Newbie with a lot of questions

[Mixster]

About Range for ranged weapons: The systems seems "all or nothing", does this approach works well with the system? As I said, I'm still testing it, but I'm already thing in maybe add "some color" to this rule, anyone with good house-rules for this?

If you want to keep things simple, you could probably add a house rule similar to GURPS where the damage is halved at long range - i.e. when the distance to the target is more than half of the maximum range of the weapon.

Well, what I was looking is, more specifically, more "range bands", like, lets say, -0% at close range, -25% at medium range and so on.

About Combat Actions, again, without really playing it (I only tested them by myself...), it seems that having more combat actions is really overpower, as, as long as you have at least one combat action more than your opponent, you will have one last attack which will be undefendable by the target. Is this expected and not that much an issue or it can lead to a "Combat Actions" race?

Thanks again

There is a very important Combat Action economy. Which means a character with more combat actions can sometimes best someone of greater skill through sheer amount of actions that can't be parried.

However, if a character has 4 CA and is effective 70% of the time, he is about as effective as a 3CA character with a 95% effectiveness.

 

[caul]

When I played in a demo (which is what immediately made me go on the shop's wifi and download the core for a buck), we were allowed to use all of our combat actions at once, and so my dual wielding thief wailed away on a troll with 4 successive attacks and practically crippled him. This seemed odd to me.

Now, using one CA per SR, much like Initiative passes in Shadowrun, makes a lot more sense and, at least to me, models the beat by beat action of combat better.

Legend gives me just enough complexity in combat to be more than boring hack & slash (D&D) and still less overwhelming than rules ultra-heavy systems (read Burning Wheel).

I think I'm in love...

 

[Mixster]

If combat was always just one character standing in front of another character on an open, flat, featureless field, then you be right, it would be simply a CA race.
But in games that I run anyway, it's not like that.

Generally a character built to fight well will have 3 CAs with a 2 handed weapon and 4 CAs with 2 weapons.
Often a sorc or non-combat specialist might only have 2 CAs and may well try to stay at the back of combat doing stuff (maybe spells, range combat whatever).
Many monsters have 2 CAs only, 3 CAs sometimes and fast ones more.

Further take into account say a character with 4 CAs who may be have 2 or more opponents on him who might only have 2 CAs each and the character is in trouble.
But if a character is up against an NPC/monster with only 2 CAs solo, then the NPC/Monster may well be in trouble. Although not necessarily, it might be slow but have tough armour, lots of Hit points, nasty attacks etc.

I think I wrote something on effective combat actions a few weeks back that should explain how this work in depth if anyone needs it.

 

[juca]

Hi guys, this type of awnser about combat actions was exactly what I was looking for - it is easy when you are just trying the rules to use them without a background, like a "fightning game" to ignore that the fights are not a simple matter of being stuck on one place hacking at one another. I'm happy to now know that having many combat actions is good, but not overpowering so.

But, well, I have yet more questions about the rules. One player is helping me test the system, and he told me one thing that I think is worth asking you: is the SIZE attribute simply "better" than STRENGTH and CONSTITUTION for warrior types? It helps both damage modifier and hit points, where each one of the others only help on one of those. Is there anything that we are forgetting?

Thanks again

 

[Loz]

But, well, I have yet more questions about the rules. One player is helping me test the system, and he told me one thing that I think is worth asking you: is the SIZE attribute simply "better" than STRENGTH and CONSTITUTION for warrior types? It helps both damage modifier and hit points, where each one of the others only help on one of those. Is there anything that we are forgetting?

INT and DEX are (arguably) more important than SIZ because they're used together to determine Combat Actions and Strike Rank. Its often far more important to act faster and more often than to deal a lot of damage or soak it up. Good armour helps Hit Points and so can mitigate the SIZ differential; but CA and SR are, in my opinion, of far greater importance. The edge they give in combat is more valuable than additional damage or HP.

 

[Darkholme]

Now, using one CA per SR, much like Initiative passes in Shadowrun, makes a lot more sense and, at least to me, models the beat by beat action of combat better.

Yeah. Combat works alot like in shadowrun. Not identical, but the way actions are progressed through is very similar.

 

[juca]

Well, this is awkard but I have yet more questions, this time about Combat Styles.

How do I know what are the combat styles? Does they have to be specifically bought for each weapon or do they have a "broad category"? Let me explain by using an example:

Terton is a member of the city militia, and, as such, he is competent at the use of both the spear and shield and the crossbow. His player wants him to be also proficient in the use of the longspear, does he needs to have both "Spear and Shield" and "Longspear and Shield" or one "spear" style covers it all? What if he needs to use only a spear without the shield, can the same Combat Style be used or he needs to specifically buy another for use without a shield? And what about having a two-weapon combat style and using only one of the weapons?
If the weapons are divided in categories, where can I found what are those?

Thanks yet again.

 

[Loz]

Terton should have a Combat Style of 'City Militia'. This includes spear (any type, including as a ranged weapon), shield and crossbow. He can use the same Combat Style to cover any combination of the above, including a 2H longspear, or if he's fighting with just a spear in its own. The premise is that the Combat Style trains you in the proficient use of all the included weapons in a variety of combinations, so you're prepared for most eventualities a militiaman might encounter.

So Terton wouldn't be penalised for using a spear on its own, or with a shield. He's been trained to deal with it.

Weapons don't have categories as such: grouping them into Combat Styles is a matter for you to work out with your GM in ways that fit the characters and campaign.

 

[DamonJynx]

Further to what Loz said, if you're fighting with a weapon and a shield or two weapons, you don't suffer any penalties to your combat style if you lose 1 component of it, you will only lose the additional combat action granted by it. Say Terton is fighting with his spear and shield and his enemy disarms him, Terton can still use his shield for defense or attack at his full % while he maneuvers into position to pick up his spear, but he loses one CA. The same thing applies with 2 weapons. Some people house rule that if you have a shield or off-hand weapon the additional CA must be used with that item.

 

[Philotomy]

Terton should have a Combat Style of 'City Militia'. This includes spear (any type, including as a ranged weapon), shield and crossbow...So Terton wouldn't be penalised for using a spear on its own, or with a shield. He's been trained to deal with it.

What if Terton later learns how to use a sword. So let's say he has 'City Militia' style at 75% and 'Sword' at 50%. In a melee, he hurls his spear and draws his sword, using it with his shield. Does he use his Shield at 75% and his Sword at 50%?

What if, instead of 'Sword,' Terton learned 'Sword & Shield' style to supplement his 'City Milita' style, and has 'Sword & Shield' at 50%? Again, he uses his Sword & Shield together. Does he use the higher shield skill (75%) or the lower shield skill (50%)?

 

[danskmacabre]

What if Terton later learns how to use a sword. So let's say he has 'City Militia' style at 75% and 'Sword' at 50%. In a melee, he hurls his spear and draws his sword, using it with his shield. Does he use his Shield at 75% and his Sword at 50%?

I think If he learned "Sword" by itself, as opposed to "Sword and shield", then he wouldn't really be able to use his shield with his sword.
He could use the Sword by itself at 50%.
OR alternatively Sword and shield at base (STR+DEX I think).

What if, instead of 'Sword,' Terton learned 'Sword & Shield' style to supplement his 'City Milita' style, and has 'Sword & Shield' at 50%? Again, he uses his Sword & Shield together. Does he use the higher shield skill (75%) or the lower shield skill (50%)?

Again, I think Sword and shield at 50%.

 

[Deleriad]

What if, instead of 'Sword,' Terton learned 'Sword & Shield' style to supplement his 'City Milita' style, and has 'Sword & Shield' at 50%? Again, he uses his Sword & Shield together. Does he use the higher shield skill (75%) or the lower shield skill (50%)?

This is merely my interpretation of how I make combat styles work in Legend. It comes from the note that unarmed can be freely combined with combat styles which implies that different combat styles cannot be used together. So basically what I say is that at time when there is any doubt you declare what combat style your using on your action (if any) and that remains your combat style until your next action.

Say for example you have ended up in the situation you mention. Your character doesn't generally use a sword and shield together. He doesn't really understand the best way to stand, how to balance himself, how to keep himself defended while he attacks. He can sort of use his sword like a short spear but risks over-extending. Or else he can draw his sword out of the way and parry with his shield but he's used to being able to hold off people with his spear so suddenly it's harder to parry when he doesn't also have the threat of his spear. What this means in game terms.

Your strike rank. If you attack with your sword then you are using you sword style until your next Strike Rank. If you want to parry with your shield then you are using it at your close combat default score because your sword skill doesn't count for it. Alternately you can declare that you are using your city militia skill and either attack with the shield or attack with the sword but again using just your close combat skill default. This represents swinging somewhat uselessly while you focus on defending yourself with the shield.

It's an interpretation of the rules. To keep it simpler you can just say that you use your shield with one combat style and the sword with the other and can mix and match as you see fit.

What the character should have done was to learn how to use the sword in combination with the shield but it's too late now.

 

[rust]

The way I handle it, a combat style with two weapons is a complex
system of coordinated maneuvers based upon a specific philosophy.

As an example, one can learn to fight with rapier and dagger in the
Italian style or in the Spanish style, but in both styles the rapier and
the dagger work together in different ways. One cannot use the ra-
pier in the Italian style while using the dagger in the Spanish style,
this way the weapons would not work together, giving an opponent
a significant advantage.

I see it as similar with spear plus shield style and sword plus shield
style, these are also complex systems of maneuvers with a specific
philosophy behind them. One can use either style, but one cannot
mix them, for example to use the shield in the spear plus shield sty-
le while using the sword in the sword plus shield style, again the wea-
pons would not work together well.

 

[DamonJynx]

IMO when you use a 1H Weapon & Shield, then learn another 1H Weapon & Shield, the 2 are not interchangeable. A Sword is a far different animal to a spear or an axe or mace. If you have Spear & Shield at 70% and Sword & Shield at 50%, you parry with your shield at the % of the style you're currently using as Deleriad said. If you lose the sword, of course on your next SR you can adopt the Spear & Shield style, minus the spear, but your attacks and defenses with the shield will be at 70%.

If you just train 1H Sword, the shield would be at your base Close Combat % as it isn't part of your style. The thing to remember is that these combinations are trained together. It's probably easier to make the style more encompassing; City Militia (Polearm, Spear, Sword, Shield and Bow) so they can wield a short spear or a 1H sword and shield, a pole arm, long spear and a bow all at the same %.

 

[Philotomy]

I get what you guys are saying about the styles being trained separately, but it doesn't sit well with me that a PC with "shield & mace" at 90% would suddenly find himself unable to use his shield very effectively if he picked up a club or a sword, instead. Yeah, it's different, but it's not *that* different. And if he *dropped* his mace, he'd still be able to use his shield at 90%, despite the style's weapons being "trained together" in some sort of complex web of maneuver. Put a sword in his hand and the wheels fall off? I just don't buy it.

I think the concept of combat styles is pretty cool, but I feel like the execution leaves something to be desired (and it's not just me, my players have brought up some of these same questions), and I suspect fixing it would be more complicated than I want to get into.

I'm considering having "Melee" and "Ranged" styles, and giving the PCs "weapons of proficiency" that they can use without penalty. Isn't that pretty much what these "lotsa-weapons" styles boil down to, anyway? Or I might use the RQIII approach.

 

[DamonJynx]

I think the concept of combat styles is pretty cool, but I feel like the execution leaves something to be desired (and it's not just me, my players have brought up some of these same questions), and I suspect fixing it would be more complicated than I want to get into.

I'm considering having "Melee" and "Ranged" styles, and giving the PCs "weapons of proficiency" that they can use without penalty. Isn't that pretty much what these "lotsa-weapons" styles boil down to, anyway? Or I might use the RQIII approach.

Having a "Melee & Ranged style" is a bit more open than the rules intend. Combat Styles should reflect what is reasonable for the campaign settings cultural & professional requirements. If you go too far and allow anything you may as well revert back to the separate skills for each weapon and shield scenario, which is what the Styles methodology seeks to avoid.

 

[rust]

One of the problems with combat styles and shields is that the way
a shield is used depends as much on the weapon used with it as on
the weapon used against it. For example, an opponent with a spear
can easily attack the entire body, head to feet, while an opponent
with a short sword can only attack the upper body without opening
up his own defence, and using a shield against a heavy and slow im-
pact weapon like a warhammer is different from using it against a
light and fast fencing weapon. However, to model all of this in a ga-
me seems almost impossible, so in the end one has to compromise
and concentrate on those elements of a combat one considers most
important for one's campaign, ignoring lots of other elements in or-
der to keep the game moving.

 

[Philotomy]

Having a "Melee & Ranged style" is a bit more open than the rules intend.

Well, it wouldn't be just "Melee and Ranged." It would be Melee and Ranged combined with a list of weapons the PC is proficient in. For example, you'd have Melee and Ranged skills plus "proficient with shields, swords, axes and spears." It's almost exactly the same thing as saying "I have the combat style, Pan Tangian Warrior, which includes Sword & Shield, Spear & Shield, and Axe & Shield." The main difference is that it avoids confusion about what to do when you acquire skill with a new weapon (e.g., a mace), how it works or doesn't work with your existing shield skill, et cetera. You just add the mace to the list of weapons you're proficient in. You use your weapons of proficiency at full skill-level. If you use a weapon you're not proficient in, you suffer a penalty to your melee or ranged skill, as appropriate.

Combat Styles should reflect what is reasonable for the campaign settings cultural & professional requirements.

I understand what combat styles are trying to do. I'm just not satisfied with their implementation in the rules. And a list of "weapons of proficiency" does the same thing, as far as reflecting the campaign setting's cultural and professional requirements, doesn't it?

If you go too far and allow anything you may as well revert back to the separate skills for each weapon and shield scenario, which is what the Styles methodology seeks to avoid.

Returning to a separate skill for each is, indeed, another time-tested option.

 

[DamonJynx]

Stuff...

I understand what you're saying. Personally i wouldn't go back to the individual skills, the whole purpose of the styles method is to condense the number of skills required for combat.

At the end of the day, it's entirely your choice how you use "Combat Styles". My interpretation of styles like Pan Tangian Gladiator and Warrior, is that you pick one or two combinations, they're the weapons you're trained in and receive your full %, you can pick up and use other weapons in the style, but would suffer the penalties as listed in the Legend book. Weapons outside the style are at base CC % But as GM how this is implemented in your games, is entirely up to you. Let's look at Terton again;

Combat Style: City Militia (Polearms, Axe, Club, Sword, Spear, Shield and Bow - any combination) 70%.

Mike, playing Terton, decides that his character was from the 'City Watch' chapter rather than the more military based chapters and chooses as his weapons, Halberd, Sap, Shield and Longbow - this is mandatory training for all militia regardless of specialisation. During a fight he has his Halberd disarmed and has to fight using his Sap and Shield combo against a Pirate wielding a Cutlass. This is not particularly helpful, however he spots a Longsword from a fallen foe a few metres distant. On his next CA (he was defending, not attacking) he moves to the Longsword and picks it up, also positioning his shield. Because he is not 'trained' with the Longsword, but it is part of his style, he suffers the appropriate penalties, but his CS % is still way higher than his base CC %.

That's how I understand them to work, but I may be wrong. As I said, YLMV.

 

[juca]

Well, its me again... this time with a question about the "Size" characteristic: does it relates one on one with the size of a creature? I mean, does, for example, "size" 6 equals to a humanoid with 1,60m, or an animal with the size of a large dog, while "size" 16 equals to an humanoid with 1,80 or an animal the size of a cow? There is some kind of table where I can find it? Thanks!