Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“But what about the ideals of the Codex?”
…As noted, I have some musings which I’ve been working on for this system, and perhaps you’d be interested in hearing about them. None of these items have been evaluated in play or analytics yet, but they may make for good conversation for those so inclined…
A MARTIAL POOL
Consider the Fight Stat as a direct stand-in for the Base Attack Bonus, or whatever it’s called in the OGL. Also consider that the maximum normal Fight Stat is +5. Under some situations – namely special items or perks, Fight can also be temporarily improved beyond its standard levels. Consider then that a figure should use its current Fight stat given those values to determine its equivalent maximum Martial Pool:
[Maximum RoSD Martial Pool] = 1 + [Fight / 2], Rounding Down (integer values only)
…So, if a +5 Fight figure somehow ends up with +7 Fight for the scenario, that figure at most can have 4x D20s for their Combat Roll, and will of course choose the highest. But, the figure does not need to use all of the available dice. There’s a reason for that…
This is an opposed roll system! There is no need to divvy out different D20s for different martial considerations. How should one balance out this system? Prior to any actual testing, this is my proposal:
[Effective Fight] = [Fight] – [4 * ([Current RoSD Martial Pool] – 1)]
…What this is saying is that for every extra Martial Die which is used (not counting some abilities which allow for a re-roll), a figure is going to subtract 4 from their current effective Fight Stat. SO, if a +2 Fight figure decides it must roll two dice for a given combat, that figure will subtract 2 from their Combat Roll.
The idea with this version of the Martial Pool is one of diminishing returns. By rolling more dice for a better probability of landing a better hit, you actively choose to sacrifice something in return. In the example above, the +2 Fight figure rolls a 17 and a 12. The 17 turns into a 15, which is still not a terrible roll, but by making multiple rolls, you of course increase your chances of scoring a Critical, and if Fumbles are implemented, you have a VERY good chance of avoiding those as well. If you don’t use the extra dice, you get a shot at letting the fixed numbers give you a respectable boost.
It would be very easy to tabulate this information if you didn’t want to do the simple math (and it is simple, but if you find equations troubling: again, -4 to Fight for every extra D20 used). Nothing is final here, so I won’t make a formal table, but this listing should give you a general idea of what happens to the Fight Stat when using multiple D20s:
MAX DICE AND MAX EFFECTIVE FIGHT:
1 Die, +0, +1 Fight; Fight Levels 0 & 1
2 Dice, -2, -1 Fight; Fight Levels 2 & 3
3 Dice, -4, -3 Fight; Fight Levels 4 & 5
4 Dice, -6, -5 Fight; Fight Levels 6 & 7…You again might take a rather substantial risk with 4 dice if you figured a better chance of getting a critical would be worth it – the natural 20 always wins (though there are double-hits in RoSD, so a critical won’t necessarily save you!) and usually does +5 damage, so a 19 doesn’t seem like such a shabby result.
Also note (if you’ve not done so already) that not all the dice need to be used just because they can be used. If a +5 Fight figure uses only one extra die per roll, they get an effective +1 Fight every time along with the option of choosing the higher roll: a 6 and an 18 turns into an easy 19… Otherwise, you’d be left with an 11, which might beat an opponent, but it probably wouldn’t leave them with a scratch. Likewise… keeping the +5 and landing the critical would yield an effective Combat Roll of 30 under these conditions, which is absolutely brutal!
*****
There is one last primary consideration for this simplified Martial Pool system – is overuse possible? If the answer is “yes,” then the following rule could be the answer – THE POOL LIMIT:
The “Pool Limit” or “Limiting Pool” is a simple system based on the nominal Fight Stat of a figure. Weapons modifiers should not be counted in this figure, though perhaps certain other effects should. Thus, you can formulate this number as:
[POOL LIMIT] = [STANDARD FIGHT STAT]
…Every time an additional dice is used, it is subtracted from the Pool, and every turn, the Pool recharges by one point. So, a +2 Fight figure could attack and potentially have to defend (or, rather, counter-attack) with two two-dice rolls. If a third instance were to occur, only one dice could be used. And, during the next turn, only a single extra dice could be used.
In a different scenario, if three dice were used in total for a roll, the Pool would be drained by two points, and then recharged by one the following turn. Etc., etc.
The Pool Limit is probably the weakest chain in the link so far, but I do not believe the idea is bad. To me, it kind of represents the expenditure of energy. And of course, all of this would have to be tested, both in play and in theory, for a really good assessment of it – or anything else here – to be made. However, even if anything needed to be tweaked, all of the bones are there at this point. 🙂
Thank you for posting this – in fact, I’ve already forwarded this page to my sister. Reminds me of one of the last times I saw her. During that time, she bought an Iranian cookbook, and we made potato pancakes. Wonderful stuff.
Firearms content!
Part 1:
Part 2:
https://vimeo.com/user31958996
…Also features an arquebus at the end. Perhaps not something to recommend someone doing, but then, options.
Some uneducated opinions:
1. So long as there is a degree of consistency, it should not matter what you choose. The only question should be if you intend to adapt your system to the OGL, or if you intended to adapt the OGL to your system, if you get my meaning.
2. What sounds better is probably best. That doesn’t mean that’s always going to be the case, but having to convolute your work on account of someone else’s generally renders a lackluster result. I personally think the original “martial feat” sounds good. “Martial skill” is also a nice option, but if semantics have been introduced which make these terms difficult, then perhaps you need to take control of the language being used here – refer back to point #1.
3. If you do opt to look for “free” or “available” terminologies, it might be best to determine which ones you CAN’T use. If you care to compile a list, that would help to determine what your options are by quite a good deal.
4. Ignoring what I don’t know about the OGL, here are some potential ideas:
“Martial Abilities,” or some other types of abilities, like “Combat Abilities,” etc.
If use of conventional words results in a wordblob, introduce some fresh new terms (I’m trying to be hip and failing at it). Maybe something like “Ars Martia” (some Latin stuff which I guessed at and apparently is mostly right) would do as a replacement. Also ties in with “Codex Martialis,” so perhaps that could be a winner. Also, something like that becomes your own “proprietary” term, so no matter when the OGL changes or a new one is introduced, you kind of lock in your own mechanics to the system regardless.
…That’s all I’ve got.
Pardon any perturbation it may have caused, but I started a new thread on the old forums due to a lack of an “appropriate” space over here. Would it be possible to launch a “Codex, OGL, and Other Game Systems” board over here?
Well… I don’t know. I think it would be easy enough to find a copy of the game on an abandonware site and fire it up on DOSbox, but I do not have any current plans for that. However, if you intend to test the quality of the fencing, that would be the means by which you would do it.
Also, this was a related video that popped up – it’s a neat watch by itself, but it also explains why the swordfights seemed so much like those in an Errol Flynn movie:
Go to 15:00… It’s because the sword animations are actually from an Errol Flynn movie! Fight animations were actually rotoscoped, or the equivalent thereof, from 1938’s Robin Hood. The only thing I wish would have been better covered in the presentation was how they balanced the fight mechanics. Seems simple enough, but there’s certainly a bit more finesse in there than one may think.
Fights start just 3-and-something minutes in, so you don’t have to wait long, but some of the better fights start around 14 minutes in. Go to 16:30 for some classic position error action. 😀
Also, go to 23:50 if your industrial metal band (and who doesn’t have one of those?) needs a sweet new sound sample. 🙂
This is not strictly historical, but I doubt you’d get any complaints regarding function if you had to take it back in time with you:
…I also assume you could find something like this at the MET, or at least on their website. What is so neat about this particular reproduction is the complex construction. The spear not only has a socket, but langets to keep everything together as well. The parrying hooks are dull at the front – which would help with parrying, and also would help to prevent over-penetration. Against an armored man, that may not be much of an issue, but an unbarded horse might not be a target you’d want to get your primary weapon lodged too deeply into. In contrast, the hooks are sharpened to the rear and pose a nasty threat to the often unprotected areas at the back of a leg. The overall grind on the hooks also make for a wicked spike if the spear was to be swung rather than thrust with…
…The butt of the spear is provisioned with a wicked triangular, hollow-ground cap. And while this is impressive, there is one thing you may have not noticed: the shaft is hexagonal. Hex shapes are very ergonomic: take your hand and imagine you are gripping something while looking through the opening – notice anything about the shape? While octagons may look cool and work well, I am fully convinced that hexes are better for a tight grip. The only thing the spear above really needs is a bit more of a radius on the corners of the shaft, and you’d have something approaching what might be the ultimate spear: strength, edge alignment control, and utility for just about every occasion. The weapon above can almost double as a pollaxe, and if you were in an unarmored duel, it would be a superior choice to the pollaxe.
Tod and the mighty Toby Capwell discuss historical fantasy weapons:
…It’s possible you’ve seen this before, but it’s probably been a while since you have if such is the case. It’s a wonderful discussion, to say the least. While the weapon is likely a “cobble job” as suggested, it’s actually still very practical – note the following:
If the sword is carried with the simple guard bow facing away from the body, it will cover the area above the knuckles when drawn. That structure should do a fair bit to protect that part of the hand if the cross doesn’t catch an opposing blow.
Next, while the complex elements of the guard are oriented such that a right-hander could access the “finger ring” from the position described above, that structure, I feel, has a different purpose. As alluded to in the video, the “finger ring” allows the complex guard on the opposite side of the blade to actually rise over the blade itself: this is important, as this is (if the thumb grip is used) where the thumb will in fact be. So, there is a structure to protect the knuckles from a downward blow, and there is also a structure which will protect the thumb when the latter is placed on the blade. Perhaps the guard, be it original or not, is not the best design, but it certainly does work…
I suppose I am just seeing more potential purpose in this design now than I did when it first became an item of discussion on MyArmoury. Dammit, I need one to try this idea out now!
Another note on Dr. Cognot’s sword: if you have a setting where a proper longsword is “verboten” for your particular social status, such a weapon could act as a concealed version thereof, though you will be at a disadvantage when it comes to hand protection.
On a more serious note, when do you actually want a blade at the hilt for purposes of binding, and when do you not? Something like a Type XX blade might have a very substantial ricasso section with no edge whatsoever. Thus, that section of the blade will be very durable, but you will not get a firm bind there from “edge bite,” either.
…Also, I’m sorry to hear about your sword!
I recall reading – probably on Wikipedia – that spring-tempered bronze was in fact a thing. It was in relation to the ancient Greeks, I think, but I don’t know what article that might have been.
Otherwise, refer to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphor_bronze
Also, I recall a thread on the old forum, referring to “bronze longswords,” which referenced some of the very long Chinese bronze swords. It’s possible these would have had to have been spring tempered to function without breakage.
Now, to contrast the Carnyx, you’ll have to have a Roman horn:
It is certainly an interesting article, but as a whole the entire blog is excellent. I just read an article about a citizen’s feud against Basel and the usage of animals in Medieval warfare. Really cool stuff.
Here is yet another reproduction, but this time based on a definite artifact:
…Please consider adding that to the list of items you and I will never be able to afford.
Although this is not the type of sword I generally gravitate to, and I feel that the sentiment that swords only improved as time progressed is questionable, by the latter standards, “Charlemagne’s sabre” is a highly sophisticated weapon. The blade is not at all unlike the “general” form of a British 1821 cavalry sabre, featuring an effective point and gentle, but not overly aggressive curve. Both weapons featured a short edge, though the yelman on the centuries’ earlier weapon is way cooler than the one from 1821.
Next, the, dare-one-say, ergonomic pistol-type grip is an incredible pairing with the blade. By virtue of hilt design, this sword generally achieves the design goals of the last cavalry “sabres” put into military service while also retaining an effective cut! The straight point, with that hilt, allows the wielder to simply aim the sword while charging and lance his opponents, simply turning the wrist as he passes to clear the area. All the while, remains more than enough blade presence for cutting, something an M1913 Patton sabre or British 1908 sabre would struggle to do on a good day. The only advantage the later mass-produced weapons have are their metallurgy and integral hand protection. With the latter, depending on the other kit available, that might not be a necessity, either!
In short, if you are somehow ever contracted to design a new military sabre for some power somewhere, you should consider the “Charlemagne” sabre as a basis. As Solomon once said, “there is nothing new under the sun.”
