Re: Game Discussion

[Baelon Drakeson]

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.

I'll have to look for that. I either missed it or completely forgot about it.

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.

Agreed, at least to a large extent. The caveat is that RPG rules have a standard to meet that the others do not - be fun and interesting for players. In the real world, combat styles were shaped around effectiveness and practicality. In books, effectiveness and practicality are subject to the plot, and combat styles have more to do with flair and drama. In RPG rules, we need a multiplicity of styles that are effective and practical, that also need to have sufficient flair and drama. Swords should be effective against heavy armor, but not necessarily the same way as other weapons.

Actually, right now nothing can claim to be *the* solution to heavy armor, barring a high-damage monstrosity like your Massive Longaxe wielder.

One solution is to recognize that even those that have heavy armor don't wear it all the time. It is hot, heavy, noisy, uncomfortable, and more than likely a fair bit smelly... not to mention that you might need the help of a squire every time you want to use the latrine or visit a house of ill-repute. Stat-wise, the sample NPC bandit just can't touch someone in plate. However, even in the books most travelers would be wearing much lighter armor, if any, even if it's a knight traveling to a tourney. Now, that could be enforced mechanically, perhaps fatigue has to be taken for every hour that heavy armor is worn or some such. Alternatively it can be built into events that if you opt to be wearing armor you have to start by making X number of endurance tests or take fatigue, or something like that.

Another solution would be to just add 1 point of base damage to every weapon, or to lower the effectiveness of armor. Of course, either one would increase the "rocket tag" effect that can sometimes crop up in this system.

Perhaps it is not necessary to do anything though, so long as sufficient guidance is given in character creation. 4 damage per DoS is the minimum I would recommend for anyone looking to be a decent fighter. 5 is better, but 4 is sufficient so long as you play to your strengths and your opponents flaws. If you're just gonna sit there and trade blows and still compete at the highest levels of a melee, aim for at least 6 damage per DoS and/or really high defense.

[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.

I'll have to look for that. I either missed it or completely forgot about it.

It was just an off-hand idea.  Here:

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.

Perhaps it is not necessary to do anything though, so long as sufficient guidance is given in character creation.

An entirely reasonable suggestion.  I just felt it ... odd enough to be worth raising for discussion so those more familiar with the combat system could have thought about it.

Okay, I want to run some numbers.  
4 attackers: two with 4D2B, two with 5D3B.  One each with longswords, the other two with Bastard Swords.  Assuming all Athletics 4.
4 opponents: two with ring armour (AR6) (as a pretty affordable armour), two with plate.  One each with large shields, the other two wielding two-handers (no Defensive).  Let's assume unarmoured CD as being 11.
A: rolling 6d6k4 with LS
B: rolling 5d6k4 with BS
C: rolling 8d6k5 with LS
D: rolling 7d6k5 with BS

1: AR6 +shield, CD 12
A1: 3 most common rolls: 17, 18, 19.  All 2Dos.  8 damage, AR6 + piercing 1 = 3 penetrates.
B1: 3 most common rolls: 15, 16, 17.  2 1Dos, 1 2Dos.  1Dos: 6 damage, AR6 = 0 damage.  (1 if 2-handed).  2Dos: 12 damage, AR6 = 6 damage (8 if 2-handed).  Average damage = 2.  (3.33' if 2-handed)
C1: 3 mcr: 22, 23, 24.  All 3Dos.  12 damage.  AR6 + P1 = 7 damage.
D1: 3 mcr: 21, 22, 23.  1 2Dos, 2 3Dos.  2Dos: 12 dam, AR6 = 6 damage.  3DoS: 18 dam, AR6 = 12 dam.  Average: 10 damage

2: AR10 + shield, CD 10
A2: 3 mcr: 17, 18, 19.  All 2Dos.  8 damage, AR10 + p1 = 0 penetrates.
B2: 3 mcr: 15, 16, 17.  All 2Dos.  12 damage.  AR10 = 2 penetrates.
C2: 3 mcr: 22, 23, 24. All 3Dos.  12 damage.  AR10 + p1 = 3 pen.
D2: 3 mcr: 21, 22, 23.  All 3Dos.  18 damage.  AR10 = 8 pen.

3: AR6, CD 9
A3: 3 mcr: 17, 18, 19.  2 2Dos, 1 3Dos.  2 Dos: 8 dam, AR6 + p1 = 3 pen.  3 Dos: 12 dam, AR6 + p1 = 7 pen.  Average: 4.3' dam.
B3: 3 mcr: 15, 16, 17.  All 2Dos.  12 dam, AR6 = 6 pen.
C3: 3 mcr: 22, 23, 24.  2 3DoS, 1 4DoS.  3DoS: 12 dam, AR6 + p1 = 7 pen.  4 DoS: 16 dam, AR6 + p1 = 11 dam.  Average: 8.3' dam.
D3: 3 mcr: 21, 22, 23. All 3DoS.  18 dam, AR6 = 12 pen.

4: AR10, CD 7
A4: 3 mcr: 17, 18, 19.  All 3DoS.  12 dam, AR10 + p1 = 3 damage.
B4: 3 mcr: 15, 16, 17. 2 2Dos, 1 3Dos.  2DoS: 12 damage.  AR10 = 2 penetrates.  3DoS: 18 dam, AR10 = 8 pen.  Average: 4 damage.
C4: 3 mcr: 22, 23, 24.  All 4DoS.  16 dam, AR10 + p1 = 7 damage.
D4: 3 mcr: 21, 22, 23.  1 3DoS, 2 4DoS.  3DoS: 18 dam, AR10 = 8 pen.  4Dos: 24 dam, AR10 = 14 pen.  Average: 12

Not sure how followable that is, but the result is that in every single match-up, barring against an opponent in ring mail with a shield while having 4D2B (where it did an average 1 extra damage - 2 vs 3.  Changable to BS doing 0.33' more if the BS user drops their shield), the bastard sword outperformed the long sword.

Now, I freely admit that was a pretty quick and crude test.  I don't know if I'm arguing that the Longsword is underpowered, or the Bastard Sword is overpowered.  But I can say that in almost all circumstances, the training die is a worthwhile trade-off for +2 base damage.  Even more so once you factor in the ability to 'aim + strike' (since a second bonus die is more valuable than a third, etc.).

[Theomore Tullison]

That 4 damage becomes 6 damage if mounted, you'd go charging in with lance anyway, and knights are assumed to be fighting from horseback, so to some degree 4 damage per DoS isn't that bad.

In Great Bastards, the assumption is that noble knights have full plate (and mostly prefer to take each other hostage), while regular ones use mail (and also prefer to take other knights as hostage), plus the whole chivalrous shebang about personal duels and stuff. So all this could muddle the picture somewhat, realistically they'd be proficient with, and carry, multiple weapons and using them as the situation demands, which a few are mentioned to be doing in the books, balancing that in the game is, as you note, not exactly easy.

[Baelon Drakeson]

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.

Thanks, the search function on this board leaves a LOT to be desired, so I was having trouble finding it.

Hm. It has promise. Perhaps expand it to include Dodge, that seems to make sense too.
"Defending: When taking the Cautious Attack or Dodge actions while wielding this weapon, increase it's Defensive property by 1."
It grants 2 points benefit in a conditional use situation (pretty much the same as Adaptable), so I'd put it as a lesser benefit.
1 point of CD may seem trivial, but that is deceptive - it's on top of the +3 from cautious attack, and the actual value is going to depend on the attacker. A single point that falls near the middle of their probability curve is a great value, while one near the extremes is of little value.

Perhaps it is not necessary to do anything though, so long as sufficient guidance is given in character creation.

An entirely reasonable suggestion.  I just felt it ... odd enough to be worth raising for discussion so those more familiar with the combat system could have thought about it.

Definitely worth raising. I have some concerns about the longsword in particular being underpowered now. Part of that is whether or not Piercing is underpowered. I don't think it is, though it is definitely underwhelming compared to the Adaptable of Battleaxe or the Fast of a Small Sword. I have been considering swapping the Piercing 1 of the longsword for Fast; it would be the same as a Small Sword except for the damage attribute. That ought to be enough differentiation to give them each their own separate niches.

Okay, I want to run some numbers.

Hmm. Something to consider is that training penalties hurt the least at the start of the fight. When you start taking fatigue, injuries and wounds, all those little penalties start to add up. Point-wise, a training die is -4 points and +2 damage is 4 points, so the assumption is that it should be a reasonable trade (meaning that the longsword's Piercing 1 should give it a slight advantage, as the BS sword's Adaptable is not in use).

Of course, your damage per DoS will not diminish throughout the battle, but your attack rolls will. So lets compare at three levels:
at the start of a fight (just training penalty)
somewhere in the middle of a fight (-4 penalty from injuries/fatigue)
late in a fight (-1D from wounds and -6 penalty from injuries/fatigue)

I created an anydice program to help do the comparisons. The output is a bit of a mess, the easiest way to use it is to put the "Data" setting on transpose, then you can add up the probabilities for each damage amount (scroll down past all the 0 damage results).

This has the advantage of taking into account the full range of possible rolls, not just the most common 3, which depending on the specific probability curve can represent a higher or lower range of probabilities.

Numbers:

I'm not even going to bother doing the "without shield" results. I think I have enough data to conclude that a) training penalties aren't as significant as I thought and b) damage modifiers are MORE significant than I gave them credit for (I should have known better, given some of my experiences).

It'll mean a lot of changes, but I'm thinking that I should redo the list with training dice and damage bonuses being 3 points (currently they are 4 and 2, respectively). Also, if that means a weapon goes to 2b TP or an off-hand weapon picks up a 1b TP, that's not so bad. I might also up the Off-hand damage value to 2 as well.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Ok, version 2. I'm again surprised about how easy it is to make broad changes fairly quickly.

Many +1 damage weapons were reduced to +0, but I'm giving a buff to divided attacks to make them better - I changed the longsword from piercing to fast but when I ran numbers with Fast it was underwhelming compared to a (weakened) bastard sword. Note that the highest damage weapons also tend to be Slow, so it shouldn't be particularly easy to abuse divided attacks with high damage.

I added a few training penalties back in, notably on left-hand dagger, Large Shield, and Tower Shield. They are by far the most optimal choices to pair with a 1 handed weapon, so a small specialty 'tax' isn't terrible. It hurts the Braavosi Blade the most as the LHD pairs with it incredibly well - but that functionally increases the training penalty to 2b as they are both fencing weapons. Still, considering that both benefit significantly from the Braavosi Fighter benefits, I think it's still well worth the 'tax'. There are also viable alternatives even within the same conceptual style to both the BB and LHD for those who want to avoid training penalties altogether (notably a small sword and buckler pair - which was historically very common).

Perhaps more contentious is adding a training penalty to the Greatsword. Frankly, it needed the extra points, and the alternative was 3 bulk... which would make it tie the War Lance as the bulkiest weapon.... the training penalty seemed more appropriate, and after our previous simulations, not a terrible burden.

Combat changes:

Weapon Quality changes:

Weapon Balancing:

Weapon List:

[Daveth Coldbrook]

Looking at these:

Code:

Halberd    1b Athletics +2 Powerful, Two-Handed
Greatsword 1b Athletics +2 Powerful, Slow, Unwieldy, Vicious, Two-Handed

I think Halberd is missing some disadvantages?  3 points worth?  I note it's one of only 3 Ath+2 damage weapons that aren't vicious, and one of the others is 'set for charge only'.  The Pole axe is also Ath+2, Powerful, and non-vicious, which, given how often you'll be wanting to *not* kill your opponent

In Great Bastards, the assumption is that noble knights[...] (and also prefer to take other knights as hostage)

Makes it quite attractive - 'vicious', while it may not make the weapon worse at combat, is actually a pretty significant disadvantage.

Personally, I feel that all *+2 weapons, except the Pike (as it's set for charge only) and the Tourney Lance (as it's designed specifically to be non-lethal) should be Vicious - that's what the +2 *means*.

Edit: Oh, and it looks like it's missing 'slow' as well, since every other +2 weapon is.

Edit 2: Also, a Peasant tool does +2 damage?  Really?  I know it's fragile, but a *peasant tool* doing as much damage as a *greatsword*, or a halberd?  Brain revolt!

Further note: I like the differentiation between buckler and shield.

Note 3: I find it notable that the hand axe doesn't have a 1-handed Piercing 1 main-hand axe to 'typically' pair up with.  In fact, the only main-hand piercing 1 weapons are the Bravosi Blade (foreign and wierd), and Trident (lengthy).  Piercing 2 weapons (so sacrificing 1 piercing for +1 damage) adds in Arakh (foreign and weird) and Frog Spear (lengthy).  Soooo ... is the expectation that they dual-wield hand axes?  With their base Ath-1 damage?  (Which, yes, would become +0 from the off-hand+1, but still, they're much better off with a trident and shield.)

Edit 3: Thought I'd make some observations about what niche I viewed each *group* of weapons as fulfilling.
Axes: Damage. Nothing fancy, nothing clever, not defensive at all, just straight damage.
Bludgeons: Anti-armour. Lots of shattering, access to more Shattering with a benefit.
Brawling: niche stuff
Fencing: Weird foreign stuff
Long Blades: Jacks of all trades
Pole-arms: like super-axes - big damage, zero defence.
Shields: Defensive
Short blades: mostly off-hand offence
Spears: using pierce and other tricks to make up for relatively low damage? And lances, which are doing their own thing.

Curiosity: what weapons are 'appropriately chivalric'? So, for example, the Frog Spear is 'a weapon of the Crannogmen', so presumably that doesn't see wide acceptance socially. Anything Braavosi is presumably right out. Non-woodsmen axes are presumably fine, Bludgeons are presumably mostly okay. Brawling is a bit desperate. Long Blades obviously acceptable. Pole arms ... ? Short Blades, as a backup/off-hand, presumably? Non-lance spears seem pretty ... regional or non-military, apart from the Spear itself which strikes me more as a commoner weapon. Just idle wondering, really. I could see a knight getting mocked quite severely if he pulled out a Frog Spear, or Woodsman's axe, regardless of how well he used them.

A note on Shattering: 2DoS isn't that hard to get, with the typically low CDs. And while you need to get the 2DoS first, and it doesn't multiply with DoS, you *may* be underestimating the value of Shattering, because it *stacks*. Take the Warhammer (Shattering 2), assume you reliably hit 2DoS, and you have Bludgeon 1 Benefit: round 2: +3 damage. Round 3: +6 damage. Round 4: +9 damage. Even if you miss one of them, you're still basically ignoring their armour come round 5. Which means, that as your offence goes down, due to wounds and fatigue, their defence goes down accordingly, keeping you viable for longer. While your opponent, without shattering, starts doing nothing but bouncing off your armour much sooner.

[Baelon Drakeson]

Looking at these:

Code:

Halberd    1b Athletics +2 Powerful, Two-Handed
Greatsword 1b Athletics +2 Powerful, Slow, Unwieldy, Vicious, Two-Handed

I think Halberd is missing some disadvantages?  3 points worth?  I note it's one of only 3 Ath+2 damage weapons that aren't vicious, and one of the others is 'set for charge only'.

Yep, the perils of doing tedious post writing at 2am.... at least this time i just ahd to copy , paste, and update. Added in the bulk 1, slow, and unwieldy it should have had.

The Pole axe is also Ath+2, Powerful, and non-vicious, which, given how often you'll be wanting to *not* kill your opponent

In Great Bastards, the assumption is that noble knights[...] (and also prefer to take other knights as hostage)

Makes it quite attractive - 'vicious', while it may not make the weapon worse at combat, is actually a pretty significant disadvantage.

Personally, I feel that all *+2 weapons, except the Pike (as it's set for charge only) and the Tourney Lance (as it's designed specifically to be non-lethal) should be Vicious - that's what the +2 *means*.

The halberd and pole-axe aren't vicious in part to differentiate them from other weapons - the greatsword and long-axe, respectively.

I used to think that Vicious was a serious disadvantage. Then I realized that general your opponent wants to die even less than you want to kill them - now I think it's borderline an advantage. Knowing your opponent has a vicious weapon means you don't want to risk a chance of a killing blow and thus are more likely to yield before being defeated. It;s pretty easy to now when you are a strike or two away from defeat in this system. Most will yield before wracking up alrge numbers of wounds anyway. Those persist and apply their penalty to every test you make, not just combat. There are times when you want to capture a foe that would rather die than be captured, though, or when an opponent is too "brave" or stupid to yield, so it is still somewhat disadvantageous.

As for the link between Vicious and damage... the Morningstar is a low-damage vicious weapon. Viciousness isn't about how MUCH damage is done to a body, it's where and what kind. A high-damage non-vicious weapon might put a serious, impairing cut on your leg. A high damage vicious weapons might slice off that leg by accident (and thus sever the femoral artery and you bleed to death very quickly). The Morningstar may not do a lot of damage, but if one of those spikes finds it's way through an eye-socket into the brain or into the jugular, etc, it could be quite fatal with very little actual physical trauma.

Edit 2: Also, a Peasant tool does +2 damage?  Really?  I know it's fragile, but a *peasant tool* doing as much damage as a *greatsword*, or a halberd?  Brain revolt!

Keep in mind that the peasant tool has been modified for use as a weapon - sharpened to a greater degree than usual and somewhat reinforced. Even an unmodified a scythe could take an arm off without too much difficulty, and an unmodified hoe can crush a skull.

Keep in mind too that it would primarily be used by unskilled combatants, so getting more than 1 or 2 DoS will be fairly rare. Anyone with skills would likely be able to get a halberd instead, and why wouldn't they?

Note 3: I find it notable that the hand axe doesn't have a 1-handed Piercing 1 main-hand axe to 'typically' pair up with.  In fact, the only main-hand piercing 1 weapons are the Bravosi Blade (foreign and wierd), and Trident (lengthy).  Piercing 2 weapons (so sacrificing 1 piercing for +1 damage) adds in Arakh (foreign and weird) and Frog Spear (lengthy).  Soooo ... is the expectation that they dual-wield hand axes?  With their base Ath-1 damage?  (Which, yes, would become +0 from the off-hand+1, but still, they're much better off with a trident and shield.)

I'll be honest, the handaxe got piercing just to get it up to point-balance. A number of off-hand weapons got a point of piercing for that reason. Not really the right reason, but it's better than leaving them underpowered. Keep in mind though that many off-hand weapons are throwable, so that piercing will see use even if not when used as an off-hand.

The Crowbill used to have piercing, but changed it to Off-hand so that there would be an off-hand weapon with shattering. Maybe I ought to undo that. Particularly considering your point below. As it stands though, there are *zero* off-hand bludgeons, so even with Bludgeon Fighter I you wouldn't be able to use shattering.

Ok, I've reworked the club to be off-hand, and the Crowbill to have piercing. If you want to dual-wield shattering, you're forced to take BF1 and use a club. Not sure I really like that. I do like the crowbill having an identity as an anti-armor weapon, though.

Edit 3: Thought I'd make some observations about what niche I viewed each *group* of weapons as fulfilling.
Axes: Damage.  Nothing fancy, nothing clever, not defensive at all, just straight damage.
Bludgeons: Anti-armour.  Lots of shattering, access to more Shattering with a benefit.  
Brawling: niche stuff
Fencing: Weird foreign stuff
Long Blades: Jacks of all trades
Pole-arms: like super-axes - big damage, zero defence.
Shields: Defensive
Short blades: mostly off-hand offence
Spears: using pierce and other tricks to make up for relatively low damage?  And lances, which are doing their own thing.

Axes: damage/jack of all trades.
Bludgeons: shattering/defensive/staggering
Brawling: should be "stuff you might use in a bar brawl". I don't know why whip is in there, except that there's not really anywhere else to put it.
Fencing: Fast and agile. Small Sword is not particularly foreign. Smallsword and buckler was a fairly common set of sidearms for archers, for instance.
Spears: yeah, pretty much. Impale, and/or a grab-bag of useful stuff. All adaptable or two-handed. Lances are nuts. for GB specifically they'd be in their own category.

Curiosity: what weapons are 'appropriately chivalric'?  So, for example, the Frog Spear is 'a weapon of the Crannogmen', so presumably that doesn't see wide acceptance socially.  Anything Braavosi is presumably right out.  Non-woodsmen axes are presumably fine, Bludgeons are presumably mostly okay.  Brawling is a bit desperate.  Long Blades obviously acceptable.  Pole arms ... ?  Short Blades, as a backup/off-hand, presumably?  Non-lance spears seem pretty ... regional or non-military, apart from the Spear itself which strikes me more as a commoner weapon.  Just idle wondering, really.  I could see a knight getting mocked quite severely if he pulled out a Frog Spear, or Woodsman's axe, regardless of how well he used them.

I'll leave that up to Theo, as this is intended as a generic rework, not just for GB. Historically though, effectiveness was the primary factor. Really, if someone mocks you, just make a fool of them in a duel and call it a day. :p

I'm sure a lot of folks mocked Thoros for setting his sword alight.

A note on Shattering: 2DoS isn't that hard to get, with the typically low CDs.  And while you need to get the 2DoS first, and it doesn't multiply with DoS, you *may* be underestimating the value of Shattering, because it *stacks*.  Take the Warhammer (Shattering 2), assume you reliably hit 2DoS, and you have Bludgeon 1 Benefit: round 2: +3 damage.  Round 3: +6 damage.  Round 4: +9 damage.  Even if you miss one of them, you're still basically ignoring their armour come round 5.  Which means, that as your offence goes down, due to wounds and fatigue, their defence goes down accordingly, keeping you viable for longer.  While your opponent, without shattering, starts doing nothing but bouncing off your armour much sooner.

Keep in mind that you have to go through defensive weapons before armor. Of course, that means making it easier to hit hem to get the 2 DoS (and damage). Also, your opponent is hitting you, too, and all shattering weapons have a training penalty so by the time you have done significant damage to their armor, a high-damage opponent may have put a number of injuries or wounds on you.

Really, I need to run a few combats with these changes. I think things are okay from a theorycrafting perspective, but I won't really know until I do some playtesting.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

Viciousness isn't about how MUCH damage is done to a body, it's where and what kind.

Note that I wasn't trying to argue that *only* +2 weapons should have vicious, as you say, lower damage weapons can be designed to be vicious, I was more thinking that by the time you're doing that much damage, regardless of design, it's going to be pretty deadly.  But eh, as you say, it differentiates it from other weapons, and as you point out, your opponent can yield, so fine.

Really, I need to run a few combats with these changes. I think things are okay from a theorycrafting perspective, but I won't really know until I do some playtesting.

I think that's fair.

Edit: Benefits - Authority: Typo: 'Further, your opponent looses bonuses from his disposition equal to the difference +1 (to a minimum of +0)'  Should be 'loses'.

Also, a while back, I mentioned I'd post the revised 'Gifted Teacher' Benefit Reader and I worked up together, for your consideration.  Forgot to before, so here:
'You gain a new use for Persuasion. Spend at least one hour instructing another character. A successful Persuasion test lets you to grant that character bonus dice on social & mental tests related to your instruction. Thus, if you succeeded on Persuasion test to instruct another character about architecture, that character would gain bonus dice on his own Knowledge test related to architecture. You may only instruct characters so long as their relevant (1 * Test) + (0.5 *Bonus) total is not greater than your relevant (1 * Test) + (0.5 * Bonus) total. The Difficulty of the test depends on the size of the bonus you wish to confer. A failed test indicates the subject matter was too lofty for the student to absorb.
[Usual table]
Once you have successfully instructed the student, that student may at any time make a ROUTINE (6) Cunning test (Memory applies) to recall your teachings. A success grants the character +1B per degree, drawn from the bonus dice you conferred. Once the student exhausts the pool of bonus dice, the student may not draw further on your teachings without another lesson.'

Main differences being you can provide training in more diverse subjects, (so, for example, could give a bonus to Status (Breeding) by giving an etiquette refresher, or to Persuade (Charm) by passing along appropriate compliments), and the difficulty for the student in recalling the information is lowered (9 to 6), to make it fairly reliable if you have a Cunning of at least 3 (if you have to try *that* hard to remember the lessons, you're not really that gifted a teacher).
While it's still not fantastically useful, the added flexibility means it could well be useful for official events and the like where you *have* to have a particular person doing it, and may fit certain niche characters (probably maesters, mostly).
Reader was also talking about having a martial/physical equivalent, like the 'Master-at-arms' ability suggested here.

[Baelon Drakeson]

5 fights into my playtesting, and I'm already starting to have some observations.

I created 14 secondary characters with a variety of armaments. All have Fighting 5, and two 4s, one of which is in their primary weapon's damage attribute. The other is typically in Endurance, but a few have it in Agility, Athletics, or Marksmanship. All have 3b in their primary weapon specialization, and 5b distributed in various other combat specializations, typically Quickness, Run, Strength, and Shields, but there are others as well. Each has 2 combat benefits, typically "X Fighter 1" and one other. I am using the Great Bastards specialization limits and revised benefits. All have plate armor (with the AP change used in this game and in GB).
All have painfully punny names that form unique two-letter initials, as it helps me remember which one is which.

Playtest Warriors:

Observations so far:
1) The damage is real.
Even with the various damage reductions implemented, between Powerful, Off-Hand, Axe Fighter 1, and the Charge action. The Damage per DoS has largely ranged from 4-7, with a couple instances of 8 or 9 and one remarkable 11 (Long Axe, 2b Strength, Charge, 1b sacrificed to Axe fighter 1). There was also one sad instance of 3, a thrown handaxe - also the only attack to not make it past the AR10 of plate.

2) Defense - you have it or you don't.
The -4 of plate is really harsh without a hefty Defensive bonus to offset it. Most have a CD between 6-7, 2 at 8, and few standouts of 9 (Large Shield), 10 (Large Shield), 12(Braavosi style) and 13 (Tower Shield with Shield Mastery). Many of those drop quickly as defensive weapons are used to attack.

3) Fights are short
Hardly a surprise, given high skills, high damage, and low CDs. Fights have lasted between 1 and 3 rounds. Of course, I'm not using Fatigue (to simplify the process) and as secondaries these warriors cannot take wounds - but on the assumption that a duelist would yield after the first wound it's pretty spot-on. Most haven't had any real reason to use fatigue, the fights are usually over before many penalties have added up.

4) Specific observations:
a) Slow is not an effective drawback. A divided attack at this skill level is slightly worse than Aim and Attack. The Fast property reverses that, but slow vs not-fast is meaningless.
b) GB's revised Talented is a good benefit. It felt good to use it, doesn't seem overpowered.
c) GB's revised Axe Fighter 1 is strong. There has been little reason not to sacrifice at least 1b to it.
d) GB's revised Long Blade Fighter 1 is "OMG ALWAYS USE IT". I considered having the longsword wielder Aim just to be able to sacrifice 4b for +2 DoS.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

3) Fights are short
Hardly a surprise, given high skills, high damage, and low CDs. Fights have lasted between 1 and 3 rounds.

I take back what I said about Shattering. For some reason, I had a 3-6 round length in mind for most combats (at least, those involving Plate, especially for those including shields as well).

I admit to being a bit curious as to how fighters built under Apprentice restrictions, who still qualify for knightly virtue, would do against each other. After all, a system shouldn't solely balance itself on how it works at one end of the scale. Might be worth considering?

[Baelon Drakeson]

I had to double-check, but these warriors are actually sub-apprentice level. Given that I prioritized attack and damage, you might see a slight increase in those from journeyman/master, but more likely a point or two more in Combat Defense and/or slightly higher Endurance; I don't see either making much of a difference. Of course, that is assuming that the additional XP is spent on combat stats and not intrigue/jousting/warfare/other. I would expect most Reach knights would want to spend 40 to have a 4 Animal Handling, for instance.

Breakdown:

A couple of other observations:
1) Mobility has not been a problem. The slowest warrior has Move 2. 6 have Move 3, and 7 have Move 4. Large Shields no longer have Bulk, and Run dice are easily available. This makes Reach much less valuable in a 1v1, and in fact it can be quite dangerous, as it opens you up to charges.

2) Knockdowns seem pretty weak in 1v1s, because you can Aim for the same benefit with no chance of failure. That might change when I get to my halberd and spear wielder, as both advantages on knockdowns from their benefits. My one Reach warrior (Long Axe wielder) fell in one hit, but it might be of great use in limiting the mobility of opponents to better use Reach, too.

3) It occurs to me that with the lower CD's, warriors should probably be making greater use of defensive tactics. They would slow down the fights considerably (especially if both sides are using them), which makes a big difference for Shattering and revised benefits like Tough and Berserker. The optimal tactic for each warrior may differ.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

D'oh!  I just checked, and the reason why I had in my head that qualifying for chivalry ate up a lot of points was because I'd played around with seeing how hard it was to qualify for *lordly* chivalry, which has a lot of extra expenses (70xp extra in stats).

This makes Reach most beneficial in terms of

Missing text?

3) It occurs to me that with the lower CD's, warriors should probably be making greater use of defensive tactics.

You had at least one with a large shield and Shield Mastery, I believe.  I'd be interested to hear how at least that one did using Cautious attack as their default - they get, what? 3 from shield, 3 from Benefit, and a new +4 from Cautious attack for a total of +10CD, 4 of which is new. That *sounds* like it should make a difference.

[Baelon Drakeson]

D'oh!  I just checked, and the reason why I had in my head that qualifying for chivalry ate up a lot of points was because I'd played around with seeing how hard it was to qualify for *lordly* chivalry, which has a lot of extra expenses (70xp extra in stats).

That's ok, I completely missed that you were talking about chivalry and just looked at XP expenditures. Yeah, I'm doubtful too many lords will be Apprentices, unless it's a child inheritor type situation.

This makes Reach most beneficial in terms of

Missing text?

That's what I get for rushing to finish a post while prepping dinner. I was going to write somethign about eating up lesser actions, until I remembered what happened to my one Reach warrior - a 4 DoS charge Knocked them out, a brutal one-round victory (the Long Axe user won initiative, too!)

3) It occurs to me that with the lower CD's, warriors should probably be making greater use of defensive tactics.

You had at least one with a large shield and Shield Mastery, I believe.  I'd be interested to hear how at least that one did using Cautious attack as their default - they get, what?  3 from shield, 3 from Benefit, and a new +4 from Cautious attack for a total of +10CD, 4 of which is new. That *sounds* like it should make a difference.

It's actually a Tower Shield user that has Shield Mastery, but they had no real need to go defensive... because he also has a Ball and Chain, and so with a single charge knocked out the long axe user.... after the Long Axe user nailed him for 22 (pre-armor) damage. Of course, he's probably one of the better users of defensive tactics, as he has the damage to get through armor even if he loses a DoS because of the penalty on cautious attack, and with Shattering 2 he'd take apart his opponent's defenses at the same time.

I have used some defensive tactics - the Braavosi duelist (Braavosi Blade and Left hand Dagger used the special greater action from Braavosi Fighter 2 to fairly good effect (sacrifice all your bonus dice, but get +1 CD per DoS in addition to normal damage), and the Bastard Sword and Large Shield user eked out a narrow victory against the Longsword and Dagger user with Cautious Attack and Long Blade Fighter I (take a -1D penalty and still get 4 DoS? Sure!). However, none have used defensive tactics as their primary means, and those two did it to augment already better than average defenses (12 and 9 respectively). Some of the high-damage/low CD types could probably benefit, though. The CD difference between a 3 DoS hit and a 2 DoS hit can be pretty slim, but the damage difference is huge.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

Right, back to the more solid ground of non-combat-related pedantry! In this case, a whole bunch of typos.

But before that, some clarification on 'Sickly'.
'You must pass an Endurance(Stamina) TN 12 test or take 1 point of fatigue in any scene where you physically exert yourself, upon a critical failure, this point of fatigue imposes -1D instead of -1 on all tests.'
It's unclear when you make this roll. It's significantly different if you roll before a combat begins (potentially giving you a penalty for the entire combat), or if you roll once the combat is over, meaning you only have to rest for 4 more hours afterwards, and make sure you don't 'fill up' on fatigue during the fight. Also, it might be worth making explicit what happens if you're full up on fatigue when you're supposed to take a point - pass out for 2 hours, for example. It's also not clear if, should you have multiple points of fatigue and you rest for 4 hours to recover 1, you can choose which to remove first (relevant if you crit failed).

Actually, while I'm here, I'd like to suggest you find a new picture for Ser Symon Starkwood. Not wanting to insult the artist (not like I could do better), but it does look rather amateurish compared to the other portraits.

Benefits: Typo: 'Should you no longer qualify, you loose the benefit, but the destiny point invested is returned to you.' Repeated for Heir, HoH, etc. Should be 'lose'.

Disadvantages: Typo: naive: 'You take -3 to intrigue defense and passive awareness against all uses of deception and it's related specialties'. Should be 'its'.

Disadvantages: typo: Debt: 'Every three months you must roll a number of dices equal to your status rank'. Should be 'dice'.

Disadvantages: typo: Blackmailed: 'Someone have evidence against you'. Should be 'has'.

Benefits: typo: Authority: 'Further, your opponent looses bonuses from his disposition equal to the difference +1 (to a minimum of +0)'. Should be 'loses'.

Adept Negotiator: 'You may add half your deception rank (round down) to your intrigue defense against opponents that does not know your disposition.' Should be 'do'.

Animal Cohort: 'If you loose the companionship of the animal, you may not remove this benefit to regain the invested destiny point.' Should be 'lose'.

Blood of Valyria clarification: 'During intrigue, you may treat your status rank as one higher for all derived statistics and effects keyed to status.' Does 'effects keyed to Status' include determining if they can use a simple intrigue?

Head for Numbers: Surely it should be affecting coffers, rather than Wealth, with the new House and Lands rules?

Long Blade Fighter 1: 'on a hit, you gain one additional degree of success per two dices sacrificed.' Should be 'dice'.

LBF 2: 'for each dice sacrificed'. Should be 'die'.

Maester - Healing 'characters under your care has their TN reduced by 3 when recovering from injuries and wounds.' Should be 'have'.

True Knight: 'This quality represent a knight that holds himself to the true ideals of knighthood'. Should be 'represents'.

...Aaand that's it! I think there's something wrong with me that I found it rather soothing to be proofreading documents, but there we go.

[Theomore Tullison]

We're too polite to comment on that

[Daveth Coldbrook]

A little thing, but looking at threatening and unattractive:

Threatening
The default disposition towards you is worsened by one step, in addition, you suffer -2D on tests involving charm and seduce.

Unattractive
You take -2D on seduction tests. In addition, the default disposition towards you is worsened by one step.

They're identical, except that Threatening has an additional -2D to Charm.


I would also like to point out that Bound to the Bottle is pretty brutal.
All TN's from your addiction are at +3
-1D on all Endurance tests
must re-roll all Persuasion tests and take the worst result
the default disposition towards you by NPC's is worsened by one step.
-2 Chivalry/Virtue.
(But at least for all effects related to alcohol, you may count your endurance rank as two higher.)

None of them alone are particularly bad, but the sheer volume of penalties make it nasty. Compare with Cruel Insanity:
–2D on all Awareness tests involving Empathy.
the default disposition towards you by NPC's is worsened by one step.
-2 chivalry/virtue


And while I have this post here, something confused me about Imry. From the Customs and Traditions post:

(Lysette's husband would not actually inherit the lordly title, and while customary title of Lord Protector would be applied to him, it does not technically make him Lord Starling. It is a common, and accepted, mistake to address him as Lord Starling though, but he may well introduce himself as Ser Husband of House other than Starling, Lord Protector of Kingsbridge.).

a landed knight in service to House Florent thanks to his marriage to Lady Lyanna, the sole heir to Greendew [...] apparently, being made the knight of Greendew seemed only to spur him further on

What would Imry's title actually be? Ser Imry of House Levalle, Knight Protector of Greendew? Or would he be Lord Protector? Or simply Knight of Greendew?


Clarification:

Ser is a protected title, anyone that has been properly knighted has the right to be addressed as "ser" or "Ser first name" and it is a grave insult not to do so, the lordly title takes precedence however, so lords are addressed as such. Using the honorific lordly form is acceptable, but generally uncommon unless addressing a lord's heir, and typically then only if the heir is speaking for the lord.

I think this could do with some rewording, I'm not sure what it meant here. I'm clear up to 'so lords are addressed as such', but then confused. Are you saying that knighted heirs are generally referred to as 'Ser [Firstname]', unless they are speaking for the lord, in which case they're generally referred to as 'Lord [Firstname]'?


Another part that my looking at Imry made me think about:

A marriage can also be annulled if unconsummated, because producing heirs is the other half of marriage.

I can see nothing (there or on the wiki) about annulling if the wife is barren, which is interesting, since, as you say, the other half is producing heirs. I can see a lord marrying a barren woman (not known to be barren beforehand, obviously) causing quite the inheritance issue. Or, take Imry's situation - his wife is the sole heir of Greendew, and she doesn't provide kids. One reason potentially being she's barren. Would that mean, if true, when she dies, the title reverts to her liege lord? (Assuming no other relatives can be found)

[Yes, I was bored again, so I went poking about.]

[Theomore Tullison]

There's always variances. Most knightly houses are hereditary by custom rather than law, unless there's a royal decree stipulating that the descendants of knights so and so shall have custody over such and such domains, then they are hereditary until that decree is withdrawn. As it happens, most such decrees where made by king's who's successors now happens to be the lords these landed knights are sworn to, and thus within their rights to retract such decrees, or at least the king will allow it. And typically the promise that domain so and so should belong to knight such and such and his sons and grandsons turns into his great-grandsons and so on.

So without being too official, the Greendew case is likely one of adding legitimacy for Lord Florent's choice of landed knight, plus he adds marriage ties to the Levalle's without having to hand them one of his own daughters, one also avoids potential problems down the line of Lyanna marrying someone else and thus having someone else who can argue that he should be appointed knight of greendew. It is highly unlikely that Lord Florent could not set Lyanna aside (or a brother if she had one for that matter) and appoint whomever he pleased if he really wanted, but that could cause disruption at Greendew and possibly put his other landed knights at unease.

If a knightly house dies out entirely, with no heirs to the title, then the domains fall back to the liege lord, since a landed knight holds those lands for his lord in the first place. If the same happens with a lordly house, then it actually becomes the domains of the king. Under most circumstances, the king will then find someone to bestow that title to, and life goes on.

Though where the head of a lordly house has the responsibility to uphold the king's peace and laws, a landed knight is in essence someone the head of said lordly house delegates the part of upholding the peace to, so having a woman head of a knightly house doesn't make sense (to those in power), whereas a woman being the head of a lordly house can delegate the peacekeeping to the knights in her service and while most would frown at the idea of her sitting in judgement, she can still do it. Her husband would to take on the first half of the job and kinda be expected to take on the second half also, but important to note that he does so in her name. Whereas Lyanna's husband takes on all the duties her father had, but in the name of Lord Florent rather than hers. So the Knight of Greendew is whichever knight that keeps the peace there in Lord Florent's name.

As for barrenness, nobody thought of that when they wrote the laws of men and holy texts, the high septon can annul a marriage that isn't consummated since there's pretty much no point in marrying if one doesn't have sex. It's not unusual to claim that the marriage was unconsummated if it turns out to be childless or find other ways to get rid of a wife believed to be barren.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

Okay, that's clear. Thanks for explaining.

[Baelon Drakeson]

I note the change to Long Blade Fighter 1. Definitely a good idea, though I find the new version somewhat underwhelming.

I mean, statistically it's pretty much always beneficial. At fighting 5 keeping one die unconverted is better, with 4 fighting it's pretty much a wash whether you leave yourself a bonus die or convert them all. Either way, if you have 2b or better (after training penalties and such) you should always use it. A flat bonus would be scarcely less interesting and much easier to use.

Of course, many of the other "[weapon] Fighter 1" benefits are just flat bonuses, typically in the form of adding or improving weapon features: Shattering, Defensive, and Piercing, so a flat +1 or +2 on attack rolls might not be all that bad. Still pretty boring though.

Others add a special kind of action, which are generally only of situational utility; taking your (or the original) and making it a specific action would make a big difference; not being able to combine it with a charge, reckless attack, or cautious attack would be significant; if a Greater action then it couldn't be combined with another lesser (like aim or move), too. That might not be a bad idea for the Axe Fighter line, too.

I have to say, I think I significantly undervalued the original LBF1, probably because I was over-valuing bonus dice in general. Of course, it's value greatly depends on how many bonus dice you have to sacrifice and what your opponents Combat Defense is.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

Ignoble drawback needs some clarification.  I'm unsure just from reading it if it is:
Your default chivalry/virtue is -2 (instead of half status+reputation, modified by experience).
or:
Your default chivalry/virtue is -2 (instead of half status+reputation), modified by experience.

On a related note, the half-Dornish Starkwood kids.  I admit to being curious as to what drawback would be apt to represent their heritage.  It says something about the culture if the most apt drawback were a recoloured 'Bastard Born', or if it were 'Reviled'.  Or maybe you're thinking of giving it its own drawback?  Maybe something that's a double-strength Bastard Born, that only applies when dealing with people from the Fire faction?

Edit: Actually, given that you changed the Influence stat of Seduce from Persuasion to Awareness, you may want to clarify whether a successful seduction raises disposition by a number of steps equal to ranks in Persuasion or Awareness.

Edit 2: Also, given the changes in how you pay for extra languages (which I approve of), you may want to change or remove the Polyglot Benefit.

Edit 3: Should Proud really be that way round? (no benefit from others, half benefit to others) Thinking logically, a Proud person would surely begrudge helping others more than being helped themselves, since that places them in the 'inferior' position?

[Daveth Coldbrook]

Some fairly significant changes in Benefits/Drawbacks, I see.

Don't know the combat system well enough to comment on Agile Maneuvers - if it would be useful, or if it just makes you charge-bait.

Not sure about the nerfing of Dutiful and Respected. Charm and Convince are the two most common/broadly useful techniques. Now, both those Benefits just defend against two niche techniques. Stubborn is more useful (as it now defends against Convince), but I'm still not sure it'd be worth it for any character. Maybe. There aren't *that* many intrigue-related Benefits.

Great Bastard is interesting, as a part of it states 'maximum status is 5', but, for example, 'Head of House' doesn't say the same thing. I haven't noticed anything that says there's a cap on Status below 5, just that your mechanical status should reflect your narrative one (and you list GBs as having Status 5), so it's interesting you mention it here. I do like the bonus, though, as it encourages them to do what they should be doing. If the status thing doesn't really have an impact, though, I'd probably see it as being overshadowed by Compelling(Convince) (yes, not all influencing to join a side would be Convincing, but a significant proportion probably would be, and Convince is useful for much else besides).

High Station clarification: raises status, including whether or not others may Simple Intrigue you, but *not* including whether you may Simple Intrigue others?

I leave the Long Blade Fighter analysis to others. Still, I note that how useful 2 is depends in large part on how detailed the terrain is - an empty plain makes it much less useful.

I note Spear Fighters 2 & 3 have really low Stat requirements.

Poor health is pretty brutal now. Fatigue is useful enough that not being able to voluntarily take it is pretty bad all on its own (for a combat character at least). To then *also* have -2D on rolls to recover from injuries and Wounds (which presumably applies both if you're healing naturally and if you're being healed) really cripples them, even ignoring the other two incidental effects.

And finally, Proud. I'm not a fan of the new version as it stands now. I feel like it's a bit too 'wooly' about exactly when it applies, and what effects it has. It also runs the risk of having the GM run the character ('fail this roll and you have to do *this*' kind of deal). I'm not saying the idea you're going for *cannot* work, but I do feel it needs 'tightening up' somehow.

[Theomore Tullison]

The Starkwood Brats? Hmm, probably something affecting disposition and/or chivalry/virtue. The general effect for being from Dorne as far as the book gives guidance is -1 disposition (which I tend to translate into -2 disposition), but since several of the items from that table has been baked into the associated qualities and Dorne is considered the enemy...

From narrator point of view, it would likely be treated more as some NPC reactions being such and such.

Went over all relevant comments in this thread and tweaked a lot of stuff, not so much with the weapons, I mostly will focus on removing anything clearly wrong rather than doing a full overhaul in that department.

So far, it looks like PC's doesn't get too powerful with the current creation rules, although I didn't min/max any of the NPC's to be beasts, but accounting for that getting +50XP for dropping a stat to 1 is out and more expensive to get 5's and caps on specialty dice, the raw power potential of the current setup is probably a notch below dragonsdance, yet diversification is definitely easier here.

For the grand melee, I think I'll be landing on the solution of handling it as a series of individual combats for the PC's, with warfare tests from leaders and sub-commanders to influence the bigger picture, spiced up with personal challenges and whatever else I fancy.

Yet to come across a picture for Symon I liked better than the present one, though I haven't been super active in my search, most knightly portraits out there are of white people.

[Theomore Tullison]

As far as Head of House goes, the associated status can run from 4 (hereditary landed knight) to 10 (king)..arguably maybe just 7 and let the king have something juicier. Also tweaked the status page to specify that one must take the benefit to get the great bastard maximum. Strictly speaking, one doesn't have to take Head of House if one qualifies, but I think it's good enough that it's worth grabbing if you can, heir and the others in the same vein also.

The rationale behind the tweaks to stubborn, dutiful and respected is to not have them overlap, but some additional effects (stronger for the latter two) might be in order.

Proud (and vindictive) are envisioned from my part to be something for a player to pick up with the desire to play up an aspect of his character which is irrational and detrimental, but not "always on", I kinda would like to have a lot of those on the table, but maybe it would be better to have them in their own section if so, and only allow one per PC.

Toned down Poor Health (and renamed it back to sickly), a bit heavier effect on the women because those typically doesn't get into fights.

[Daveth Coldbrook]

I do approve of making Stubborn not stack with Dutiful/Respected - an intriguer could get some quite terrifying DRs otherwise, but agree that an additional minor effect would probably make D/R more attractive now.

Clarify: does Charm still give +1D to next intrigue on success?

Standing up from prone: I'm unclear why you wouldn't always start with a Free action, given how if you fail, it seems you can go to the next step up without penalty?

The change in Status requirement for Lordly chivalry is probably a good thing - it suddenly becomes a *much* rarer thing (only really Heads of House and Great Bastards are likely to have Status 5, and the former has the lower requirement anyway).

With regards to having only one of proud/vindictive/etc. per PC, I wonder if perhaps 'half total Disadvantages, round down' would be better - Masters in particular are defined (in my head at least) by their flaws, and I could see a viable character having at least two of these severe character flaws.  More than two could be unwieldy, perhaps, but I could see someone being both Proud and Vindictive being a both valid and interesting character.

Why did you decide against keeping the old Proud (in at least some form) by the way?  I found it an interesting interaction with the rules, like 'Treacherous' - where houses get their strength from working together, this person's like 'fuck all of y'all, I'm doing my own thing'.  (Yes, I know I criticised the exact implementation of the rules, but the idea was interesting).

Edit: Actually, if you're still coming up with example characters, a Ward between 2 PC houses (ideally on opposite sides of the conflict) could potentially be interesting. Just thought I'd throw that idea at you.

[Theomore Tullison]

Yes, only the disposition effects are revised as of now, rest is unaltered. Though I may have another look at them, seduction in particular have more creative uses than Theo cared to explore, although the stunt he pulled on Benjen Frey could be seen as a variant, but as I recall, we used convince or taunt or something to resolve that, by the book, seduction just makes the target interested in you. Maybe I should just add the "manipulation" technique for that sort of thing.

The old proud, I'm not entirely sure if it's a big enough detriment to forego assist bonuses, although if casting a wider net and allowing for it to kick in during events when relevant and perhaps also throw in a will test to allow others to do stuff (like survival tests during hunts) instead of you.

[Sponsored content]