Re: Game Discussion

[Theomore Tullison]

Toying around with specialty numbers in a spreadsheet atm.

I wonder if the best solution to the rank 4 thing is to tweak powerful, and then hunt down and change all the specialty rank to X into gain static bonus to Y. Depends a bit on what Y is. The old stubborn could stay as is, for example, while shield specialization and tourney knight are more suspect.

I think easiest fix for powerful is to only apply half rank to damage, round up or down I'd say should depend on what I land on with specialty cost, the 5-5-10-10-15-15-20 approach I am mulling would work if benefits derived directly from rank are eliminated or toned down and justify a rounding upwards IMO.

[Davain Bartheld]

a relatively unseasoned knight for the latter would complement the lineup best in terms of the archetypes already there.

Was already toying with that same idea. I was thinking about having him be the son of the smith there and a few other ideas.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Power resides where men believe it resides

Truth.

There's still a need to fill out the home house roster, though most events are actually done, still scratching my head around how to pull off a seven sided melee, or how a seven sided melee is supposed to work on account of Martin only passingly having mentioned that there was one at Harrenhaal. May opt for a more "boring" two-sided affair for the same reason as to why I'm looking at a single elimination jousting format, but with the option to issue challenges and manipulate the draw by building up popular demand for specific duels (or bribing the tourney master).

The easiest way to do a large-scale team melee would be to use the squad-scale warfare rules (each team is a squad, effectively one unit). That leaves room for calling out challenges (either using the detach/reattach scheme that you used in this game against the mountain clan attack, or loosening the restriction on commanders/heroes acting individually while attached). If you have the squad's combat values be an average of the participants, you could even add some significant benefits for recruiting strong members to your squad. if you make it an average of the undefeated members of a squad, it means that there is great benefit to calling out the stronger opponents (maybe get rid of the generic "attack part of a unit", too). It also means that having a talented commander is useful in tourneys, a character-type that otherwise might have some difficulty being relevant.

Plus a slew of NPC's, though I'm guessing that most of them doesn't get more than a line or two of description and stats from sample templates.

I can confirm that Reader had literally hundreds of NPCs with stats, many of whom only made passing appearances (like being on the list of NPCs at the tourney). that's probably a bit more than you need to start though.  

Toying around with specialty numbers in a spreadsheet atm.

I wonder if the best solution to the rank 4 thing is to tweak powerful, and then hunt down and change all the specialty rank to X into gain static bonus to Y. Depends a bit on what Y is. The old stubborn could stay as is, for example, while shield specialization and tourney knight are more suspect.

I think easiest fix for powerful is to only apply half rank to damage, round up or down I'd say should depend on what I land on with specialty cost, the 5-5-10-10-15-15-20 approach I am mulling would work if benefits derived directly from rank are eliminated or toned down and justify a rounding upwards IMO.

Summary: I think a 2b or 3b cap on specialty dice for starting characters would be simpler and better.

full reply:

[Theomore Tullison]

I was starting to contemplate a specialty cap of half ability rounded up, so you can have 1b for 2D, 2b for 3-4D and 3b for 5D. Which is kinda almost the same thing.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

I was starting to contemplate a specialty cap of half ability rounded up, so you can have 1b for 2D, 2b for 3-4D and 3b for 5D. Which is kinda almost the same thing.

For what it's worth, that makes a lot of sense to me - it both prevents those inexperienced in the system from taking a statistically-suboptimal option, it also prevents min-maxers from making ridiculous builds (in that aspect, at least). As well as making a lot of in-universe sense.

One impact that it will have is make Training die relatively more penalising. I doubt anyone without Fighting 5 (and hence 3B) would pick a flail, simply because its 2B training penalty would leave them with no specialty die at all, and the first one makes such a big difference. And even those with 1B training would be a consideration. Rather than simply being an XP tax (if you know you want to wield a bastard sword and want to be rolling 6d6k4, you'd buy 3B in the specialty), there would have to be genuine consideration as to if the benefits of the weapon is worth rolling one fewer bonus die. I don't know the combat system well enough to comment as to if/how many would be worth that trade-off, but it's an interesting question.

[Theomore Tullison]

Those training penalties seems to have been applied by the standard of how difficult the creators deemed them to wield.

To memory, my characters have been using axes (carrying both longaxe and battleaxe) if they had AXF II, ball&chain if they had 2+ strength and otherwise longsword. Always Greatsword if 2H. Ball&chain gives a very good return for the training tradeoff, and with AXF II, you don't care about the penalty anyway. Lances you get tons of bonus dices from AH anyway (and they are hands down the most dangerous mounted weapon there is, unless you're doing a massive super-high Athletics guy). Leaving Frog Spear and Stiletto for agility based characters, backup weapons for archers primarily, and my archers prefers longbow or double-curved for better damage without the reload trade-off.

So from a game balance perspective, I see no reason why whip and flail should have 2B, and most of those 1B's are perhaps better off removed seeing that greatsword and longsword is IMO only outmatched in the melee department if you have high agility, high strength or benefits tilting things in the favor of other weapons. May be that some are equivalent due to shattering/piercing/staggering, but I'm slightly doubtful of that.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

More random observations as I poke around:
Anointed requirement 'must be knighted by a character outside one's family who's combined ranks of status and reputation is at least 9.' means that only someone with at least Status 6 who's very respected can Anoint someone (with the new Specialty restrictions).  That means the heads of PC houses and their peers do not have the required prestige, so it's largely a Lord Paramount/Royal family thing.  I know that it represents a 'special' knighting, but is it really meant to be *that* special?  ('Yes' is an entirely reasonable answer, I just want to be sure.)

Further, I note this in Anointed: 'Once per day as a free action on your turn in an intrigue, you may add +5 to your intrigue defense and all passive results until the end of the next exchange.'  Revised Chapter 5 has it apply until the start of your next turn.  Meaning the way you've done it, if you have initiative, it is literally twice as useful (since it applies for that round and the next).  I thought this was a mistake, but then I realised: Initiative relies on Status and Reputation.  Was that actually *deliberate*?  Emphasising the importance of both for a knight?  If so, kudos, but 2 rounds of near-invulnerability *is* Powerful in an intrigue (though of course, the characters who would take it typically need all the help they can get, soooo...?).

With the lowering of requirements for Lordly chivalry to Status 4, I'm slightly confused: people who are directly related to a Head of House, but not in the line of succession, would likely have Status 4, but wouldn't be a Lord (ehhh ... technically.  I think?).  Maybe clarify, or change the name?

Actually, on the subject of Chivalry, True Knights are *really* hard to persuade.  Their 'half Will, round down' bonuses incentivise taking Will 4, they get +3 Composure from the Benefit, and positive Chivalry gives +2/+3 on top of that, meaning those with Lordly Chivalry can easily start with 18 Composure, adding on the bonuses to Intrigue Defence and DR making them even more stubborn.  Wow.

Attractive: typo: 'dices'

'Also note that you cannot have more ranks in a specialty than half your rank (round up) in the accompanying ability.'
Axe Fighter 3 Requires: Fighting 6 (axes 4b), Axe Fighter 2.  Not possible.  Requires Fighting 7 to have 4b in Axes.
I note Long Blade Benefits have different requirements.

Improved Weapon Mastery increases the base damage by a total of +3?  (+1 from WM, +2 more from IWM?)  

Generally, I like the Maester benefit - appropriately powerful and thematic, but this one 'you may add your full ability rank rather than half when assisting the head of house with any test.' makes me squint at it a bit.  A skilled maester could well have that give an additional +2 to most tests he'd assist with, which if the Head is a PC (admittedly unlikely the way you've arranged things), could be quite the boost (e.g. assisting in an intrigue).  I don't know, maybe it's okay.

Stubborn: no mention of rounding up or down?

Absent minded: I'm still unsure.  Is the only reason to take this rather than Flaw if you only have 2 in both?  In which case, you can't take Flaw, but can take Absent Minded?  Otherwise, you're better off taking Flaw. Edit: Never mind. I'd missed that Flaws are a *lot* more severe in the Chapter 5 pdf than they are in the book I have. The difference makes sense now.

Furious: maybe a lack of imagination, but seems less crippling for a woman (or rather, for someone typically unarmed) than for a(n armed) man, since I think there's less emphasis on 'who struck first' in a verbal fight.  Sure you don't want to include 'Incite' in it?  Or maybe change it some other way for unarmed types? Edit: Never mind.  Re-read it, had forgotten how useful it was against someone amiable or better.

Final note: I threw together a character (derived from my previous efforts), trying to see how high I could push Chivalry.  I managed to get to 7, with a character who I fully believe would be playable.  I could have reached 8 with an Apprentice, I believe.  Just an FYI.

[Theomore Tullison]

Theoretical maximum for chivalry/virtue is 9 I think, depending on the number of benefits giving bonuses that can be collected, but I played around a bit with stuff now, so I'll make NPC stats for all the 20 characters and see what it looks like.

[Baelon Drakeson]

I was starting to contemplate a specialty cap of half ability rounded up, so you can have 1b for 2D, 2b for 3-4D and 3b for 5D. Which is kinda almost the same thing.

Very similar to one of my initial suggestions. I like it - it does the job and is fairly simple.  

One impact that it will have is make Training die relatively more penalising.  I doubt anyone without Fighting 5 (and hence 3B) would pick a flail, simply because its 2B training penalty would leave them with no specialty die at all, and the first one makes such a big difference.  And even those with 1B training would be a consideration.  Rather than simply being an XP tax (if you know you want to wield a bastard sword and want to be rolling 6d6k4, you'd buy 3B in the specialty), there would have to be genuine consideration as to if the benefits of the weapon is worth rolling one fewer bonus die.  I don't know the combat system well enough to comment as to if/how many would be worth that trade-off, but it's an interesting question.

To my mind those penalties (when appropriate) SHOULD be statistically significant.

Those training penalties seems to have been applied by the standard of how difficult the creators deemed them to wield.

<snip>

So from a game balance perspective, I see no reason why whip and flail should have 2B, and most of those 1B's are perhaps better off removed seeing that greatsword and longsword is IMO only outmatched in the melee department if you have high agility, high strength or benefits tilting things in the favor of other weapons. May be that some are equivalent due to shattering/piercing/staggering, but I'm slightly doubtful of that.

I think it is far less randomly done than you think, though I feel that the designers made some bad decisions.

I've dug a bit into weapon design in the system... its pretty long, so I'm putting it into a spoiler. TL;DR - with a few exceptions (and bad design assumptions) most of the weapons are balanced fairly. On a related note, especially when points are readily available I think it makes sense to apply training penalties from off-hand weapons (shields, left-hand daggers, etc) even if the weapon isn't being used as part of an attack. It's a significant part of the balancing of the weapons.

Analysis:

Now, as much as the assumptions I've made make most of the weapons point-neutral, i don't like many of those assumptions. For instance, ranks in Off-Hand and Piercing should not be the same value as damage modifiers. Off-Hand requires a greater action to use, and piercing explicitly does less damage (no value against unarmored targets, and is not multiplied by DoS). Similarly, Divided Attacks are almost never worthwhile and thus as written Fast and Slow are pretty much meaningless compared to other qualities. Most Qualities are simply not the equivalent of extra damage or half a training penalty. of course, the balance of Powerful is different when specialty points are plentiful. In the base system, Powerful is of niche utility - few can spare points to have more than 1b or 2b in strength, so it is of similar value to 1 flat damage - worse for someone without Strength and better for someone with 2b or more. With Specialty dice being plentiful, it is easier to get higher Strength so it is of higher value.

I'm working on a significant overhaul of the weapons (with some relevant adjustments to combat actions). It's something I've wanted to do for a while, and it might be of use to you.

[Theomore Tullison]

I'll definitely have a look if you do that.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

Typo (from Customs and Traditions): 'One is usually also thought one's letters by the maester and the tenets of the faith by septon or septa.' Should be 'taught'.

Also: general note: that post could do with a few more paragraphs, to make it less 'wall of text'.  Also, I feel some sentences should be restructured for readability: ' It is the joining of two families, among smallfolk, the husband would bring the wife to live at the farm (which he would inherit), while she would then work on (and also be the nurse for the in-laws when they get old), for the nobility it is about alliances, binding houses to assist one another.'  You have an entire sentence on smallfolk inserted as a side-note in the middle of speaking about nobility, as an example.

Further: 'A sworn sword is simply an important warrior in the service to a lord, he cannot really marry for the sake of alliances, giving him considerable flexibility to marry for love (as long as his intended lady is of high importance and thus would be married for alliances)'.  Shouldn't that be 'isn't'?

Edit: Finally on the C&T post, I suggest putting in a little something about the Great Bastards, since the campaign somewhat revolves around them. Yes, they're bastards, but they're *legitimised, royal* bastards, and making clear how much/little difference that makes could be helpful.


I note the nerfing of True Knight.  But just to be clear: say you have a True knight with 2 in Dedication, Breeding, and Courage (entirely reasonable figures, I believe).  Now, let's assume they take Stubborn and Dutiful (the latter seems a very likely pick, characteristically speaking).  That means they have, assuming indifferent disposition (and correct maths on my part):
6 DR vs Charm and Bargain
8 DR vs Convince
10 DR vs Intimidate, Seduction, Incite, and Taunt
+2 ID vs Convince, Incite, and Taunt
+4 ID vs Intimidate & Seduce

Now while the stat spread required for a knight means this isn't as ridiculous as it would be were it available to a pure-social character, it's certainly ... intimidating?  I mean, it's not impossible to beat - they are vulnerable to Charm, and then you have the +1D (as well as presumably 1 lower DR), but I thought I'd model out just how much those bonuses could stack (I mean, I could throw on 'Respected' as well, which would also make sense thematically, but then we're getting into madness of DR 12, +6 ID vs Intimidate, and I think the point is made.)
However, I feel, just off the top of my head, that the problem is Stubborn feeling a touch too powerful, rather than True Knight itself (I like and support the general idea of 'don't try and intimidate or seduce etc. a true knight').  I suggest perhaps changing it to more closely mirror Tough, and have it allow the user to ignore -1/-2 penalties from Frustration?  (If not, that might be an interesting Benefit regardless, IMO).

[Baelon Drakeson]

Here's an initial version. Surprisingly, most weapons required few if any changes despite the new point scheme. It was easier than expected in general (yay spreadsheets) but I'm not entirely happy with it yet, so comments and feedback could be really useful.

Of note, damage has overall gotten somewhat lower. The is counteracted by two things.

First, combat defense will also go down slightly. Shields offer less defense than before (which has the side-effect of both constraining Shield Mastery and making it more desirable). Several weapons offer a small defensive bonus that did not before, but as always that goes away when using the weapon to make an attack, so that bonus will typically only be used when initiative is lost or when fighting completely defensively.

Second, using two weapons is much more feasible (it no longer requires a Greater action and in fact can be done with any attack action). I would expect to see more players opt for a versatile off-hander or two-handed weapon rather than the biggest shield they can get. The two-weapon changes also have a positive side-effect of making some of the less-used weapons more feasible as part of two-weapon pairing.

Also, I reduced or eliminated many training penalties. Specifically, there are no training penalties greater than 1b, and the training penalties on shields and off-hand weapons have been eliminated.

Combat changes:

Weapon Quality changes:

Weapon Balancing:

Weapon List:

Things I'm thinking about changing:

Edit: I've already found (and corrected) one typo in the weapon chart, so if something seems off, let me know and I'll double-check it.

[Theomore Tullison]

I think it's a holdover from the description of Robert's Hammer, which I think more accurately in RL terms should be considered a maul. A maul is still a hammer, so to the characters describing it, a warhammer could come in any number of sizes.

[Theomore Tullison]

Going to need to revise that.

The customs and traditions is a work in progress, now with most of those suggestion put in.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

Re: Baelon's revisions.  Can't speak as to the combat balance, but something jumped out at me from a narrative sense:
If attacking with both weapons, add the off-hand value to the base damage of your primary weapon.
Buckler Athletics -2 Defensive 1, Off-hand 2, Fast
Bastard Sword 1b Athletics +2 Adaptable

If I understand correctly, you can actually do *more* damage wielding a Bastard Sword one-handed with a buckler, than wielding it two-handed.  ...That sounds odd to me.  Just from a 'how sharp *is* the edge of that buckler, anyway' perspective.  Okay, yes, I get that the idea is that it restricts movement less allowing better strikes (since otherwise I assume the larger shields would do more damage), but in the case, fists should have at least off-hand 2.  And then it still doesn't make sense that it does less damage 2-handed than it does 1-handed.  (Of course, even now, there is never a reason to actually wield a Bastard Sword 2-handed - just empty your off-hand, and you have exactly the same bonus.)

Edit: never mind - greater action vs lesser action. Trade off of +1 damage vs +1b from aim (or something else).
I wonder if there's any value in having shield properties (or maybe a benefit) which modifies Cautious Attack? Reducing penalties or slightly increasing defence. I mean, that's kind of what you're doing with a shield? Just an idle thought.

Right, now let's try and break the system!
Endurance 5 for Massive benefit
Athletics 4, Strength 2
Longaxe 1b Athletics +3 Bulk 1, Reach, Powerful, Slow, Vicious, Two-Handed
Buckler Athletics -2 Defensive 1, Off-hand 2, Fast
This beast will do (4+3 +2 + 2=)11 damage per hit!
Okay, that's actually not quite as bad as I thought, given that they're only going to be able to afford Fighting 4, and with a penalty die, will only be rolling at best 5d6k4.
Given how useful the first specialty die is, Axe Mastery 1 isn't a strong pick, though Weapon Mastery could get it up to 12 damage per hit (likely a suboptimal pick, that one's best when you can reliabably roll 3-4 DoS), and Fury could get it to 14 on a Reckless Attack (and the +1D that gives means they're rolling 6d6k5, pretty likely to get the 2DoS required for 'no choice but Wound' territory.  Of course, then their opponent spends 1 Fatigue to ignore a wound and hits their weakened defence back with 3-4DoS. [Edit: Both 2-weapon strike and Reckless Attack are Greater actions, combo doesn't work.]  But still, 12 damage per DoS with 2 Benefits is pretty brutal (although something boring like 'Talented' is probably a better choice than Weapon Mastery, just to increase the chances of getting 2Dos - 12 damage over Full Plate is plenty nasty enough).


Anyway, enough fun. Re: Bastard Born Drawback:
'You suffer -1 chivalry/virtue, in addition, the default disposition towards you from characters of status 3+ is two steps lower.'
Perhaps make a note as to if the lowered disposition includes other Bastards?

Typo: 'most bastards does indeed have this drawback, however.'  Should be 'do'.
'[T]his represents the stigma of bastardy, which means it can be overcome'.  I presume a chivalrous knight could perform many acts of heroism to do so?  But what about other methods?  Are there any for women, or are they stuck with the stigma?

Finally, I note that an unattractive Bastard has a default starting disposition towards them of Malicious, meaning everyone they meet will 'do what they can to harm you, even if it means putting themselves at risk'. ...That's quite some commitment to Keeping Westeros Beautiful!

[Theomore Tullison]

Heh, well I have been toying with the idea of expanding the dispositions along the lines of:
0: Indifferent.
1-2: Amiable
3-5: Friendly
6: Affectionate

Or some other variation, so that it takes a bit more than a few soft/harsh words to get people to love/hate you.

[Theomore Tullison]

The value of Reach is somewhat debatable, it somewhat diminishes if your opponent gets inside of it.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

Heh, well I have been toying with the idea of expanding the dispositions along the lines of:
0: Indifferent.
1-2: Amiable
3-5: Friendly
6: Affectionate

Or some other variation, so that it takes a bit more than a few soft/harsh words to get people to love/hate you.

Just off the top of my head, that makes a *lot* of sense. I mean, I felt your house rule on Shield of Reputation not stacking was flat-out necessary, else someone could go from a complete stranger (indifferent) to Friendly (feelings of kinship and goodwill [..] found in most siblings, long-time allies and members of the same household) in a single Charm intrigue. And don't get me started on the Recognition option, in which someone Attractive known to be honourable and Just could start with Affectionate disposition towards them before they even say a word.

*Ahem*. Anyway, as I was saying, I'd be tempted (and I haven't thought this through) to have permanent disposition changes limited to Complex Intrigues only (i.e. done over a series of lesser intrigues, gaining enough VP to 'unlock' the next tier up), with disposition changes from Simple and Standard intrigues wearing off - say, they last 3 days, then go down 1/day. Perhaps Charm can only kick you up 1 tier from your 'base', which would add value to options like 'seduce', which can kick you up multiple tiers, but with a price of souring the relationship after a while. [Speaking of, I wonder if GR had something similar in an earlier version of the rules. From Seduce: Consequences of defeat: 'You improve the target's disposition by a number of steps equal to your rank in Persuasion. If the target [...] is at least Friendly [note: *2* steps above indifferent], he or she gives in. As such, it may take several intrigues to seduce a target properly.'. Say what?]

I don't know, I'm just throwing ideas around. But I like the general idea.

[Baelon Drakeson]

I think it's a holdover from the description of Robert's Hammer, which I think more accurately in RL terms should be considered a maul. A maul is still a hammer, so to the characters describing it, a warhammer could come in any number of sizes.

Yeah, that's what I think too... in game terms so long as Robert had Massive and Bludeon Master I (for shattering) it would fit the description.

Re: Baelon's revisions.  Can't speak as to the combat balance, but something jumped out at me from a narrative sense:
If attacking with both weapons, add the off-hand value to the base damage of your primary weapon.
Buckler Athletics -2 Defensive 1, Off-hand 2, Fast
Bastard Sword 1b Athletics +2 Adaptable

If I understand correctly, you can actually do *more* damage wielding a Bastard Sword one-handed with a buckler, than wielding it two-handed.  ...That sounds odd to me.  Just from a 'how sharp *is* the edge of that buckler, anyway' perspective.  Okay, yes, I get that the idea is that it restricts movement less allowing better strikes (since otherwise I assume the larger shields would do more damage), but in the case, fists should have at least off-hand 2.  And then it still doesn't make sense that it does less damage 2-handed than it does 1-handed.  (Of course, even now, there is never a reason to actually wield a Bastard Sword 2-handed - just empty your off-hand, and you have exactly the same bonus.)

Hm. Let me delve into this a bit. There's a lot going on here.

First, the buckler isn't sharp at all. It's mostly for parrying and punching people in the face. You can do that somewhat with a fist/gauntlet, but with a buckler you can rotate your grip to strike with the edge for a few inches longer reach and more concentrated force (why real warhammers look more like standard hammers than sledge hammers). The real power of the fist/gauntlet (which are two of the under-powered weapons as it is) is the Grab special, which if you are set up to take advantage of it is a right nasty thing. Not so good paired with a bastard sword, but if you've got a hand axe or dirk it can be right nasty. Hm actually, now that I look at, there is a mismatch between what weapons can be used by the grabbed vs grabbing character.... and in a way that doesn't make much sense. I'm thinking that should be adjusted. I just don't see using a whip in a grapple, or not being able to use a stiletto. Both restricted to off-hand and short blades should do nicely (all grab weapons are also off-hand). Well back to the topic of adaptable vs off-hand.

Generally speaking, you would not be choosing to use an adaptable weapon two-handed as your primary option. There are typically better 2h weapons available. Adaptable then is most useful to give you options. Of course, something like an buckler also gives you options. You can attack with it for extra damage, or not attack with it and keep it's defensive value - the same as any weapon with both off-hand and defensive, of which there are many. So why carry an adaptable weapon at all? Well, if you might lose your off-hand weapon - you threw a throwable weapon, or your defensive weapon got smashed by your opponent's Shattering weapon. Or, you are using a larger shield and choose to shieldmaiden shuffle for a little extra damage. I'm not concerned that there are off-hand weapons that do more damage than 2-handing an adaptable - two-handing an adaptable has never been choice #1, and you could always get more damage with an off-hand weapon (Dirk has always been off-hand 2).

Wielding two weapons may be too good now, particularly those with off-hand 2 (Hand-Axe, Dirk and Buckler). Off-hand damage may be undervalued, as well - it's almost as good as regular damage. Hmm. Why woudl you ever use a Woodsman's Axe when you can use a Battle Axe and Hand Axe? It's the same damage and you can throw the hand axe if needed, losing only one damage per DoS when you go to two-handing the battle-axe. Or Battle-axe buckler to give you the option for a little defense (though atthe cost of 2 damage, that seems an unlikely trade in most circumstances).

The Bastard Sword itself might be a bit damage heavy. It is the highest base-damage one-hand weapon. For characters without strength dice, it's actually tied for highest 2h damage too! it's the same damage as a Ball-and-Chain with 2b strength! Seems a bit over-powered, right? Well, maybe. Other 1h weapons either have no training penalty or have other useful features, like Fast (which is good now). If all you care about is raw damage and you have 1b or less strength then yeah, it's your best choice.

Let's look at possible alternatives, and see if something clicks.
Reducing the damage by 1 gives us two points to spend. Off-hand is right out, so our options are:

• Defensive 1 - eh, maybe. Seems odd though. the other main-hand weapons with defensive are particularly good at parrying (Braavosi Blade) or particularly good for outright blocking blows (Mace). A bastard sword can do both of those, but not really any better or worse than any other weapon.
  
• Shattering 1 - doesn't really make sense.
  
• Fast and Piercing 1 - makes it identical to an Arakh.
  
• Powerful and a lesser drawback or bulk 1 - goes into the niche of ball and chain AND greatsword, and opens up the possibility of even higher damage.
  

None of them are particularly good options, in my opinion. Still, it's something to ruminate
Perhaps it's not that the bastard sword does too much damage, but that it is too much in combination with an off-hand weapon. I created the lengthy disadvantage specifically for spears (it seemed odd that they weren't adaptable, and it seemed odd that you could pair a spear and a dagger for extra damage). However, it could be added to a bastard sword  as well. you can still use an off-hand weapon for , say, Defensive, but not get extra damage for it.

Right, now let's try and break the system!
Endurance 5 for Massive benefit
Athletics 4, Strength 2
Longaxe 1b Athletics +3 Bulk 1, Reach, Powerful, Slow, Vicious, Two-Handed
Buckler Athletics -2 Defensive 1, Off-hand 2, Fast
This beast will do (4+3 +2 + 2=)11 damage per hit!
Okay, that's actually not quite as bad as I thought, given that they're only going to be able to afford Fighting 4, and with a penalty die, will only be rolling at best 5d6k4.
Given how useful the first specialty die is, Axe Mastery 1 isn't a strong pick, though Weapon Mastery could get it up to 12 damage per hit (likely a suboptimal pick, that one's best when you can reliabably roll 3-4 DoS), and Fury could get it to 14 on a Reckless Attack (and the +1D that gives means they're rolling 6d6k5, pretty likely to get the 2DoS required for 'no choice but Wound' territory.  Of course, then their opponent spends 1 Fatigue to ignore a wound and hits their weakened defence back with 3-4DoS.  But still, 12 damage per DoS with 2 Benefits is pretty brutal (although something boring like 'Talented' is probably a better choice than Weapon Mastery, just to increase the chances of getting 2Dos - 12 damage over Full Plate is plenty nasty enough).

So the funny thing about this is that I didn't change the Longaxe at all. In my opinion the real problem here is Massive. It's always been a bit too powerful in my opinion - and when looking at a Reach weapons and polearms it offends my sense of physics. Even for a someone 7 feet tall a long hafted weapon is going to take two hands to use effectively. Certainly, it is exacerbated by the ease of two-weapon wielding, but consider that if you replace the buckler with a dirk the only thing difference between the original system and my changes is that in the original it takes a greater action to use both weapons, so you can't reckless attack.

I suggested a change to Massive a while ago - it allows the use of specially crafted oversized weapons. They do an extra point of damage, but anyone without Massive takes a -1D penalty to used them. Otherwise they are identical to a normal size version of the weapon.

If not that, then it should at least be restricted to exclude polearms and weapons with reach. Perhaps also apply the 'Lengthy' drawback so the damage cant get too out of hand. If you think about it in terms of my weapon balancing, Weapon Mastery is effectively 2 points to a particular weapon. Massive is effectively 3-4 points to several weapons. Restricting that list and making it only 2-3 points is not a huge loss.

The value of Reach is somewhat debatable, it somewhat diminishes if your opponent gets inside of it.

This is true, which is why it is only a lesser advantage. It is most useful in a group combat where you can have a shield line in front of you. However, if you have a mobility advantage it can be really good in a duel, too. Basically you can force your opponent to charge you or take fatigue for extra actions. If there is no 'disengage' attack like in this game, you can simply move back and set for a charge. If your opponent charges you, you get the same +2 damage bonus, but without the -1D they get for charging. Or you move back and knock them down. Assuming heavy armor, they cannot stand, move, and attack you without spending fatigue... and if they have lighter armor, that -1D you get isn't going to make much of a difference when even a single DoS is exceeding their AR by at least 2. Reach is something you can be really good, but you have to make it work for you. If you are just going to stand there and trade blows, you are better off with a different weapon.

[Theomore Tullison]

Set for charge is a greater action last time I checked?

But the somewhat ridiculous part about each combatant using a lesser move action each turn remains (which is why I have only tried advanced reach in a single scene once, and forever since advocating against whenever someone brings it up, there's a few other reasons too).

I was thinking of maybe having some fun with the spear fighter line to recreate the tactics Oberyn used against Gregor.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

First, the buckler isn't sharp at all. It's mostly for parrying and punching people in the face. You can do that somewhat with a fist/gauntlet, but with a buckler you can rotate your grip to strike with the edge for a few inches longer reach and more concentrated force

I should have made my flippancy over the 'how sharp is a buckler' more obvious, sorry.  The point that jumped out at me is that a buckler does as much damage off-handed as a hand axe (for example), and my brain rebelled over a defensive mini-shield (sorta) being as dangerous in that utility as an actual *weapon*.

I just don't see using a whip in a grapple

Maybe strangling someone?  Though that would probably require different mechanics, and seriously, not worth the bother I'd say.

Or Battle-axe buckler to give you the option for a little defense (though at the cost of 2 damage, that seems an unlikely trade in most circumstances).

Historically, *was* the buckler more of an offensive weapon than a defensive one?  Because I agree with you here, the circumstances where you'd trade in 2 base damage for +1 defence are ... rare to none, in my view.  In which case, it's worth asking ... why have the defensive option there at all, if it's so suboptimal, in which case, you don't have a shield, you have a weapon.


My argument wasn't really about the bastard sword particularly, I just picked it as being the first Adaptable weapon that sprang to mind.  It was more about buffing two-weapon fighting reducing the relative value of its main selling point (though as you point out, that's probably the damage, rather than adaptable).


Thought: the primary weapon of knights (lances aside), are swords.  They are the weapon typical for a knight.  The opponent typical for a knight?  Another knight (okay, rebelling peasants, maybe, but they only qualify as practice).  Typically wearing heavy armour.  While they may not be able to afford full plate, they (at least with the bonuses to starting cash in the house rules) can typically afford something in the 8-10AR range, I estimate.

So, why is the primary weapon for a knight (which we must assume was chosen for an in-universe reason) a long sword, rather than a ... ball and chain, say?  Bear in mind that a knight with Athletics 3 should still be *functional*, even if they're not exceptional, and a knight with Athletics 3 against a knight with AR10 requires 4 DoS to actually do any damage.  Assuming CD 10, to make maths easy (they have a shield), that means they need to hit 25 on their roll consistently to do damage with a longsword.  Yes, there are things you can do around that to mitigate that, but I'm just considering the basics here.  That means if they have Fighting 4 (which should be entirely reasonable), they cannot hurt them, ever.  (With the B&C, they would at least eventually Shatter their AR down to something they could beat).

I don't really have a suggestion, here.  It just strikes me as very strange, the mechanics not really matching up to the narrative, in my view.  To my mind, the weapon that would naturally be the standard against heavily-armoured foes would either have Shattering, or something like 4-5 pierce (but lower damage to compensate).  (IIRC, IRL, swords would have been the latter option I believe - good at finding holes in armour and poking them hard).

In my opinion the real problem here is Massive.

Yeah, that's fair.  My point was more how the bonuses from Massive stacked nastily with Powerful and the off-hand damage.  While you could justly claim that issue was in the core game, it is worth noting that it's still there.

Perhaps also apply the 'Lengthy' drawback so the damage cant get too out of hand.

That makes a lot of sense to me, narratively and mechanically.

[Theomore Tullison]

I think that is one of the reasons as to why warhammers, morningstars, axes and the like came more into force when plate armor became widespread, from what I remember from some TV-program, the longsword provided good reach for cavalrymen that needed it from horseback. But when armor improved, it fell out of fashion in favor of weapons that could deliver crushing force or puncture through gaps in the armor. Given that swords seems very much widespread in use among knights in the books, I'd assume that plate armor isn't so advanced yet that the longsword remains the favored weapon for those who can afford it, but likely no longer dominant.

One could consider adding crushing as a possible weapon quality to heavy weapons such as axes, bludgeons and polearms, perhaps similar to piercing in that it ignores armor.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

Ahhh. Okay, interesting. So, Long Blades is required for knightly chivalry because a knight is expected to be able to wield one, for historical/traditional reasons, but when it comes down to a proper fight, they'll break out the axes and hammers?

No, wait, you pointed out that swords see widespread use in the books. But swords aren't that useful against heavy armour. Which exists in the system, and so presumably the setting.

Argh!

a) Swords are less effective against heavy armour than other weapons.
b) Swords are in common use.
c) Heavy armour (AR 8-10) is reasonably available.

Pick 2. As I understand it, all three cannot reasonably be true.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Set for charge is a greater action last time I checked?

But the somewhat ridiculous part about each combatant using a lesser move action each turn remains (which is why I have only tried advanced reach in a single scene once, and forever since advocating against whenever someone brings it up, there's a few other reasons too).

Why so it is. My mistake. Still, the point remains. As for each combatant using a lesser move... That's why the key to dueling with reach is BETTER movement. Fast, Run dice, lower bulk. Consider Move 3 vs Move 2. Not much of a difference, and quite plausible. Move 3 with a long axe vs Move 2 with a mattock. Assume the same armor, the speed difference being from Fast or Run dice. For the sake of argument, say they start adjacent. Reach guy moves away 3 (lesser) and now is in optimal range for a strike (lesser). Mr Mattock now has to charge, now having effectively the same damage as the longaxe, but with a -1D penalty in place of the -1b training penalty. Advantage to the longaxe.

I was thinking of maybe having some fun with the spear fighter line to recreate the tactics Oberyn used against Gregor.

I dislike most of the Spear Fighter line. SF 1 is useless (how often do you actually miss, as opposed to hitting for no damage?), and SF 3 is underwhelming (though not useless).
I didn't want to deviate too much from the existing weapon types, but I briefly considered moving the 3 polearms into axes and then mixing the polearm and spear fighter lines together to make a new spear line: Polearm Fighter I, Spear Fighter II, Polearm Fighter III.

Polearm Fighter 1 is perhaps a tad bit TOO powerful as you can easily knock down large groups (great for teamfights) and/or high athletics foes that you would not normally be able to knock down (like Oberyn trying to knock down Gregor). Maybe put a 2 DoS requirement on it for balance... just spitballing here. I feel like some of the benefits never really got playtested, or if they did, it was by characters not generated by the character creation rules...

First, the buckler isn't sharp at all. It's mostly for parrying and punching people in the face. You can do that somewhat with a fist/gauntlet, but with a buckler you can rotate your grip to strike with the edge for a few inches longer reach and more concentrated force

I should have made my flippancy over the 'how sharp is a buckler' more obvious, sorry. The point that jumped out at me is that a buckler does as much damage off-handed as a hand axe (for example), and my brain rebelled over a defensive mini-shield (sorta) being as dangerous in that utility as an actual *weapon*.

*facepalm* No, I think this was me being obtuse. I tend to take written text rather too literally sometimes. Too used to academic texts where if flippancy or sarcasm are in use they tend to be explicitly labeled, I suppose. In all seriousness though, from what I have seen a buckler was basically the bludgeoning version of a main-gauche (or the de-Frenchified "left-hand dagger" in the weapon list). It was primarily for defense, but could be used effectively on offense if the opponent got in close (and while a blunt blow might not be as dangerous as an axe blade, a broken nose or fractured orbital socket can really distract away from the incoming primary weapon blow).

I read an interesting article (wish i could find it again to link it) talking about how buckler-type shields were in use from ancient times up into the renaissance, but faded out in favor of the main-gauche as swords got longer and more thrust-oriented - the main-gauche was a better defensive tool against that kind of attack. One significant point is that while both made appearances on the battlefield, typically as side-arms, they were much more in use in civilian life. Basically, an archer might carry a buckler and arming sword ("small sword") in case the enemy got too close, but it wasn't their first choice of weapon. in civilian life, however, where tromping around in heavy armor carrying a full-size shield or a two-hand weapon was both impractical and perhaps a bit crass, a buckler and dueling weapon of some sort would be standard accoutrements.

Now, when it comes to implementing them in the system, there's not nearly enough 'levers' to manipulate to create the same variety of facets that made real-world weapons so varied. Originally I had the Buckler as Defensive 2 and Off-Hand 1, but differentiating it from a Shield was... problematic. believe it or not, I had the Shield as adaptable, for lack of better benefit. I changed it to the current set-up and felt much better about it... but then later also changed the Left-Hand Dagger, as it was the last off-hand weapon with a training penalty.... in the process, it's off-hand and defensive values dropped, so it becaume less effective offensively as the buckler.

Really, I agree with you that it is weird... and should be changed. I've just not found a good way to do it yet.

Or Battle-axe buckler to give you the option for a little defense (though at the cost of 2 damage, that seems an unlikely trade in most circumstances).

Historically, *was* the buckler more of an offensive weapon than a defensive one? Because I agree with you here, the circumstances where you'd trade in 2 base damage for +1 defence are ... rare to none, in my view. In which case, it's worth asking ... why have the defensive option there at all, if it's so suboptimal, in which case, you don't have a shield, you have a weapon.

Historically it was more defensive than offensive - really, all off-hand weapons were. Though, then again, most primary hand weapons (or their combat techniques at least) were designed with defense first too. If you flub an attack it's not good, but if you flub a defense you very well may be dead.

Thought: the primary weapon of knights (lances aside), are swords. They are the weapon typical for a knight. The opponent typical for a knight? Another knight (okay, rebelling peasants, maybe, but they only qualify as practice). Typically wearing heavy armour. While they may not be able to afford full plate, they (at least with the bonuses to starting cash in the house rules) can typically afford something in the 8-10AR range, I estimate.

So, why is the primary weapon for a knight (which we must assume was chosen for an in-universe reason) a long sword, rather than a ... ball and chain, say? Bear in mind that a knight with Athletics 3 should still be *functional*, even if they're not exceptional, and a knight with Athletics 3 against a knight with AR10 requires 4 DoS to actually do any damage. Assuming CD 10, to make maths easy (they have a shield), that means they need to hit 25 on their roll consistently to do damage with a longsword. Yes, there are things you can do around that to mitigate that, but I'm just considering the basics here. That means if they have Fighting 4 (which should be entirely reasonable), they cannot hurt them, ever. (With the B&C, they would at least eventually Shatter their AR down to something they could beat).

I don't really have a suggestion, here. It just strikes me as very strange, the mechanics not really matching up to the narrative, in my view. To my mind, the weapon that would naturally be the standard against heavily-armoured foes would either have Shattering, or something like 4-5 pierce (but lower damage to compensate). (IIRC, IRL, swords would have been the latter option I believe - good at finding holes in armour and poking them hard).

See, that's the thing... historically, swords were never the first-choice weapon against heavy armor. A lance or a pole-arm were much better, particularly things like the bec-de-corbin which was basically a heavy spike on the end of a long pole. Leverage + piercing = ow. Swords were more practical against less-armored foes. The reality of a medieval battlefield was that most of the combatants couldn't afford heavy armor - even the professional soldiers.

If you did find yourself fighting with a sword against a heavily armored opponent, you would want to grip the blade with your off-hand (not nearly as dangerous as it sounds) and use it like a mini-spear, or flip it around completely and wahck them with the crossguard or pommel (the so-called murder-stroke). Better yet would be to drop your sword, draw a dagger, and tackle them. Slip the dagger between the plates, and hope they don't have any friends nearby to do the same to you.

One could consider adding crushing as a possible weapon quality to heavy weapons such as axes, bludgeons and polearms, perhaps similar to piercing in that it ignores armor.

That's what shattering is

Ahhh.  Okay, interesting.  So, Long Blades is required for knightly chivalry because a knight is expected to be able to wield one, for historical/traditional reasons, but when it comes down to a proper fight, they'll break out the axes and hammers?

No, wait, you pointed out that swords see widespread use in the books.  But swords aren't that useful against heavy armour.  Which exists in the system, and so presumably the setting.

Argh!

a) Swords are less effective against heavy armour than other weapons.
b) Swords are in common use.
c) Heavy armour (AR 8-10) is reasonably available.

Pick 2.  As I understand it, all three cannot reasonably be true.

Well, Westeros is not history. It is fantasy. prevalence of heavy armor and effectiveness of swords against said armor are both exaggerated relative to history.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

Really, I agree with you that it is weird... and should be changed. I've just not found a good way to do it yet.

That's fair.  Can't really help, unless the idea I mooted earlier about having a new property to modify Cautious Attack bears any fruit.

The reality of a medieval battlefield was that most of the combatants couldn't afford heavy armor - even the professional soldiers.

Well, Westeros is not history. It is fantasy. prevalence of heavy armor and effectiveness of swords against said armor are both exaggerated relative to history.

Okay, but right now, we have a situation where in the *setting*, we have prevalent heavy armour, and effective swords against armour, while in the *mechanics*, we have prevalent heavy armour, but not the corresponding effectiveness of swords against said armour, rather they correspond to their real-world equivalents.
Maybe a table?  I like tables.

Code:

                   Heavy armour prevalent   Swords effective against heavy armour
Westeros Setting             x                                x
RPG Rules                    x                                o
Real World                   o                                o


I'm arguing that the rules should *either* emulate Westeros entirely (ideally), or the real world entirely. Right now, we have this 'halfway house' that doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Sponsored content]