather, for example, would be a TN6). I'm sure it would be up to your opponent whether they bothered to spend a lesser action to assist you in getting your spear out of their own body.

For description's sake
How this is described for story's sake gets a bit dodgy. One could assume that an armored opponent could be sufficiently protected against an injury that impaling would cause in real life if it doesn't go through deep enough, or a wound if it does. But how does one define armor protection that is sufficient? As for health, damage that stat can be interpreted in different ways for the sake of roleplay, moving on.

Realism?
An impaled character must spend a greater action to free themselves, but causes an injury or a wound. This makes sense. They can leave it in, but that weapon has to come free sometime, and usually soon. However, someone else - not the impaled, which makes sense - can remove the weapon safely with a TN12 success(or 1 damage for every 5 points below the difficulty if failed, with a minimum of 1). Now this makes sense, sort of. In the heat of combat, the body behaves strangely. A person can take several stabs that miss the heart(and throat, and brain) and keep on fighting, this has been known to happen. But, they tend to notice how badly hurt they really are after enough time, or after the fight is over, and die anyway or require urgent medical attention. And, when a bullet passes right through someone who is shot in real life, it may have exited, but it still caused damage in the soft tissue, which still requires treatment.

For the sake of realism, one could argue for the inclusion of an inflicted wound or injury after a fight, when a fighter would recover their health. Maybe by the time the battle is over, they've already accumulated all the injuries and wounds they can take before going over. Well, you're dead, son. I'm sort of for it because this is a semi/realistic RPG, and that seems like what Green Ronin should go for, but at the same time, the more realism you add in a game, the less fun it becomes, so I wouldn't be opposed if we reached a unanimous "
no thank you"
.

[Theomore Tullison]

Uhm, not quite.

First resolve attack as normal. 3 DoS means impaling kicks in. At that point, you need to succeed on a TN9 Athletics test to hold onto the weapon, otherwise you're disarmed. However, the weapon remains lodged in your opponent. To yank it free, it's a lesser action athletics test against TN3+opponent's AR, every DoS beyond the first deals the weapon's damage again. Presumably, you'd need to take a lesser action (manipulate) to grab hold of it if you failed the first athletics test. Whether or not the yanking free counts as an attack you'd have to ask reader about. Though if AR applies the yanking damage is likely not all that powerful. Someone with high enough fighting and athletics to reliably deal 3 DoS on both those rolls will likely butcher you on the attack when impalement kicks in.

[Reader]

Yank free - probably not an attack, unless I crunch numbers and it isn't balanced. Thanks to Theo for rules stuff.

[Yoren longshore]

On the house event: would we get a round of intrigue before the attack? As they switch to combat on their turn, we'd have to be very persuasive, but it may work...

[Reader]

On the house event: would we get a round of intrigue before the attack? As they switch to combat on their turn, we'd have to be very persuasive, but it may work...

Generally, peruasion will be captured by the tests section ahead of the warfare.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Two mechanics questions regarding house actions.
1. Does it take an action to equip a unit (i.e. spend a wealth for an equipment upgrade)?
2. Are we using the wealth holding limit from the core book (2 per domain) or from Out of Strife, Prosperity (varying limits based on holding type)?

Any word on these?

Also, I would like to make an appeal that the Maneuver combat action should use weapon bonus dice.
There are a couple of reasons.

First, with the passive attack house rule, the only safe way to disengage is to maneuver a foe away from you and then move. The average roll is (Fighting * 3.5), while the TN is (Fighting * 4). That might not seem like much of a difference, but it means that against an equally skilled opponent, a standard knight only has a 1/3rd chance of success, and a knight of quality only has about a 30% chance of success. That seems far too low. Including the specialty dice would raise that to about a 51%/48% chance respectively if bonus dice are also included in the defense or about a 73%/68% chance if only included on the offense side.

Second, it has already been noted that most combats are heavy on knockdowns and light on other maneuvers. One of the major reasons for this is that most other maneuvers have a far lower success rate, making them higher risk - there is an opportunity cost involved, so it is quite rational to choose the actions most likely to be useful. As it stands, a combatant is typically better off trying to knock a foe down than try any other action.

[Reader]

Two mechanics questions regarding house actions.
1. Does it take an action to equip a unit (i.e. spend a wealth for an equipment upgrade)?
2. Are we using the wealth holding limit from the core book (2 per domain) or from Out of Strife, Prosperity (varying limits based on holding type)?

Any word on these?

Also, I would like to make an appeal that the Maneuver combat action should use weapon bonus dice.
There are a couple of reasons.

First, with the passive attack house rule, the only safe way to disengage is to maneuver a foe away from you and then move. The average roll is (Fighting * 3.5), while the TN is (Fighting * 4). That might not seem like much of a difference, but it means that against an equally skilled opponent, a standard knight only has a 1/3rd chance of success, and a knight of quality only has about a 30% chance of success. That seems far too low. Including the specialty dice would raise that to about a 51%/48% chance respectively if bonus dice are also included in the defense or about a 73%/68% chance if only included on the offense side.

Second, it has already been noted that most combats are heavy on knockdowns and light on other maneuvers. One of the major reasons for this is that most other maneuvers have a far lower success rate, making them higher risk - there is an opportunity cost involved, so it is quite rational to choose the actions most likely to be useful. As it stands, a combatant is typically better off trying to knock a foe down than try any other action.

1. Takes an action.
2. No firm decision on limits yet as I've not checked where each house is. Inclined to go with the Out of Strife, Prosperity limits.
3. Maneuver bonus dice - denied for now. I see the appeal but easier maneuver = dragging out combats. It's still very useful when outnumbered by inferior opponents, or when dueling somebody with high damage but relatively low fighting (maybe they're invested in expertise/talented instead, etc). May come back to this, sorry!

[Daveth Coldbrook]

By Reader's request/suggestion, I'm kicking off a discussion about unit abilities, for us to throw ideas around before they make a ruling. After each header is what Reader is currently thinking.

Support
Healing check at TN 9 (?) to avoid one post battle quality level drop in a unit, +1 per additional DOS?
What could Animal Handling do?

Guerillas
Ideas for what favoured terrain actually does?
+1 bonus damage in favoured terrain (makes them equal to archers in favoured terrain in damage terms, and they're cheaper), +1 Defence in favoured Terrain?

But let's not get into more technical detail like 'why don't scouts have Awareness?', 'why does it say crusaders are difficult to control when they have the same Discipline Modifier as ordinary infantry?', and for that matter 'where's the equipment list for crusaders, anyway?'. That way madness lies.

[Yoren longshore]

Support:
Healing sounds good. For animal handling all I have to say Is: Cry havoc and release the dogs of war! I think this ability should be different tasks. The romans lit pigs on fire, many has used hounds to hamstring horses, snakes was catapulted aboard enemy vessels to cause panic, maybe make each something you may buy, like engineers have the catapults and the sappers?

Guerrillas:
Both of those sounds fine, maybe even combined. Although I have to say that working out a proper hit and run system to give them unique abilities would be cool!

[Loreia]

Support:
Healing sounds good. For animal handling all I have to say Is: Cry havoc and release the dogs of war! I think this ability should be different tasks. The romans lit pigs on fire, many has used hounds to hamstring horses, snakes was catapulted aboard enemy vessels to cause panic, maybe make each something you may buy, like engineers have the catapults and the sappers?

I would put these unique ideas under "
Special"
units designed around Animal Handling. But the dogs? Yes, we could give units with at least 3 AH some dogs. Gives the kennel master some busywork with a purpose.

Guerrillas:
Both of those sounds fine, maybe even combined. Although I have to say that working out a proper hit and run system to give them unique abilities would be cool!

If that could be done, sure. In the meantime, they definitely deserve a static bonus for being pretty much useless in warfare in any terrain but their preferred. Surprise attacks don't grant bonus damage, so they need some sort of bonus that compensates for their lack of focus in abilities that calculate damage. Chances are you're not going to get hardly any combat use out of a unit that specializes in just one terrain, so they gotta be useful and competent damagers when they're deployed, which I think means giving them a better bonus. They can be used covertly as spies or saboteurs, but the bonus should be just a tad bit higher, to give enough of a negative incentive for the enemy to disable them or push them out of their preferred terrain to negate/remove that bonus, when they've been discovered.

[Theomore Tullison]

I think the main thing of note with guerrillas is that they aren't exactly the kind of men you'd put on a regular battlefield. You'd have them do hit and run attacks on the enemy camp, baggage train and what-not. So I'd consider having their primary use being to make pre-battle checks to bestow penalties (to discipline for example) and other applications outside the general scope of the warfare rules.

[Septon Arlyn]

Also for the support healing check would characters be allowed to attach to add test die or bonus die? Maybe make characters have to have healing 3+

Or maybe allow characters with the healing skill to try and heal units the same way that characters can attack units?

[Baelon Drakeson]

Two mechanics questions regarding house actions.
1. Does it take an action to equip a unit (i.e. spend a wealth for an equipment upgrade)?
2. Are we using the wealth holding limit from the core book (2 per domain) or from Out of Strife, Prosperity (varying limits based on holding type)?

Also, I would like to make an appeal that the Maneuver combat action should use weapon bonus dice.
<
snip>

1. Takes an action.
2. No firm decision on limits yet as I've not checked where each house is. Inclined to go with the Out of Strife, Prosperity limits.
3. Maneuver bonus dice - denied for now. I see the appeal but easier maneuver = dragging out combats. It's still very useful when outnumbered by inferior opponents, or when dueling somebody with high damage but relatively low fighting (maybe they're invested in expertise/talented instead, etc). May come back to this, sorry!

1 - Follow-up question: The upgraded armor for Personal Guard is essentially full plate, though that is not explicitly stated. Would upgraded Personal Guard armor benefit from the AP reduction house rule for plate?

2 - I support using the OoSP limits. For one thing it doesn't make sense to not have enough room to hire a new personage;
for another it would eliminate the incentive to invest in barren scrubland (cheapest possible domain - plains with no features) just to have a place to put some new wealth holding.
To save you a little time - House Drakeson's current projects will max out our lands under the core book limits... which is why I asked in the first place. :;
):

3 - Understood.

Support:
Healing sounds good. For animal handling all I have to say Is: Cry havoc and release the dogs of war! I think this ability should be different tasks. The romans lit pigs on fire, many has used hounds to hamstring horses, snakes was catapulted aboard enemy vessels to cause panic, maybe make each something you may buy, like engineers have the catapults and the sappers?

I would put these unique ideas under "
Special"
units designed around Animal Handling. But the dogs? Yes, we could give units with at least 3 AH some dogs. Gives the kennel master some busywork with a purpose.

All offensive animal use should be part of a specialist unit. Support are, as the name implies, non-combatants.
Instead of eliminating a training loss, I think that they should, with a successful check, improve which survivor chart a unit rolls on. The actual training loss has as much to do with desertion as with death - which is why a 'destroyed' unit can take no reduction and an uninjured unit can be weakened. Additionally perhaps with a successful animal handling check they can grant a cavalry unit a bonus to movement? Perhaps TN 12 with one cavalry unit per DoS getting a 10' base speed increase.

Guerrillas:
Both of those sounds fine, maybe even combined. Although I have to say that working out a proper hit and run system to give them unique abilities would be cool!

If that could be done, sure. In the meantime, they definitely deserve a static bonus for being pretty much useless in warfare in any terrain but their preferred. Surprise attacks don't grant bonus damage, so they need some sort of bonus that compensates for their lack of focus in abilities that calculate damage. Chances are you're not going to get hardly any combat use out of a unit that specializes in just one terrain, so they gotta be useful and competent damagers when they're deployed, which I think means giving them a better bonus. They can be used covertly as spies or saboteurs, but the bonus should be just a tad bit higher, to give enough of a negative incentive for the enemy to disable them or push them out of their preferred terrain to negate/remove that bonus, when they've been discovered.[/quote]

I think the main thing of note with guerrillas is that they aren't exactly the kind of men you'd put on a regular battlefield. You'd have them do hit and run attacks on the enemy camp, baggage train and what-not. So I'd consider having their primary use being to make pre-battle checks to bestow penalties (to discipline for example) and other applications outside the general scope of the warfare rules.

All of those are types of battles.

To combine these two ideas - perhaps give guerrillas a special order only usable in their favored terrain: they can make a stealth test and move half their base movement. They are then considered concealed (as per the concealed unit rules in the placement section). Basically, they can make hit and run style attacks. Perhaps give a stealth penalty if an enemy unit is adjacent.

Also, given that they only have short-range (thrown) marksmanship attacks, it would make sense to me if they did Athletics damage instead of Agility+1 (a thrown spear or axe as opposed to a bow or crossbow). Perhaps also the +1 damage &
defense in favored terrain.

[Yoren longshore]

Maybe have guerrillas move at twice the speed of normal infantery and being harder to hit by archery? Given their loose formation.

[Loreia]

All units move at the same speed, unless the lack of specialties in units is accounted for by giving extra yards to units with higher Athletics.

I really like Baelon's ideas. The frog spear and knife's damage values are based on Agility, though. A unit with even Agility and Athletic scores would prefer the frog spear over any other thrown weapon, but the training requirement requires a specialty in Thrown to use without a unit taking a -1D. Or do we just ignore training specialties and actual weapon stats at warfare level, and then figure specialties and weapons when switching to character combat?

[Yoren longshore]

At warfare level you ignore weapons, as people may be armed differently. One guy may not be able to afford a sword and goes with an axe instead, while one has the means to get a superior sword, some units are armed in the same fashion, but far from all. It is simply assumed that the ones with better equipment makes up for the ones with worse.

[Theomore Tullison]

Keying their damage to a stat they actually can raise with XP would indeed make them more effective.

And also, if I may suggest that a guerrila does not suffer -1D when ordered to do a fighting withdrawal, and may move at full speed. That would make it perfect for the specialized role of laying in ambush, strike and run away,

[Kevan Lyras]

As the mechanical disscussions are open again, can we have a final ruling on the implementation of a fighting action "
withdraw"
/ "
disengage"
as spending a minor action to step 1 square away from an opponent without suffering an automatic attack? This came up again during the offseason events in some battles...

[Theomore Tullison]

I maintain that the opinion that it was a bad idea have very much been confirmed through play.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Keying their damage to a stat they actually can raise with XP would indeed make them more effective.

Exactly what I was thinking.

And also, if I may suggest that a guerrila does not suffer -1D when ordered to do a fighting withdrawal, and may move at full speed. That would make it perfect for the specialized role of laying in ambush, strike and run away

Hmm. Hit and move would still probably leave them in range of a charge or long-range marksmanship attacks, so that probably wouldn't work as well as one might think. Hit and flee the battlefield would make for appropriate war of attrition, perfect for the role of guerrillas. However it would make wars take forever. A risky strategy too, as even though the odds are better for the guerrillas than for the attacked unit, the post-battle survivor rolls could end up strengthening the target and weakening the guerrillas. Further, Imagine what would happen if one added guerrilla training to cavalry/archers. Sure, Parthian shots are cool and historically quite effective, but probably a bit overpowered for this system.

Perhaps combine that with the hit-and-hide idea: as part of a withdraw action, they can attempt to hide - with penalties against the unit they attacked or other adjacent units. Thus they could withdraw from concealment (+1D &
-1D so effectively +1B) and have a decent chance to stay concealed. Or they could do a regular attack for the full +1D, but leave themselves vulnerable.

Of course all of these ideas would only function in their favored terrain (hills, mountains, plains, or wetlands).

All these ideas are making me want to invest in some Guerrillas! They seem like they could end up being quite effective, especially on defense where they are almost guaranteed to be in their favored terrain.

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

That reminds me, I had a funny idea that I suspect is deeply flawed but I want to inquire about.

Is the maximum range of siege weapons affected by altitude? Could catapults or trebuchets stationed at Caladan Hall actually hit targets in our harbor?

[Theomore Tullison]

That would be down to physics, at least as far as whether or not it is theorethically possible, but if I am to answer that, I'd need some numbers.

If I were your narrator, I'd probably cop out and say that just because it might be physically possible, it's still farther away and thus more difficult to hit, I believe there are range increments for siege weapons same as for marksmanship that determine the effective range, no? (unless it's capped in some more definitive way).

[Kevan Lyras]

They have a range of 500 yards (see Warfare chapter), I dont think you can improve much on that with height without having significant penalties on aim

[Gwyneth Drakeson]

Yar. I doubt you could actually aim at that range, but you could perhaps pre-range some shots at a spot that would be logical for opposing ships to stop at...depending on the lay of the harbor and so on...essentially creating a sort of static 'trap' that ships could stray into.

[Loreia]

Yeah, I take range to mean the extent of your projectile accuracy accounting for all static physics factors(gravity, elevation, draw power, etc). Aiming high, angling your shot, or adjusting the munition of the trebuchet "
just so"
, would all be roleplay descriptions I'd use for the Aim action.

Just be careful with your decision regarding the destruction of a harbor. I hear the response of the ruling faction can be quite explosive.

[Sponsored content]