|
|
Post by Damon Nettles on Nov 24, 2014 20:17:16 GMT
As a character with fighting 5, I must point out that I'm doing pretty badly in the practice bouts so far Yes, but as you noted yourself - you really are rolling badly (and in your first fight you forgot to add you extra test die).  /Damon |
|
|
|
Post by Symon Kytley on Nov 24, 2014 23:33:14 GMT
I'm in the camp that all bulk should count, regardless of source. Western-style polearms are heavy and unbalanced, designed for force. Something like a Chinese Gwan Dao or a Japanese Naginata would probably be a bit less powerful than a Halberd (Athletics +3 & Powerful is huge), but without the bulk penalty.
For a fencer, Braavosi Fighter 1 combined with a Braavosi blade and an off-hand dagger provide as much defense as a large shield, barring using the dagger making a two weapon attack. True, it's not as much as a large shield and Water Dancer 3, but still a lot.
I think the real issue is that we have people with fighting capability of on the scale of Barristan Selmy and Jaime Lannister (both fighting 5, 2 and 3 bonus dice in Long Blades respectively) according to the campaign guide. Keep in mind, they aren't built as starting characters, either!
|
|
|
|
Post by Damon Nettles on Nov 24, 2014 23:58:30 GMT
Your numbers are a bit off - in the most recent Campaign Guide Barristan sports Fighting 6 and Jaime has Fighting 7. Both also have very high bonus dice in their specializations.
/Damon
|
|
|
|
Post by Symon Kytley on Nov 25, 2014 0:32:59 GMT
Ah, I must have an old campaign guide then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ayleth Bartheld on Nov 25, 2014 8:21:53 GMT
Either version of the campaign guide is a piece of crap.
But the short of it is that fighting 5 is in the sort of territory one should be be careful with tacking on enhancements (such as benefits boosting offensive capabilities). The Jaime's and Barristans (at least in his prime) probably qualify for sixes, though could just as well be fives with a good array of benefits.
Sevens, IMO, is what the Jaime's, Barristans, Arthur Dayne's get to be in the myths.
|
|
|
|
Post by Damon Nettles on Nov 25, 2014 9:36:54 GMT
Either version of the campaign guide is a piece of crap. But the short of it is that fighting 5 is in the sort of territory one should be be careful with tacking on enhancements (such as benefits boosting offensive capabilities). The Jaime's and Barristans (at least in his prime) probably qualify for sixes, though could just as well be fives with a good array of benefits. Sevens, IMO, is what the Jaime's, Barristans, Arthur Dayne's get to be in the myths. Yes, I've noticed that you have strong feelings about the Campaign Guide. :-) But seriously, I don't feel comfortable discussing the pros and cons of various benefits and the appropriate power level for abilities, based on the personal preferences of various players. The only common frame of reference we have is the rulebook and the rulings of our narrator. I benchmarked my character against the PCs and NCs presented in the rulebook and I expected others to do the same (given that we're strangers playing in the internet). If many players came to the game expecting a hard cap on abilities at 4, I'd be very surprised, as the narrator communicated no such thing to me. Putting a cap on abilities at 4 also means that many benefits are permanently out of reach, unless we're also going to start a major revision of that whole chapter. In short, the more we start changing, the more we'll have to keep changing - and that's simply not something that interests me. /Damon |
|
|
|
Post by Ayleth Bartheld on Nov 25, 2014 13:03:30 GMT
Honestly, I'd expect the narrator to comment on people's stats, as he can see them all, and could offer insight on whether or not your fighting capability in the stats lines up with what you envision it to be compared to the rest of the world. Personally, I add the hard cap of no 6's, and soft cap of scaling XP costs (so that going from 4 to 5 costs you 50 rather than 30) when I run SIFRP, and adjust NPC's accordingly.
But rule #1 when dealing with anything GR statted up...GR doesn't know how their rules works for real. Sure they can give official answers as to what line so and so in benefit this and that is supposed to mean. But it's evident that they don't know that offensive abilities (fighting, deception, persuasion and marksmanship) at 5+ is entering rocket tag territory. For combat, fighting 5 by itself isn't rocket tag yet, 6 (backed up by a fairly big base damage) certainly is. In intrigue, Persuasion 5 is definitively there (since AR is on the low end, and there's no equipment, or benefits for that matter, to boost defense).
It's basically offense vs defense, and while the latter climbs very slowly (sum of three abilities+benefits+equipment), the former goes up at a much quicker rate. My observation is that the game offers a lot more excitement if people adjust to that fact.
However, the flip side is that this is Westeros, you'll get slammed where you are weak. If you are good at fighting, expect people to seek to beat you through intrigue. And if your persuasion/deception is up through the roof, people will know you for the silver tongued menace you are and quit intrigues they know they cannot win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Symon Kytley on Nov 25, 2014 14:44:32 GMT
To a certain extent, I think combat is supposed to be very high risk- no one should enter combat feeling safe.
There is only a thin veneer of society separating Westeros from Hobbes' "state of nature", in which life is, to quote, "nasty, brutish, and short".
This is not D&D, where you enter combat regularly and expect to come out only slightly diminished in resources, and rewarded with more resources on top of that.
Consider that in the books (as in history), people die or are maimed *purely by accident* in jousts, where you aren't even using proper weapons. Add in real weapons and the chaos of the battlefield (i.e. the randomness of the dice), and a true battle should be risky. Notice that green units have a 1 in 6 chance of destruction after a battle even if they don't take any damage. Battle is scary, and people don't want to be there, and the risk of being caught and killed as a deserter is less frightening. Besides, that's what destiny points are for- to save your character from the disastrous events that are no doubt going to occur at some point.
That being said, I agree that GR's left hand (writing stat blocks) doesn't know what it's right hand (writing rules) is doing. Actually, sometimes it seems like the right hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.
I agree with Damon that house rules can become a bottomless pit; but as always it is up to the narrator to decide how far to go down that pit.
I do think it is absolutely appropriate for a narrator (in general, not saying it should happen here) to put limits on starting characters, or tweaking benefit costs. I don't have a problem with certain benefits being unavailable to starting characters- that's what advancement is for. For that matter, if the narrator doesn't want anyone to have anyone above a certain level, so what if some benefits are unavailable? That's part of capping the power level.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ayleth Bartheld on Nov 25, 2014 15:40:27 GMT
Well, to be fair, it's the intrigue system where the 5+'s are rather devastating. Combat can be quite deadly at 4's, though there's a balance between "deadly" and "whoever strikes the first blow will win the duel", which is where you get once you start min/maxing beyond Fighting 5.
But it's all about combinations. Someone with Fighting 6 using a base damage 4 longsword isn't as nasty as a fighting 5 guy with a powerful weapon and strength specialties to spare. Bring on the Fighting 6 guy with Ball and Chain+strength specialties...then, yeah, I don't think it will be fun to play in a game with that guy. It's of note that it's the rabble that tends to kick the bucket in battle though, true to it's medieval inspirations, it is somewhat rare that a significant number of "important" people fall in combat during the books. There's also a certain appeal in seeing duels taking a while, like Bronn vs Vardis and Viper vs Mountain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Symon Kytley on Nov 25, 2014 16:40:51 GMT
That is all true, except for "important" people not dying in battles part. Sure, not main or even major secondary characters, but that's more the effect of plot armor than anything else. Looking at the history of Westeros though I don't think there was a single major battle described where there wasn't at least one noble casualty. I mean, how many second or even third sons are the lords of their houses after Robert's Rebellion? Maybe not the greater houses as much, but again, plot armor. Amongst the Major and Minor houses though there were many casualties.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ayleth Bartheld on Nov 25, 2014 16:59:06 GMT
Plot Armor? In ASOIAF?
It's more the fact that the important people tended to not be in the thick of things. Add to it that starvation, desertion and disease accounts for a lot more deaths than stabs and slashes. And important people are even better sheltered from that than they are from the enemy army. In the middle ages you could have battles with the whopping number of three causalities. Also note that knights and lords can be ransomed if taken alive, which provides ample motivation to not kill them.
There's probably a fair amount of young unknown knights dying in the hope of becoming a hero like Ser Barristan though, because Westerosi culture adores the ones that rides straight into the heart of the enemy, defeats a notable commander and returns to reap the glory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Symon Kytley on Nov 25, 2014 17:28:23 GMT
Yes, plot armor- the Rulebook even talks about Rob Stark having plot armor. Really, all the main characters have plot armor. Unfortunately that doesn't protect you against plot blades. Skimming through the page for Robert's Rebellion on A Wiki of Ice and Fire, I see the following nobles having died in battle: Battle of Summerhall - Lord Fell Battle of Ashford - Lord Cafferen Battle of the Bells - Denys Arryn (heir to the Aerie) Battle of the Trident - Rhaegar Targaryan, Prince Lewyn Martell (Kingsguard), Ser Jonothor Darry (Kingsguard) Skirmish at the Tower of Joy - 3 more Kingsguard, 5 of Eddard's companions And those are just the deaths relevant to the plot development. |
|
|
|
Post by Ayleth Bartheld on Nov 25, 2014 17:43:30 GMT
No, those are the deaths worth mentioning, and until the last grand battle, only one or two notable deaths per battle, out of hundred's of notable people taking part.
Tower of Joy is more of a fight to the death, mind.
And I wouldn't say Robb got any plot armor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Symon Kytley on Nov 25, 2014 18:33:26 GMT
I think we might have multiple definitions of 'notable' in use. There are plenty of other knights and nobles that perished in those battles some named, some not.
We only know the ones that the characters talk or think about. Should our characters end up in a war like that, I doubt any of the main characters would spare much of a thought for us, either. Does that make us not notable?
|
|
|
|
Post by Ayleth Bartheld on Nov 25, 2014 18:40:19 GMT
Mebbe, mebbe not.
But is single combat any fun if it's over before round three?
|
|
Mar 11, 2015 15:32:31 GMT
Mar 11, 2015 15:32:31 GMT
It's set just before the historic Blacks v Greens period
Mar 13, 2015 7:22:11 GMT
It's set just before the historic Blacks v Greens period
Mar 13, 2015 7:22:11 GMT