Immunity To Trollkin "feature" - any comments

[atgxtg]

I think 2d8 are quite reasonable for a longbow. Especially after having seen test shooting with a longbow, and different arrow heads on the arrows, on different materials, from blocks of ballistic gel, melons, and a square of 5 mm thick steel.

While it depends very much on the arrow heads when it comes to penetrating metal, it has enough force to go through a human body, which is why I think 2d8 is reasonable.

The most realistic approach to damage would be a basic damage from the bow, with damage depending on pull, and finally adjusted according to arrowhead.

Histoically the longbow proved great against mail, but less effective vs plate. With plate being dropped down to 6 points there is little chance of an arrow not penetrating it. I've seeen the tests too, and if the breastplate was good, the arrow would shatter rather then penetrate. THe shaft isn't strong enough. I saw tests where they used some aluminum shafts and it got much nastier for the guys in plate.

If we are going to introduce weapons from the latter middle agesmidle-age weapons, then we need to introduce the armor that went with it.

THe 6 point plate in RQ was typically a bronze breatplate. Now if we went with 9 point iron plate (like glorantha) and say 12 point steel plate a 2d8 longbow might make sense.

If we use this sort of scale, we are really gonna half to boost up lance damage. The lance is the big damage doer prior to the devlopment of artillery, and has something like 70 times the power of a longbow.

Then if someone wants to do blackpower weapons for a later medieval/early renassiance game we will end up with matchlocks doing something like 6d6.


Oh, BTW, thanks for mentioning types of arrow head. I might just use that. While PCs would probably want those lower damage doing but better penetrationg AP style arrows, broadheads are better for hunting (or for targets who aren't in metal armor).

 

[Archer]

While PCs would probably want those lower damage doing but better penetrationg AP style arrows, broadheads are better for hunting (or for targets who aren't in metal armor).

The armor piercing arrow heads, are if my memory serves me correctly, called bodkins. But that is somthing someone who is a greater history buff than me has to give a correct answer to.

 

[atgxtg]

While PCs would probably want those lower damage doing but better penetrationg AP style arrows, broadheads are better for hunting (or for targets who aren't in metal armor).

The armor piercing arrow heads, are if my memory serves me correctly, called bodkins. But that is somthing someone who is a greater history buff than me has to give a correct answer to.

bodkins.

Now if only we could work the difficult learning curve for bows into the equation.

 

[AKAramis]

2d8, considering impaling damage, is 2-16 points to a location... WAY too much. That's take out a wyvvern in one shot kind of damage... 5/11 in best location, that's a bow capable of one-shot dropping a wyvvern with a body shot. THAT IS WAY TOO MUCH... At 2d8, average is 9, and a horse is going to notice a lot of the damage... 2/10 best location... 15/64, or 23.4375%, of dropping it to 0 right-off!

It certainly is way out of line with melee damages...

 

[Archer]

Well, it is very much in line with the damage bows can inflict, and did inflict throughout historical battles. We are talking what is almost top development of the bow (top would be recurved composite longbow, but few persons would be able to handle such a bow).

Crossbow did not deal more damage (as it is commonly portrayed in RPGs), they were almost as good as bows, but required no to little training in use. Which is a huge advantage compared to a bow.

Granted, the crossbow design eventually was developed into the ballista and other machines of war.

Personally I am complaining more about the inefficiency of daggers (once more underestimated) than the lethality of the high-end weapons. The high end weapons _should_ be lethal.

A three ft arrow through your chest is going to kill you as good as a blow by a great sword. There is no question about it.

If the wyvern will go down by one shot from a longbow, then I would put forth that the wyverns armor values are too low, not the bows damage too high.

Personally I would have done weapon this way. Ignoring specific weapon, just concentrate on how it is wielded (that matters most).

Short bows (from recurved horsebow to smaller hunters bow); 1d8 dmg
Long bows (from longbow to recurved composite bow); 2d8 dmg
Two handed melee weapon; 2d8 dmg
One handed melee weapon; 1d8 dmg
Small one handed melee weapon (daggers, knives); 1d6

In reality there is very little difference how well the weapons can kill you. They inflict lethal damage, there is no idea considering the difference beyond that. Intead one should instead differentiate between different weapons on such characteristics how well suited they are for parrying, what armor they are good against, etc.

But then, in some aspects, MRQ are many many times more "heroic" than the real world, and I guess we have to accept the very undeadly weapon damages.

As for armor I would have done it this way;

Armor type            Slashing      Bludgeoning     Piercing
Padded Cloth            1AP            2AP           0AP
Leather                 2AP            1AP           1AP
Hardened Leather        2AP            2AP           1AP
Chainmail               3AP            1AP           2AP
Scalemail               4AP            3AP           4AP
Plate Armor             6AP            4AP           5AP

But would have added another layer of complication to the battles, checking damage type vs armor to determine how well it protects.

 

[Gnarsh]

Heh. You're essentially bringing up the age-old issue: Realism versus Playability.

Which you favor is going to depend on your own personality. Personally, I tend to lean towards playability rather then realism. Weapons need to be scaled on the basis of their "cost" in game terms (and that's "not" a monetary value, but a "cost to use" concept), and their "power" in game terms. It's wonderful that a mideval longbow could pierce all but the strongest steel platemail, but if you actually give it stats to do so then everyone will simply use longbows and kill everyone they fight before they ever get into range.

In practice, you need to balance how useable a weapon is (in how many situations can I use this weapon), and the damage the weapon does, and the armor that weapon will face. Putting massive ranged weapons into a game in which plate armor counts for 6AP, and there's little to nothing you can do to defend against a missile weapon is going to be problematic.

Missile weapons in RQ have traditionaly been *very* deadly in comparison to other games. Arguably, much of that has been because of the impale rules, so there's certainly some change there. But I'm coming from a game in which a 1D8+1 comp bow is *deadly*. And platemail is worth 8AP, not 6. Sure. It's deadly because it can do up to 18 points on an impale, but if you just up the base damage to 2D8, you've effectively made it the same as if you'd impaled on every shot.

If you want to increase bow damage, playtest carefully! I think you'll be surprised just how small an increase in ranged damage in RQ will make a *huge* impact on survivability.


Oh. And technically, Balistas and other tension based seige weapons were developed *before* the mideval style crossbow. It's not that earlier cultures couldn't make something like a crossbow, but that the crossbow didn't really become feasible as a hand held war weapon until later developments in metalurgy and mass production came along. The locking and cocking mechanisms were complex. Too complex to handcraft for a price that anyone would be willing to pay on a large scale. Once the technigues came along to build them cheaply and quickly, they were a logical "cheap" weapon. They didn't require much craftsmanship to make (just good engineering), could be mass produced, and were easier to use. You could literally hand crossbows to a handful of recruits, give them a few days practice, and they would be effective ranged combatants on the battlefield. Contrasted with the *years* involved in training an effective bow unit for battle, and the crossbow became cost effective.

 

[atgxtg]

Archer,

Lots of good stuff there.

I agree with you about daggers. Tfe fighting knife has generally been the most effective weapon thoughout history. That is why is is still in use today. A spear really isn't much more than a knife on a stick.

I also agree with you as far a "top end" double recurve bows. But like you mentioned not everyone could use those. Like you said, that was why the crossbow was popluar. It was a lot easier to handle and had a more forgiving learining curve. Pretty much one of the reasons why firearms replaced the bow. Early dffriearms were not much better, but were much easier to use and less tiring.In RQ anyone with a 13STR/11 DEX can pick up a longbow and do a decent Robin Hood impersonation.

But what are not getting is the "top end" armor that goes with the era of the double recurved bow (a Welsh warbow made of yew). RQ armor was always done up for a less technologically advanced culutre not capable of making articulated and "proofed" plate.

And three feet of steel though you will kill you just as well as three feet of arrow. Dead is dead.

It is just that the longbow wasn't twice as damaging as a boradsword. Then again a greatsword isn't twice as damaging as a broasdword either.

If we kicked up all the other weapons up a step or so (d10 broadswords, d6+1 daggers) and upped the armor the 2d8 would be fine.

 

[Archer]

Heh. You're essentially bringing up the age-old issue: Realism versus Playability.

Yes, but I prefer a mix of the both, with a lean towards the playability.

Which you favor is going to depend on your own personality. Personally, I tend to lean towards playability rather then realism. Weapons need to be scaled on the basis of their "cost" in game terms (and that's "not" a monetary value, but a "cost to use" concept), and their "power" in game terms. It's wonderful that a mideval longbow could pierce all but the strongest steel platemail, but if you actually give it stats to do so then everyone will simply use longbows and kill everyone they fight before they ever get into range.

First word: Availability.
Second word: Portability (the guards wont take kindly to characters armed with longbows)
Third word: Training requirement. If you want to use a longbow you have to train 20 hours a week, or you will not be very good. Your skill and upper body strength decline.

In practice, you need to balance how useable a weapon is (in how many situations can I use this weapon), and the damage the weapon does, and the armor that weapon will face. Putting massive ranged weapons into a game in which plate armor counts for 6AP, and there's little to nothing you can do to defend against a missile weapon is going to be problematic.

It would be a fresh change. In most BRP clones I have played, a longbow is not a very lethal weapon. At most a character slightly fears the first shot, because after that he generally has closed the gap between himself and the archer, and will engage in melee. And should he be shot with that first shot, he can almost always assume it wont kill him.

Of course the scale between damage and armor would have to be adjusted somewhat with the damages I proposed. Basically you would have to go back to the 1-8 scale, where platearmor has 8AP.

Missile weapons in RQ have traditionaly been *very* deadly in comparison to other games. Arguably, much of that has been because of the impale rules, so there's certainly some change there. But I'm coming from a game in which a 1D8+1 comp bow is *deadly*. And platemail is worth 8AP, not 6. Sure. It's deadly because it can do up to 18 points on an impale, but if you just up the base damage to 2D8, you've effectively made it the same as if you'd impaled on every shot.

If you want to increase bow damage, playtest carefully! I think you'll be surprised just how small an increase in ranged damage in RQ will make a *huge* impact on survivability.

I have done it in the past, with several BRP versions and BRP clones. Where the 1d8+1 composite bow simply is not good enough against AP8 plate. It requires an impale/critical to be effective. Which is quite absurd. In this case good hits are too rare and the armor are too good, so it is unbalanced in that regard.

In MRQ a critical hit will do 16 pts with a 2d8 Longbow. Assuming 6AP plate, it is enough to bring a person down to (5 HP in location) Severly wounded. He would still need another hit to finish him off.

Oh. And technically, Balistas and other tension based seige weapons were developed *before* the mideval style crossbow. It's not that earlier cultures couldn't make something like a crossbow, but that the crossbow didn't really become feasible as a hand held war weapon until later developments in metalurgy and mass production came along. The locking and cocking mechanisms were complex. Too complex to handcraft for a price that anyone would be willing to pay on a large scale. Once the technigues came along to build them cheaply and quickly, they were a logical "cheap" weapon.

I know. The romans built them long before the "common" crossbow appeared. However, the ballista was much improved upon at the same time when the handheld crossbow became possible. It became a truly fearsome weapon not used only on the battlefield, but in siege warfare. With metal parts it became stronger, which allowed greater tension, which allowed the firing of heavier and more advanced projectiles.
They were the supreme weapons for "straight firing" siege weapons until the gunpowder was introduced and the cannon constructed.
I should probably have phrased it differently.
I just mentioned the ballista because someone would almost surely point to that and say that crossbows are more powerful than bows, and should do more damage.
Not that I remember the name of the bows, but there are a type of bow that you fire when you lie down, you hold the bow with the feet and tense the bow along your body. Not very practical for warfare, but it is the largest bow constructed, and are still in use by some primitive societies today, where it is used for hunting.

They didn't require much craftsmanship to make (just good engineering), could be mass produced, and were easier to use. You could literally hand crossbows to a handful of recruits, give them a few days practice, and they would be effective ranged combatants on the battlefield. Contrasted with the *years* involved in training an effective bow unit for battle, and the crossbow became cost effective.

Yes, the strength of the crossbow were the straight line of fire, which meant it did not require as much training to hit a target. But also that it required not anything near the upper body strength of the bow.
This made it the ideal ranged weapon for infantry.
Unfortunately most RPGs I know of has interpreted the "better" in a crossbow as doing more damage than bows (and then I am talking about hand held crossbows, larger crossbows that are not hand held are of course more powerful since they are larger).

 

[Archer]

It is just that the longbow wasn't twice as damaging as a boradsword. Then again a greatsword isn't twice as damaging as a broasdword either.

No. In fact what we tend to think of as a greatsword are not that much different from a "broadsword". How you wield it (1h or 2h) has more impact on damage than the construction of the blade.
You could use any sword with a long enough hilt, and get the benefit normally retained for "better" swords in RPGs.
In fact, the "great sword", "longsword" and other words used today were very seldom used when these weapons were state of the art. A sword was classified by how you wielded it (1h or 2h) and how you were supposed to fight with it (different blades are made for different styles of fighting).

If we kicked up all the other weapons up a step or so (d10 broadswords, d6+1 daggers) and upped the armor the 2d8 would be fine.

I guess that is what the "gritty" rules in the companion is going to do.

 

[atgxtg]

Looks like we are on the same page, just on different paragraphs.

If we throw in everything you are suggesting, inclduing the 8 pount armor scale then it all works out pretty well from where I'm sitting.

It's just putting it in piece by piece with MRQ where it looks funky.

BTW, for the formulas I'm using for the bows, I hit the 2d8 range right around the 55kg pull range, right around where the recruve yew warbow starts to come it. It is coming out to about STR 21. That sort of fits in with the fact that modern archers really can use the blasted things. The really top end 80kg draw longbows seem to work out at 2d12 damage and STR 26.

So my math is with you (yew?).

If I start to factor in bow skill to the STR requirments (say 1/10th skill to STR for requirement purposes) it really explains a lot. The yeomen would actually need to practice 20 hours a week with the bloody thing just to get enough upper body strength to use it.



I with you on the sword use too. I own a 2-handed broadsword, and a strong person could use the blasted thing one handed. The seond hand is usually more of a control and stablilty thing rather than power, but not if you spread the hands apart in the medieval style rather than the japanese style. Length/size/mass does make a difference, but that "level-hand" grip is the major factor.

Hopefully the "gritty" rules will help with that. I hope the don't forget to up the armor and parries though.

And I think the Greeks had a crossbow (the Grastophates or some such) before the ballista.

It is possible to make a hand-held crossbow with greater draw/damage that a bow. It just isn't worth it. Generally the time lost cracking the windlass means that for a crossbow that is slightly more powerful than a longbow, you'd end up with a rate of fire about 2 shot per minute. Ten moderate powered shots are better than 2 powerful shots.

Not that I remember the name of the bows, but there are a type of bow that you fire when you lie down, you hold the bow with the feet and tense the bow along your body. Not very practical for warfare, but it is the largest bow constructed, and are still in use by some primitive societies today, where it is used for hunting.

Uh, isn't that called a foot bow?

 

[Gnarsh]

You also have to consider the availability and frequency with which magic may play a part in your campaign. I know that in theory magic should not affect the base stats of a weapon, but in practice, if you don't consider the likely magic involved when figuring out the stats for weapons, you can get yourself in trouble.

I think RQ has always included the magic aspect when looking at bows. Speedart is pound for pound the best spell in the game, and is one of the reasons why that 1d8+1 comp bow is suddenly "deadly". Remember, that pretty much no one in a RQ3 game is actually walking around in platemail. I've found that while 8 points is the max (technically 9 points) unenchanted armor value, by far the most common armor combination in RQ3 is ring and leather for 6 points of armor. Maybe chain on the head and torso if you can carry the weight, but that's about it.

In a standard Glorantha based campaign, magic is common. Pretty much everyone is going to have some spirit magic. And speedart is a common spell. That group of bandits can be very nasty because of this. Remember that barring an assault on some kind of defensive position, most missile weapon attacks are going to be hitting people who have not had time to cast up defensive spells yet (like a group of bandits ambushing a party of adventurers). A 1d8+4 against a typical armor rate of 6 points is quite effective, even if you don't impale. And given that one out of every 5 hits will impale in RQ3, you really do have to account for impaling damage when comparing the rates.

And that's ignoring stuff like truearrow (don't *ever* mess with Glorantha Elves in their own forests!). You want to see rude sometime, just watch a group of Aldryami with silence sphere, sureshot, truearrow, arrow trance, and speedart absolutely decimate pretty much anything they shoot at, all while remaining virtually invisible, totally silent, and firing from a position upwards of a couple hundred yards away through heavy forest (ie: You can't see or hear them, and can't attack them back even if you could).

Obviously, if you plan on playing in a more Earth like setting, and wont be including some of the more powerful bow spells in your game, then bumping the power is probably going to work fine. That's what customization is all about...

 

[atgxtg]

You also have to consider the availability and frequency with which magic may play a part in your campaign. I know that in theory magic should not affect the base stats of a weapon, but in practice, if you don't consider the likely magic involved when figuring out the stats for weapons, you can get yourself in trouble.

Quite true. In fact several of the things I am concered about (like parry weapon AP scores) are in part because of that.

I think RQ has always included the magic aspect when looking at bows. Speedart is pound for pound the best spell in the game, and is one of the reasons why that 1d8+1 comp bow is suddenly "deadly". Remember, that pretty much no one in a RQ3 game is actually walking around in platemail. I've found that while 8 points is the max (technically 9 points) unenchanted armor value, by far the most common armor combination in RQ3 is ring and leather for 6 points of armor. Maybe chain on the head and torso if you can carry the weight, but that's about it.

Sadly, Speedart ain't the spell it used to be. I hate the MRQ version. Just because Speedart used to be all you said it was. 1 point for 1 shot at +15%/+3. Now it is +1 damage, and -5% dodge per point. Basically it is bladesharp but works for one shot as opposed to several minutes. Mulitmissle took a hit too. I think you are also underestimating how Protection can cancel out some damage.

And that's ignoring stuff like truearrow (don't *ever* mess with Glorantha Elves in their own forests!). You want to see rude sometime, just watch a group of Aldryami with silence sphere, sureshot, truearrow, arrow trance, and speedart absolutely decimate pretty much anything they shoot at, all while remaining virtually invisible, totally silent, and firing from a position upwards of a couple hundred yards away through heavy forest (ie: You can't see or hear them, and can't attack them back even if you could).

:lol:Arrow Trance. :lol: I once had an elf prove to a bunch of players why once use rune magic wasn't "worthless".

Obviously, if you plan on playing in a more Earth like setting, and wont be including some of the more powerful bow spells in your game, then bumping the power is probably going to work fine. That's what customization is all about...

Well, there are limiting factors that helps to balance these bows out in both a historical and a high magic setting.

For starters the training required to actually use a longbow effectively is really high. THe archer really has to develope his shoulder and back muscles and not just the arms. Modern archers can't shoot those 120 pound draw bows.

Secondly, the rangers where the bows do that phenomal damage is rather limited. Something like: though plate and rider at 20 meters, through plate a 30 meters, bounce off past 80 meters. Also past 80 meters it becomes less a matter of hitting a target and more a matter of shooting into a mass. Long range shots were probably not going to kill the plate armored knight, but would probably kill his horse, or his squire, or the guy walking alongside, or another knights horse.

 

[AKAramis]

At 5m, with modern hunting compound bow, a modern broadhead bounced off mail over a dead pig. Broke a couple ribs DID NOT break skin.

It's widely variable when you don't have a "fixed" target.

I'm not saying being able to drop a wyvvern on a crit is a bad thing. However, being able to do so 25% of the time without a crit, that's a bit much.

And changing the armor scaling is a bad idea, simply because it means more incompatibility with other materials.

Heck, its a far cry better than the 2-point scale of WFRP 1st Ed.

 

[simonh]

A lot of this discussion isn't taking into account the profound difference between MRQ and previous editions when it comes to the rules for bypassing armour completely.

Daggers are not useless in MRQ, in fact they are far more deadly than in previous editions so long as the wielder has a dagger skill of 50% or more. Let's have a look at the odds for the cyharacter to do damage in RQ3 and MRQ, assuming 50% skill.

RQ3: 2% chance (critical) for all 1D4+1 damage ignoring armour, avg. 3.5 pts; 8% chance (impale) of 2D4+2, average 2 pts penetrating. Agregate 10% chance of doing an avegare of 2.3 pts damage.

MRQ: 1% chance of max damage ignoring armour for 5 pts; 9% chance of normal damage, ignoring armour for 3.5 pts. Agregate 10% chance of doing an average of 3.65 pts of damage.

Of course the MRQ characetr is doing a precise attack to bypass armour. The MRQ character on average does more than 50% more damage on a penetrating hit, with the same overall chance of a penetrating hit. The MRQ character's advantage increases dramaticaly as his skill goes up. At 60% skill his chance of penetrating the armour doubles from this (60% -40% for a precise attack gives a 20% chance of doing damage). A character with 80% skill has almost 3 times the damage-inflicting potential of an RQ3 character with the same skill, and inflicts it on a far more consistent basis.

Note that these calculations don't take into account the changes due to combat table effects, but from a quick look I don't think there's much difference from that.

BTW It does look like Long Bows are petty over powered, but note that in Glorantha IIRC they are extremely rare. I know the Rathori have them in Fronella, but that's the only culture I know that has them.

Light Crossbows are looking pretty good, by the way. 16 points of damage on a crit, from such a commonly available weapon, is realy going to make your eyes water. Heavily armoured knights are not going to have a lot of fun in MRQ.

Note that this may be a concious design decision. If the authors want a free-wheeling combat system where heavy armour doesn't drag the game down into a grinding war of attrition, then this all makes a degree of sense.


Simon Hibbs

 

[Dort Onion]

Think Longbows are overpowered? Think again.

City Guard - str 13, dex 11 (min for both weapons) all other stats NPC average (13 for int, siz, 10.5 for rest)
-Longbow - 1 attack per round for 2d8 damage (other action spent reloading)
-Great sword - 2 attacks per round for 2d8 +1d2 damage.

So the same bloke is doing 9 (longbow) or 21 (great sword) damage per round - and you think the longbow is overpowered??

We'll try again

Hero - all stats 16 vs. Plate Armour
-Longbow - 1.5 attacks per round for 2d8 damage
-Great Sword - 3 attacks per round for 2d8+1d4

Longbow 4.97 damage per round
Great Sword - 16.32 damage per round

What the problem?
A longbow has range and good damage but is much slower, doesnt get damage bonus, has lower starting skill.

Seems fine to me.

And while impales will make a difference in normal use the longbowman doesnt have the 'yank it out for more damage' option on his arrows - which is likely to be the most common use/advantage to the impaler. (Vlad notwithstanding)

Yes, longbow damage has increased from RQ2/3, but its speed has gone down from upto x3 as fast as a greatsword (3per round vs. 1 per round) to half the speed of a greatsword. Its very different from what is was in RQ2/3 but its not over (or under) powered IMHO.

 

[Rurik]

Just to clarify Longbows do get DB (as per the Players Guide PDF - all missle weapons get DB unless specifically stated otherwise in the weapon description).

 

[Adept]

Sadly, Speedart ain't the spell it used to be. I hate the MRQ version. Just because Speedart used to be all you said it was. 1 point for 1 shot at +15%/+3. Now it is +1 damage, and -5% dodge per point. Basically it is bladesharp but works for one shot as opposed to several minutes. Mulitmissle took a hit too. I think you are also underestimating how Protection can cancel out some damage.

Nothing sad about that. Speedart was always grossly overpowered.

 

[simonh]

Nothing sad about that. Speedart was always grossly overpowered.

I don't think so. It provided 3x the bang for buck of Bladeshap yes, but only for a single attack. Bladesharp affected every attack in a combat, so bang for buck wise there was little to choose between them.

The main effect of limiting it to +3 damage and +15% to hit was to limit it's effectiveness in sniping. It was very handy sure but often the +3 damage simply offset some of the magical protection on the target.

Simon Hibbs

 

[Rurik]

Speedart is typoed. The description talks about points of magnitude, as if it was progressive like bladesharp, but the spell is not progressive.

So either it was meant to be fixed cost/effect like RQ2/3, or progressive.

I plan on using it as the old fixed cost +3 dam one off (may keep the - to dodge rather than + to hit, especially with precise attacks). But I will say progressive has the potential to be very powerful - there are situations I would gladly pay 8MP for a Speedart 8.

 

[atgxtg]

Sadly, Speedart ain't the spell it used to be. I hate the MRQ version. Just because Speedart used to be all you said it was. 1 point for 1 shot at +15%/+3. Now it is +1 damage, and -5% dodge per point. Basically it is bladesharp but works for one shot as opposed to several minutes. Mulitmissle took a hit too. I think you are also underestimating how Protection can cancel out some damage.

Nothing sad about that. Speedart was always grossly overpowered.

Speeddart was a good spell. Now it is fairly useless. Why blow a buch of POW for a one shot spell when something like Bladesharop lasts for ten minutes?

Speedart wasn't overpowered either, since casting one usually cost you one of you shots for the round.