Is this some sort of troll? All of these are horrible ideas.

>TRoS has a bit too much of a defensive bent for my liking, and rewards prolonging a fight over decisive, measured aggression

It's carefully balanced so that going red or white will be about equally valid strategies. Making it so that aggression is the best choice removes the strategy from combat.

>Furthermore, I'd add Master Strike, Draw Cut, Wind and Bind and Mordschlag as standard techniques for applicable weapons to some degree.

Thus removing the fun of earning new techniques as your character gets better, and the cool changes of strategy that result from the introduction of new maneuvers. Oh, and also making it so that beginner players have to learn a huge number of maneuvers at once.

>how do we rebalance Master Strike? It's a powerful technique, but The Flower of Battle makes it too costly and requires too high a Proficiency requirement for it. Perhaps its activation cost could diminish as Proficiency gets higher

It's already really, really good for what it is (a way for very good fighters to instantly kill weaker fighters), and you want to make it better?

No. Fuck no. Just... stop trying to help.

>>17244623
>But how do we rebalance Master Strike?

The maneuvers in RoS are balanced very well, the only problem with them is that the book doesn't explain them well and some of them are too complicated to use without slowing down the game too much (like W&B). Massive dramatic changes like this are not a good idea.

>It's carefully balanced so that going red or white will be about equally valid strategies. Making it so that aggression is the best choice removes the strategy from combat.

It's not about aggression being better. As it currently stands, though, it's inferior to playing defensively. The core rules and supplements even point this out explicitly, suggesting that players fight with a mind more towards defense.

>Thus removing the fun of earning new techniques as your character gets better, and the cool changes of strategy that result from the introduction of new maneuvers. Oh, and also making it so that beginner players have to learn a huge number of maneuvers at once.

Except that some (like Master Strike) have ridiculously large requirements. Draw Cut, Wind and Bind and Mordschlag are already low-Proficiency moves anyway.

>It's already really, really good for what it is (a way for very good fighters to instantly kill weaker fighters), and you want to make it better?

Except this isn't the historical reality of the technique. In meatspace, the Master Strike is supposed to be one's default method of fighting against all opponents once mastered, not something that gets tossed aside when you run into someone just as good (or better) than you. In fact, someone with better control, more general skill and better fitness could still lose to someone who knows Master Strike, because the whole concept is based around efficiency and minimising movement while attacking and defending in one motion.

Basically, there should be an incentive for using Master Strikes against all adversaries, not just inferior ones.

If you want an accurate-ish Master Strike, what if Master Strike had no activation cost (or a very small one, 1-2 CP) and forced the PC to split their dice between equal attack and defense pools?

>>17244770
>It's not about aggression being better. As it currently stands, though, it's inferior to playing defensively.

No it isn't; many weapons already favor aggressive strategies (you're gonna fuck up a lot of people with your longsword if you use Evasive Attack with an offensive stance as your first move). In any case, fights in Riddle of Steel are already short, often ending with the first hit. Making aggression even better means that fights would be even shorter, making the fights feel badly paced.

>>17244770
>some (like Master Strike) have ridiculously large requirements

It's hard to get because it's the fucking MASTER STRIKE. The clue is in the name - it's a manuver only the true masters are supposed to get.

>>17244770
>in meatspace, the Master Strike is supposed to be one's default method of fighting against all opponents once mastered

The idea that there's one "perfect" method of fighting that you would use against all opponents once mastered is utter bullcrap - you would never use the same strategy against a man in heavy armor swinging a mace as you would against an unarmored man with a rapier. People might have claimed that was the case IRL, but they were wrong. And stupid. In any case, if you make the MS so good it's the default method of fighting, it would instantly remove all strategy from the combat. Which is the main reason people play Riddle of Steel.

I said in jest earlier that this looked like a troll, but I'm starting to really believe it. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that these are some really, really terrible ideas.

>>17244817
>what if Master Strike had no activation cost (or a very small one, 1-2 CP) and forced the PC to split their dice between equal attack and defense pools?

That would be of limited effectiveness - the whole point of MS is that it's a move you can use in multiple situations to do multiple things, and also it's really really hard to pull off (hence the high activation cost)

Aside from which, SB/S already kinda does that, except the 1/2 split on the dice makes it usually more useful.

>>17244725
> Massive dramatic changes like this are not a good idea.

Yup. The game needs a second edition to clean up all the confusing bits and organize all the updated rules in one volume, it doesn't need to be completely re-written because some anon doesn't like that he can't just power-attack his way through fights.

>>17244885
The real question is, do we try to fix the magic or do we just cut it?

Fixing up RoS is a worthy goal, OP. That said, your ideas are not all gold:

>>17244623 One of the big ones for me is reducing the effectiveness of toughness against incoming attacks. TRoS has a bit too much of a defensive bent for my liking

Fights often end with the first damaging blow as it is, this would make that problem worse.

> No it isn't; many weapons already favor aggressive strategies (you're gonna fuck up a lot of people with your longsword if you use Evasive Attack with an offensive stance as your first move). In any case, fights in Riddle of Steel are already short, often ending with the first hit. Making aggression even better means that fights would be even shorter, making the fights feel badly paced.

Except that the risk of the maneuver is pretty high -- the game mechanics favour you dedicating more dice to defense.

>It's hard to get because it's the fucking MASTER STRIKE. The clue is in the name - it's a manuver only the true masters are supposed to get.

Clearly, you're not a HEMA practitioner. The concept underlying the German Master Strikes (that is, absolute single-time combat) is one that is taught from beginning to end of all great two-handed weapon methods.

>The idea that there's one "perfect" method of fighting that you would use against all opponents once mastered is utter bullcrap - you would never use the same strategy against a man in heavy armor swinging a mace as you would against an unarmored man with a rapier. People might have claimed that was the case IRL, but they were wrong. And stupid. In any case, if you make the MS so good it's the default method of fighting, it would instantly remove all strategy from the combat. Which is the main reason people play Riddle of Steel.

Give me one good reason that Master Strikes aren't the best way to deal with an unarmoured, or lightly armoured, adversary in close combat.

>I said in jest earlier that this looked like a troll, but I'm starting to really believe it. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that these are some really, really terrible ideas.

Forgive me for my idiocy then, but please suggest some alternatives rather than flinging insults. From what I can gather in any case, you're one of two things:

1. Not a HEMA practitioner.
2. An ARMA member.

The combat system of TRoS was constructed under the auspice of ARMA members and Norwood can't seem to stop sucking Clements' cock. Thing is, Clements has a severely outdated perspective concerning many aspects of medieval and Renaissance fighting.

For instance, he claims that defenses should always be done with the flat of the sword. This is wrong, because different defensive techniques are explicitly described as using different parts of the blade, the flat being just one option. Furthermore, some pieces of artwork depict parrying with either the flat or the edge.

Via these sort of perspectives, Clements reduces the efficiency of his interpretation, separating into taking turns at attacking and defending rather than the truly single-time combat it was.

>>17244912
Yeah, I think it might actually be a bit too lethal at parts. I inflicted a level 5 wound with an effective strength of 2 due to grappling using an arming glove.

>Fights often end with the first damaging blow as it is, this would make that problem worse.

On the other hand, it's pretty silly that one's innate toughness can easily be better than mail armour, and that a particularly hardy human being's flesh can be almost twice as good as plate armour.

>>17244919
>Give me one good reason that Master Strikes aren't the best way to deal with an unarmoured, or lightly armoured, adversary in close combat.

...what the hell are you even talking about? how would that prove your argument? What would give you the impression that I think it isn't?

>>17244923
>Clements reduces the efficiency of his interpretation, separating into taking turns at attacking and defending rather than the truly single-time combat it was.

None of this shit matters - you wish RoS was a super-realistic simulator of medieval combat (or to be more precise - super-adherent to your own personal view on medieval combat), but concessions have to be made for it to be fun. Separating into taking turns at attacking and defending is necessary for it to be playable.

>>17244919
>Clearly, you're not a HEMA practitioner.

You're reduced to "HERP DERP IF YOU DON'T STUDY MEDIEVAL COMBAT YOU DON'T GET TO HAVE AN OPINION ON RPGS", now? Jesus, that's sad.

In point of fact I used to take classes at this school:

>http://www.stoccata.org/

but I don't see how that's remotely relevant - my arguments are about playability and balance, not realism. Enjoy an image about the merits of edge parries versus flat parries, considering that's the sort of crap you apparently like, not fun and strategic RPG combat.

>>17244830

>comparing HEMA to kendo, rather than a comparable combative like kenjutsu or Xing.

>considering that's the sort of crap you apparently like, not fun and strategic RPG combat

>implying there needs to be conflict between these things

In any case, it seems that the perspective of the combat in TRoS is more informed by single sword than anything else. While two-handed weapons aren't "underpowered", per se, fighting with them in TRoS is like playing by the rules of single-handed weapons.

>>17244986

I think the point of that image is that all forms of martial arts are going to have lots of things in common - the human body is the same the world over, so assuming the weapons and armor are broadly similar (and yes, longswords and katanas are broadly similar), schools of martial arts are going to use similar techniques, no matter what country they originate in.

So for instance, savate (French kickboxing) has a number of similarities with muay thai (Thai kickboxing), and pankration (an ancient Greece martial art that combines boxing and wrestling) is similar to modern MMA styles that combine striking and grappling moves.

>>17245019

That's certainly true, but kendo is still a strange one to pick. It's like comparing an assault rifle to a nerf gun. As noted, kenjutsu would be a better comparison, because then you're comparing two combatives rather than a combative and a sport.

> ...what the hell are you even talking about? how would that prove your argument? What would give you the impression that I think it isn't?
>The idea that there's one "perfect" method of fighting that you would use against all opponents once mastered is utter bullcrap - you would never use the same strategy against a man in heavy armor swinging a mace as you would against an unarmored man with a rapier. People might have claimed that was the case IRL, but they were wrong. And stupid.

>You're reduced to "HERP DERP IF YOU DON'T STUDY MEDIEVAL COMBAT YOU DON'T GET TO HAVE AN OPINION ON RPGS", now? Jesus, that's sad.

No, it would mean that you don't have insight on this particular system's objectives.

In any case, if you think Master Strikes are restricted to the masters, then you're dead wrong. Even a relative beginner can apply the concepts successfully. Hell, Zornhau (or any equivalent) is the first strike of any kind any HEMA practitioner learns. Zwerch isn't far behind for practitioners of the German system. The power of Master Strikes certainly comes partially from technique and experience, but arguably moreso from learning the concept of single-time combat.

The Master Strikes, much like the other techniques in the fechtbucher, can't just be taken at face value. They have to be taken as concepts that can be applied more broadly and creatively.

Which is why I prefer 'hidden strike' to 'master strike'. IIRC, it's also pretty prevelant in the possibly-older manuscript evidence.

Also, 'tradition associated with Liechtenauer' or 'Kunst des Fechtens', rather than 'German system', because there were several martial-arts traditions in the Germanic speaking world, like the 'Nuremburg' tradition of manuscripts.

But then again in everyday conversations I tend to call them 'Super-top-secret-master-strikes'. But only because I enjoy taking the piss.

This thread is now a TRoS/Fechtguy open thread, unless Burrowowl arrives. I'm in the workshop at the moment, so forgive the lack of pretty pictures & caring to argue about HEMA.
I gave up trying to make a 2nd edition when I couldn't get a group together to actually play the damn game, and had to return the book I scanned for you guys from.
So, broadly speaking, a new edition would need what? A decent editor? Clearer explanations? Incorporate he contents of the expansions? No rules for magic? No rubbish setting?
Also, I'm sure Norwood/Chandler aren't Clements fans these days...

>>17245050
>In any case, if you think Master Strikes are restricted to the masters, then you're dead wrong.

Ahh, I see the problem; you think the game is using the term "master strike" to refer to that sort of thing. Read the fluff for it:

> The jewel of the art of fighting is the Master-
> Strike, a type of hit that both defends and offends
> in one motion. It is found in every school in
> every land with a different name and possibly
> even a different “how,” but the “what” remains
> the same. This is how the masters kill.

It's CLEARLY an attempt to stat out semi-fictional moves used only by the masters - stuff like the "Coup de Jarnac", or D'Artagnian's secret unbeatable move. It's name refers to a strike used by a master, NOT the term used by German masters.

>'tradition associated with Liechtenauer' or 'Kunst des Fechtens', rather than 'German system'

This is something to keep in mind, but honestly, most people will know what you're on about; the most publicized, researched and studied German texts are of the Liechtenauer tradition.

>Also, I'm sure Norwood/Chandler aren't Clements fans these days...

Oh? This requires explanation.

>It's CLEARLY an attempt to stat out semi-fictional moves used only by the masters - stuff like the "Coup de Jarnac", or D'Artagnian's secret unbeatable move. It's name refers to a strike used by a master, NOT the term used by German masters.

To be fair, the book makes it difficult. It gives "Meisterhau" as an alternative name, which, of course, is only used in the Liechtenauer tradition. Furthermore, the example in Flower is something along the lines of the Absetzen technique; a single-time parry and thrust that some modern writers (such as Tobler, if memory serves) have referred to as a "master thrust" for the purposes of comparison.

>>17245050
>No, it would mean that you don't have insight on this particular system's objectives.

Your "fixes" may or may not make the game more realistic (although I personally highly doubt it), but what they will certainly do is drive a stake through the strategy part of the game. Everyone will just do nothing but make Master Strikes.

If the choice is between realism and fun, I'll take fun every time. Of course, in this case that's a false dilemma - you really aren't convincing anyone that your way is any more realistic than base RoS.

>Everyone will just do nothing but make Master Strikes.

Then have some kind of restriction in place, but don't just have them useless against adversaries of equal or greater skill.

>Of course, in this case that's a false dilemma - you really aren't convincing anyone that your way is any more realistic than base RoS.

That depends. I get my perspective primarily from Tobler. TRoS gets it perspective primarily from Clements. Which one you consider more accurate is up to you, but I'm not just pulling stuff out of my ass.

You are using Bonetti's defence against me, eh?

Naturally, you must expect me to attack with Capo Ferro!

>>17245085
Well, Norwood left ARMA and established the HEMA alliances ages ago, although I don't know or care about the details that much. No idea about his interpretations either, having never met with the man. Further more, we only know about what ARMA is up to through Randall Pleasants these days, who is a brainwashed cunt.

Jean is Big Dummy, the same lovable ass-hole as ever. I conjecture from what I've read that he wouldn't have the time for a delusional ego maniac like Clements...

Drama, boo. Let's go train harder, like the Swedes...

>>17245096
> I get my perspective primarily from Tobler. TRoS gets it perspective primarily from Clements. Which one you consider more accurate is up to you

I don't care if you learned about HEMA right from the moldy lap of Johannes Liechtenauer himself, your fixes are still stupid. You aren't even trying to defend them any more; you're just saying "I know more about HEMA than you, therefore I'm right!".

How about you defend your arguments on their merits, rather than relying on tiresome appeals to authority?

>>17245096
Perspective from Tobler? Unlucky. Personally I prefer my sword fighting with martial intent and sound interpretations...

master strike HAS to cost a lot to activate.
because it breaks the basic mechanic of the exchanges. like simultaneous strike/block, but that at least loses efficiency when you want to defend with more than a couple of dice.
a full defense, followed by a low-die attack that can't be defended against, is just too efficient.

>>17245142
Efficient? German? Sword fighting?
DAS IST KRIEG

>I don't care if you learned about HEMA right from the moldy lap of Johannes Liechtenauer himself, your fixes are still stupid. You aren't even trying to defend them any more; you're just saying "I know more about HEMA than you, therefore I'm right!".

>How about you defend your arguments on their merits, rather than relying on tiresome appeals to authority?

Go have a jerk. I accept that my fixes might be terrible, but you've done nothing to suggest improvements. Your first post assumed trolling, and when you realised it wasn't, you just kept yammering accusingly rather than providing alternatives.

The whole point was the HEMA stuff was that my perspective was well-founded even if the game mechanics weren't. When you're ready to make a contribution worth listening to rather than spurting pure negativity from your dick, I'll be ready to respond.

Basically, I won't defend my fixes because I accept that they're flawed. If you've got a better way to incorporate changes, then please go ahead. I'll be ready to discuss them.

>>17245134
>Perspective from Tobler? Unlucky. Personally I prefer my sword fighting with martial intent and sound interpretations...

Nigga best be trolling, or put me on to a superior interpretation.

>>17245075
well, magic and setting NEED to be changed.
then I think there is the priority table.
I'd like to see races becoming more modular and the attribute priority to... not be anymore the powergamer's priority.

>>17245155
good luck getting anybody to use any other move, then. that makes all other manouvers redundant (and that's silly).
also, let's take a look - how does a master strike vs master strike duel work? there is a lot of incomplete-information betting going on. more than in a 'standard' exchange. ok, that's fun, but leads to heroes with an even shorter lifespan.

>>17245169
Bit of trolling, but more just I think Longsword research has passed the point where spoon fed interpretations are necessary. The sources are all out there, there's lots of free and open discussion about HEMA and interpreting them too. Wiktenauer killed the name promoters, to a big extent, although deluded guys like Jeffrey Hull are still denying it.

Which isn't to say that Secrets of the German Long sword is useless, just his interpretation bits are, and his messer download was shockingly bad when it comes to martialness. But hey, my own abilities are piss poor and my interpretations openly available on the internets. I just like coming here with no ego and being able to bitch anonymously-ish

>>17245163
>you've done nothing to suggest improvements

Yup. I'm content to just point out that your fixes make the game worse.

I honestly don't think the game needs improvements other than the obvious (re-write the rules to be clearer & consolidate them into one organized book, fix or get rid of magic and the generic setting). It's a perfectly playable system as-is, once you get a handle on the poorly-explained rules.

>>17245191

What if Master Strike wasn't a maneuver, but a perspective on combat? For instance, it's kind of silly that when two combatants strike at once, their attacks are assumed to pass by one-another rather than impacting.

Perhaps, in the case of simultaneous attacks, a fraction of one's offensive successes could be counted as defensive successes as well. If there were to be a Master Strike maneuver, it could increase the fraction of these successes counted towards defense as well.

Although I think the best thing to do would be to do away with the Master Strike as a maneuver, make simultaneous attacks less lethal, and give more options when such things occur. By that token, each combatant could use the combat system to "create" Master Strikes through manipulating the system rather than having a catch-all maneuver.

>Yup. I'm content to just point out that your fixes make the game worse.

So this is trolls trolling trolls.

Although if you need a spoon fed introduction to the KdF then the Ochs/Agilitas DVD is quite good. Beyond that, you either need to be training with someone who knows their shit, or looking at the sources. Or both...

>>17245231
>What if Master Strike wasn't a maneuver, but a perspective on combat?

Then it'd be better represented by either a stance or a school, depending on what you mean by "perspective".

>>17245235

Often doing nothing is better than doing the wrong thing.

>>17245231
because if you're attacking, you sort of make it so that you don't impact your opponent's weapon (that would be a parry on his part) - when both opponents actively try to hit the other, while avoiding a possible parry... I don't think the weapons are going to impact.

>>17245238
>Then it'd be better represented by either a stance or a school, depending on what you mean by "perspective".

Probably altering or combining existing maneuvers.

F'rinstance, Zornhau is best done as both an evasive attack and a simultaneous block/strike kind of dealio.

>>17245253

Depends. The Liechtenauer tradition disagrees, using diagonal attacks specifically because they cross two axis rather than one, increasing the chance that any of your strikes will intercept your adversary's.

Because all standard strikes cross the body through the centre point and are diagonal, they're liable to intercept anything.

>>17245256
how about just making the exchanges go faster when we're talking about masters?
a master might parry->wind&bind->thrust along the bind in just a fraction of a second, but it's still 2 exchanges.
energy has been expended, momentum has been exploited, pools refresh.

>>17245253

Alright, here's my interpretation of the Liechtenauer perspective. While I know it's not universal, it should probably be represented in TRoS given the influence of the Liechtenauer school on what we know and understand today.

To my mind, the Liechtenauer tradition aims to achieve defense via offensive techniques. This means that all offensive techniques should aim to cover and defend oneself as well. One should choose a strike that threatens their adversary while intercepting their blade, and use footwork to support that further (which I consider, generally, stepping into the side your own attack comes from).

OP, I get that you're trying to help, and I get that you probably know way more about sword fighting than the dude who made Riddle of steel. That said; your ideas would make some attacks way better than other attacks, making the game unbalanced. It might be more realistic that way, but you only have to look at the past threads on Sup/tg/ to see that the reason people like Riddle of steel is the combat: a good player can defeat a more powerful opponent through cunning use of maneuvers.

Changing that for the sake of realism isn't something that's going to fly with the fanbase.

>>17245271
>To my mind, the Liechtenauer tradition aims to achieve defense via offensive techniques

Evasive attack is kinda this, and it's already really awesome with a longsword. Maybe you could represent this by making a "Liechtenauer" school that gives a lower TN for making EAs?

>>17245269

Only thing is that in many cases, these things happen exactly simultaneously; you strike and move in the same action. Essentially, some Master Strikes are evasive attacks that move sideways or diagonally while parrying.

Fucking phone just ate my post. Moving indoors to reply on the desktop.
Zorn, Zwerch and Schiel are all simultaneous displacement-strikes, each in a different plane. Zwerch and Schiel also end up at a point in the 'cone of protection'.
Krump cuts along a plane perpendicular-ish to the centre-line, and relies to some extent on leaping out to the side/the geometry of the space between the fighters in order to protect you, while
Shietelhau relies purely on the geometry of the space.

>>17245266
Respectfully, I'd say it's more complicated than that. A Zornhau is based on the biomechanically simplest/most efficient strike, with a step to move the centre-line and gain a mechanical advantage in the bind, while the Zwerch and Schiel-haus both cut into mechanically structurally strong positions. Which is getting into a debate about hard vs. weak in the bind which I can't be arsed to have right now.

>>17245276

OP here.

I'll take that aboard. Although my Master Strike thing might be a bit wonky, I still feel some of the other elements I mentioned should be more standard -- Draw Cut in particular. Wind and Bind should also be part of the core rules, although perhaps not in its current form.

>Respectfully, I'd say it's more complicated than that. A Zornhau is based on the biomechanically simplest/most efficient strike, with a step to move the centre-line and gain a mechanical advantage in the bind, while the Zwerch and Schiel-haus both cut into mechanically structurally strong positions. Which is getting into a debate about hard vs. weak in the bind which I can't be arsed to have right now.

I agree with your insofar as you're talking about the Master Strikes and more specific techniques, but I was referring to a simple advancing oberhau or unterhau rather than anything more technical.

That said, none of this navel-gazing helps with the core flaws of tRoS: That everyone outside of the combat system sucks, and that the combat system sucks when it comes to group melees, from a gamist/narrativist point of view.

Female archer-ranger supporting a fighter-tank against ten goblins? Nope, for better or for worse.

>>17245290
I don't really get the draw cut, it doesn't seem to be doing anything worth getting even closer to your opponent (unless that's what you are trying to do.)

>>17245295
What is a zornhau, if now a simple peasant strike done right? What is a Zwerchau-to-Pflug, if not an unterhau?

Sorry to get all mystic, but it ties into the 'Are the hidden strikes techniques or concepts' debate thingy.

>>17245282
you might be onto something.
how about a 'parrying strike', with similar mechanics to evasive strike (maybe with an extra roll? roll defensive dice, increase the opponent's TN by the successes, and increase your TN by half that)

>>17245309
Displacing rather than Parrying, pls.

>>17245298
>I don't really get the draw cut, it doesn't seem to be doing anything worth getting even closer to your opponent (unless that's what you are trying to do.)

Certain weapons have higher damage values for the draw cut.

Mostly, though, it's an injection of further realism into the game. With a real sword, there are three ways to wound with the blade:

1. The strike, which is a kinetic energy impact attack supported by the sharpness of the blade.
2. The thrust. We all know this.
3. The draw cut, which is done by sliding one's edge across flesh or soft clothing.

Draw cuts can be great for numerous reasons. For one thing, as the game points out, they're applicable to close-in fighting. For another, they don't need the kinetic energy other offensive techniques do, meaning they can be initiated from a position that might be considered "spent" if one were talking about strikes or thrusts.

>>17245297
a) What does the gender have to do with that? You are going to incite another GENDER DEBATE.
b) Arrows are pretty deadly, you shoot at the big stuff with them.
c) If the goblins are sufficiently weak, it works, but they'd have to be pretty weak. The system isn't made for DnD-style mass slaughter. This is no downside.

>>17245316
it's just a -1 range. unless you're going from normal to half-swording draw cut (wat), the short-range fighter who got into your guard will probably still have the advantage.
It's a nice idea, but bound to see preciously little use.

>>17245297
>That everyone outside of the combat system sucks

I actually really like the non-combat stuff (other than the magic, obviously) - skill checks work well, and the SA mechanic encourages roleplaying.

>>17245297
>the combat system sucks when it comes to group melees

I think we dance around that because it's pretty much unfixable - without making massive changes to the way the game works, group combat is always gonna be a clusterfuck. You can just about do it as long as there's no more than a half dozen or so combatants, but it's messy. More than that and it just breaks down.

>>17245320
Tropes, mate. Tropes riffing off the other days archery thread. But they're also something that people tend to want to play. TRoS doesn't cater for that. Bug or Feature, it's been noted time and time again in the play threads that melee suck when it comes to the mechanical grind

>>17245328
actually I like how group melee works, with a terrain check that works sorta like initiative before any fighting.
great way to draw out dice from the cps.
now I'm starting to doubt... maybe we're doing it wrong...

>>17245327

How about this:

In the second exchange of any round where you are within distance for whatever reason, and you have initiative, you may initiate a draw cut. A draw cut functions like a regular cut, except you gain +X CP. Against hard armours, this maneuver is at a penalty of -X CP instead.

>>17245343
it needs to modify the damage, not the CP.
some hit locations might easily have different kinds of armor on different places, and I don't think redoing the hit-table to avoid that is a good idea.

How about a proper hande-drucken maneuver at close range? a weak draw cut that lowers your opponents offensive dice pool?

>>17245351
>it needs to modify the damage, not the CP.

It already does - the way Draw Cuts work right now is, you declare one and you make an attack one range increment closer than is normal for your weapon, using your Draw Cut modifier to your cutting damage. It sucks against armor, but is very useful for some weapons.

>>17245372
let me rephrase that: your variant, changing CP depending on the hit location, can't work. unless you roll the hit location first. because sometimes you can't know beforehand if the hit will be on flesh, leather, or plate.

Hey guys, let's look at the Sorcery rules compared to the combat rules.

Notice how the Sorcery allows one to combine different spell effects, but the combat doesn't?

What if one could create maneuvers via combination maneuvers? Perhaps like so:

- Choose the two maneuvers to combine.
- Apply both effects in the single exchange.
- The cost of the new maneuver is the single highest CP cost involved multiplied by two if the combatant in question has trained in it.
- If the combatant is improvising on the spot, then the cost is three times the single highest CP cost.
- Unlocked at X Proficiency.

Obviously, this requires some ironing out to prevent moves that contradict themselves. But with this rule in question, one could easily combine, say, Parry and Evasive Attack.

>>17245372
>let me rephrase that: your variant, changing CP depending on the hit location, can't work.

Oh, I didn't propose that. I think the way Draw Cuts work right now is fine. It's one of the things I think the game gets right - they're really good for curved swords against unarmored targets, but they are crappy in other situations. Just like in RL.

>>17245380
I'd say cut out 'magic' altogether in a new edition. No one plays Riddle of Steel for its magic system.

>>17245424

I'd argue that the issue with the magic system is its imbalance. It's nigh impossible to create tough encounters for magical characters who have prepared offensive spells, and they absolutely dwarf combat characters.

>>17245432
So just ditch it. Very few if any people actually use the magic system in Riddle of Steel, its the fighting mechanics that are the selling point of the game, and the one thing people are most invested in.

Is it so wrong to have an rpg 'fantasy' system that doesn't have a magical element?

>>17245463

No, but it'd be a shame to waste it. Apart from balance, it's a very interesting system and demands creativity from the players.

>>17245432
At the end of the day, I'd say that it's more philosophical han that. TRoS is a game that strives to replicate at least the feel of a real fight. So our expectations have to be broadly matched, combat has to happen as predicted, obeying the rules of nature. When magic does happen, it's strange and weird and mind warping.

Thanks to the whole "miracles against science are impossible" thing, providing rules and mechanics for that for the players to see, use and game detracts from that feeling of verisimilitude and wyrdness...

>>17245487
Maybe split it off into a supplement. Riddle Of Steel: Magic or some such. Keep the main book a barebones 'fighting' manual. If people want magic to spice up their game, they can get it in this hefty compendium over here.

So...
Aim: To write a second edition of The Riddle of Steel.
Resources: Everything ever published for The Riddle of Steel.
Burrowowl's Wiki.
Question - is it worth doing this? What with copyright issues etc. Why don't we just call it something else?
End Product: A coherent and well presented version of TROS' eventual combat rules & skill system. Probably wouldn't be too difficult to get Norwood's blessing either.

We should probably get somewhere to discuss it more permanent than /tg/. Forum or Wiki? I don't think that I have enough time to organise everything...

>>17245601

You forgot:

Problem: Everyone seems to have a different idea of what a 2nd edition of RoS should consist of.

Anyway, I suggest the main thing we should work on right now is improving Burrowowl's wiki. If we can transcribe all the actual crunch to there, it will make writing a 2nd edition much easier.

Sounds like a plan. I tell you what, I'll sacrifice today doing that. To be precise, I'll work on the contents of the core rulebook, as that will be hardest.

>>17245617
I think we're aiming, right now, for tRoS: Revisions, a version where we just collect everything and give it a decent layout.

In terms of magic - is it wrong to say I like tRoS magic in general, even if specifics can be broken? It basically means the Sorceror can be absurdly powerful with prep time (Harry Dresden!) but kicking in his door and stabbing him Conan style before he can get something improvised is a great plan

Stat me, TRoS

First book up on the wiki. Not linked to from anywhere though. Time for a cigarette and a cup of tea.

Tables in Book 1 done. Time for some dinner.

>>17246677
journalism major and I LOL'ed

>>17245328
>I actually really like the non-combat stuff (other than the magic, obviously) - skill checks work well
>skill checks work well
>Riddle of Steel

Are we talking about the same game here? Because I remember the Riddle of Steel's skill system as having entirely fucked skill roll probabilities.

>>17247025
:)

Cheers for the spell check bestinlife. Will crack on with Book 2 in about an hour...

>>17247490
>arrows breaking limbs and piercing a man apparently wearing a leather jerkin over maille trough the whole chest and keep going
That book really overestimates longbows.

>>17247543
And the artist's depiction of Warbow archery sucketh

>>17247543

Style > Realism

Sad bu true.

Also, it's the only source of pics that I have here...

>>17247719
Style kills both realism and historical truth here.
Also style > ralism only for 16 y.o.

>>17247968
That's the target audience.

aaand back to the grindstone. Probably worth shifting the "books" to different pages in a bit...

Transcribed up to p. 25.
But a wild girl has appeared, bearing promises of booze and boobs.

Sorry guys. I'll try and work on this tomorrow, depending on what happens life wise...

>>17248725
>See female in plate
> About to go full "HURR BOOBPLATE"
>No boobplate
Carry on gentlemen, enjoy your fine thread.

>>17248753
The next thing should be women in faithful replica plate whom ruin it making duckfaces or assuming inappropriate poses and mannerism.

>>17247082
>Are we talking about the same game here? Because I remember the Riddle of Steel's skill system as having entirely fucked skill roll probabilities.

They fix it in Flower of Battle.

whatever happens tomorrow, I'm not going to have time to work on TRoS. Bad times...

Unless of course I do. Let me put on a pot of coffee and some sow some oatz to squat.

>>17248773
> whom

She's the one who is ruining the picture. You're the one for whom it is ruined.

Better? Worse?
She's on a horse.

Now, keep me entertained while I transcribe these FUCKING TABLES.

Is Burrowowl Paul Gu? 'Cause if otherwise, there's already a near complete tRoS wiki.

http://tros.thewestwinds.net/index.php?title=Main_Page

>>17255614
Burrowowl's is http://knight.burrowowl.net/doku.php

I think two-handed combat needs a little bit of a rework
Other than that, combat simply needs to be clarified so people can look at weapons and armour and know a little more intuitively, 'ah, this is better than that for this fighting style' and so on.
Also, fuck, I know the designers notes on magic made sense, but making them workable and balanced in a part with fighters would be nice

Maybe toughness could widen or add wound, shock and bleeding levels so that hits don't cause as much severity on average

Also, the idea of terrain modifiers was a little underbaked. It could do with some more specificity.
Also, pugilism/martial arts could have a bit more attention/manouevres, and while I think the length of weapon advantage/disadvantage was reasonable, it could also do with a bit more attention

Also it might be pertinent to expand the pool of Gifts and Flaws
And standardizing character points possibly

Finished the skills section. I'm taking a break now.

This is your party.

>>17255688

But RoS is about lolrealism. Are you really suggesting that someone who can skullfuck reality would be on par with someone who can swordfight well?

Mundanes matching magic-users in power is only for shitty anime.

>>17256146

I might have some spare hours today and have most of the TRoS books on my pc. If there's anything I can do to help, please tell.

>>17256381

Also, I saw one or two typos/spelling errors. But I am a total newfag at wiki's, so I'm not sure what the etiquette to that kind of thing is, or how editing wiki's works.

>>17256381
I'm going to continue ploughing through the Core Rulebook for most of the day. At the moment I'm just chucking up content, and began to make sub-pages (ie. Book 1).

If you like you could either make pages for specific things (ie. Each gift, skill, whatever) and link it back, or you could chuck up more content. I think we have OEFs of the rest of the books, so all you'd need to to would be to format them using the wiki's arcane system for tables, lists and headings.

Or, you know, you could just proof-read what's up. Fucking boring though.

http://knight.burrowowl.net/doku.php?id=wiki:syntax has all the info on how editing works. When it comes to the 'style guide', I'm pretty much making it up as I go along...

As for etiquette - I'm chucking up content onto the main page. Editting typos or whatever is no problemo.

>>17256411

I'll type out the Gifts and Flaws then. I don't know how to make a new page or anything, so I'll confine it to a txt document for now. As I said: totally new at wikis.

>>17256484
Eugh, just done Gifts and Flaws, damn. Perhaps start somewhere a bit further away? Maybe the Combat section? I'll do proficiencies next...

Better yet, start on one of the supplements - you should be able to straight up copy and paste from the OEF versions.

Worst case scenario, you can mail me the .txt files. fech/tg/uy at Gmail.

>>17256496

Welp! It seems most of the stuff is already there...I guess I'll do some proofreading then..

>>17256567

I found something:

On http://knight.burrowowl.net/doku.php?id=rules%3Ako it says "Whenever hit by a blunt blow to the head, a Knockout roll is required at a TN of 10-AR." What is AR? Should that be Armour Value?

>>17256629

Also: wgeb describing the Spiritual Attributes, maybe make a seperate header with "Example" above the things with Arthur?

>>17255688

>Magic in TRoS
>Made equal to mundane

Haha. It's called dagger in the back bro. Casters in TRoS are really susceptible to surprise attacks.

>>17255688
You're missing the point of magic in RoS.

It's powerful as fuck, with the caster being able to do whatever the fuck he wants, but it's so dangerous to use that throwing it around willy nilly will soon cost you your character. Magic is dangerous.

Also, Flower of Battle did grappling just fine. Grapple has all the stats it needs, and it's quite powerful if you use it right.

>>17256746
I also enjoy grappling because it is horrifying to watch, and that's awesome.

>>17256733

Not to mention wizards has total MP pools that CAN NEVER BE REFRESHED, seeing how they have to sacrifice months of lifetime when casting spells.

Let's say the average human will live to 74 years of age. This gives you a total of 888 months to live. BUT toddlers are not adventurers. A more reasonable estimate is about 650 months worth of casting (assuming your character is about 20ish when he becomes an active adventurer).

A character would likely start feeling the effects of his magic after spending about 240 months of casting or so.

Ofc, depending on the lenght of your campaign you might never have time to spend this many months of lifetime IC.

>>17256762
There's also the more immediate factor of aging knocking you out as well, however, leaving you a pretty damn easy target.

>mfw wizards in RoS just don't give a fuck.

I fucking love RoS' magic system.

>>17256769

Yes. Personally I don't think it's such a big deal though, because after you've cast a spell your target is with all likelyhood dead as a doornail.

>>17256746
this just makes it impossible to have a party that mixes magic and melee. just like with melee and ranged combat.
I think the better option would be to keep the 'powerful magic at high costs' (possibly with some editing), but also develop a 'mundane-magic with no strings attached' variant.
Then it will be up to the gaming groups to choose the kind of magic they want to play with.

>>17256782
Not always however, especially if you're playing smart and being a bit confined in your castings.

If you're playing big, well, then the aging will take a toll, because you'll be burning age that much faster.

>>17256784

Cue a 3.5 rehash where everyone plays wizards because magic is both easier and more effective than fightan.

>>17256784
Not really at all. The mage wants to be careful with throwing his magic around, so for a lot of situations he's going to want to depend on mundane help for most encounters.

>>17256790
I play a mage in a game online. Works great, as I never use it in combat, just use it's products.

Namely, seven golems, one of whom is 20ft tall, with my throne in his chest. Saw off a whole army with that thing.

>>17256784

I don't think so personally. A wizard has to play smart and restrict his powers. He also got a massive casting time on all bigger spells. He needs backup to be effective, otherwise he'll get cut down eventually.

Melee and wizard plays well together because they need to cooperate and protect each other. It's not as in DnD where the wizard just does everything better than anyone else.

>>17256790
I think we can develop a magic system that is no more powerful than hitting people with a sword, at the cost of it not feeling all that fantastically magical.
cue a 4e rehash where it doesn't really matter what the flavour, the effect is just about the same.

>>17256802
That's some incredibly powerful magic that took a long time to cast, however.

And don't those golems have a chance at going nuts? I thought the bind spirit or whatever the spell was called would eventually fail.

Magic, in Riddle of Steel?

Why?

>>17256819
The magic took around a month for each of them, but I keep the spirits placated. They fuckin love me, so no chance of going nuts, as they get time off, and time freed from their bonds.

>>17256845
Basically, even by the standards of Riddle of Steel, your caster is powerful as fucking fuck, and is not a general indication of how magic in the game works.

>>17256746
So you're left with the options of using magic via carefully prepared rituals away from your enemies, or small spells on the spur of the moment, hoping for maximum impact to the fight.

Or "Pulp Wizard" and "Gandalf Wizard" as they will now be called.

Still waiting on an argument to change the magic rules which isn't "They don't simulate D&D dungeonpunk! I wanna play a level 20 Drow SwordMunchSpellWabbajacker!".

>>17256859
He's got 11 die in his sorcery pool, but he's only gifted. In general, he's very powerful, but that's because he's been throwing his life force into most of those rolls like nobodies business.

>>17256875

>Cacame

Someone's been hanging out on Bay12.

At any rate, how bad did the aging hit you? I've never actually bothered with the aging rules.

>>17256889
in 4 sessions where he actually used magic, Vasily has lost 1 year and 5 months. That was minor levitation, and some sculpting. when we do timeskips, the seneschal let's me treat it as having used all my sorcery dice but one for aging and one for casting, to stop me from aging. The game itself is actually on the bay12 forums, we've got a healthy roleplaying community.

>>17256889

>magic rules

Is how that should read. Depr.

>>17256872
this is more a nitpick than a real problem, because I like the big rituals/small spells divide: the 'pulp wizard' side is way underpowered, compared to just bringing in the ritualist side.
just look at the guy with the golems.
I'm all for small spells having tactical flexibility, while rituals have less costs, but the raw power of one shouldn't trump the other. that's bad game design, imho.

>>17257060
Just finished the Proficiencies section of Book 3. Moving onto maneuvers in a bit. Not sure how much more I'll get done today though - I've been hacking away at this for about six hours straight now...

>>17257060
Well, i could cut any man in half in 6 seconds in combat. Or throw him into the air at 100m/s.

I'd say that makes the golems pretty even with me for power.

Also, what should i take for my familiar?

>>17256496

Does that adress include both the /'s?

Have finished proofreading up to skills, no major things, mostly some extra spaces due to copying.

>>17257096
if the result is the same, the character investiment and the risk involved aren't.

>>17257155

Perhaps. But the wizard is more defenseless to surprises as well, so the wizard is "more" susceptible to other risks as an exchange.

Lots of work on the wiki today, but mostly just putting up content for later sorting. Flower of Battle should be a lot less time consuming.

Bumping because I have nothing to contribute.

Except mentioning that terrain rules should be more detailed, potentially having maneuvers and specializations (sprint/long jump, high jump...) and stereotyped terrain examples (forest, village, town...) with stated obstacles.

I think there's a way we could get mass combat to work, too. Pic related, fantasy needs it.

But I can't propose any good starting point on either problems.

>>17259134
Successes and margins. Just make a table or state 1=Xft horizontal, Y ft vertical. Difficulty of the surface substract from them.

Are there casting times in RoS? If not, add them or a build up mechanic, where they must keep casting until they reach the enough successes.

>>17258454

I checked for errors (going from top to bottom on the 'Rules' page) up to and including the skills starting with R.

>>17259995
That would be too inconsistent, as most of the distance you can jump at one given time depends on your training which doesn't change.

Regarding changing the role of Tougness in combat, I would suggest something along the following:

Remove Toughness from the base damage calculation. Use it instead just like Willpower is used in calculating pain, but for Shock instead.

Add 4 (average assumed toughness) to every type of armor's AV for purposes of determining damage level.

Because the damage tables assume that Shock is always immediately applied in full, increase all non-zero Shock values on those tables by 4.

This is similar to what >>17255688 proposed, but we've already got Bleeding mitigated by Endurance and Pain mitigated by Willpower. Why not Shock mitigated by Toughness?

>>17260331
The other way is giving them combat effects, such as disengaging or moving a range increment. However, you don't want people to forget Evade and just Jump away. Probably limit the pool?

Terrain could modify TN and obstacles need X successes

OMFG, somebody other than me actually edited my Riddle of Steel wiki? Outstanding! You fech/tg/uys just made my weekend!

My apologies for some of the (very) shoddy editing work that has gone before. Nearly all mistakes present are entirely my fault. And yes, the removal of the male/female distinction in the damage tables was intentional. Womenfolk are sensitive in their nether-areas too.

I'm personally in favor of a largely non-fantastic usage of Riddle of Steel. Toward that end I suggest dumping the spellcasting rules and fantastic races. The world doesn't need yet another pen & paper RPG with elves traipsing around. This also reduces the number of knobs and dials that need to be fiddled with, so double-win right there.

The use of terrain rolls in group fighting should be smoothed out, probably through a couple of minor rules adjustments and some good examples.

The Companion version of the skill system should be the default. I'm about as sure of that as anything regarding a tRoS2.0 is concerned. Some clarification of how the half-dozen social skills (persuasion, law, seduction, sincerity, etc.) intersect with each other would be good, particularly Etiquette.

Rules regarding social status need to be clarified. If I assign my Priority A to being a landed noble, that should confer some advantage that persists in the same way that assigning Priority A to Skills or Attributes would. After one big haul killing bad-guys and saving damsels in distress any old peasant can have 250 gold pieces, right? I see the Etiquette skill as a possible means of using and maintaining such a social advantage, though I'm not entirely sure how it should be applied.

The fighting system is so much cooler than most other games that I'm reluctant to tinker with it much, other than perhaps to suggest sets of "setting-appropriate" equipment and proficiencies. You wouldn't find a lot of folks using macahuitils nor a lot of Spanish Moors wearing full-harness plate armor while wielding rapiers.

>>17261014
I'd suggest the unfortunate answer is "having a sane Fechtmeister deciding the TNs for Ettiquette, Command etc skill tests should be modified by rank". Yes, the Duke was a douchebag. Smile and nod anyway.

>>17260399
I don't see the point of having a toughness stat anyway. I mean, if I stab you in the face, you'll have a horrible wound regardless of how tough you are.
The knock-out, endurance and health stats are enough.
Why did they add that one ?

>>17261228
Endurance is how well your character works through exhaustion. Health is how well your character works through poison or illness. Toughness is how well your character works through rough handling. Which is kinda Knockout and Knockdown.

A similar case could be made regarding Social, except it's used for skills instead of combat.

I was thinking about how Proficiencies and stuff like Mordschlag work.

What do you guys think about allowing longswords to use pole-axe Proficiency to represent gripping it by the blade? That would allow it to use hooking and bashing maneuvers. All you'd have to do is say "a greatsword, longsword or bastard sword cannot perform cut or thrust maneuvers when using the pole-axe Proficiency" and you're sweet. The test to see if you can move into the Proficiency could be exactly the same as half-sword.

>>17262600
I have no strong objection to this, though really aren't you just switching your fighting style in much the same way as you might between Cut & Thrust and Sword & Shield?

>>17262875

Yep. It just makes sense to me moreso than having a specific maneuver. If you know the core rules, it's more simple and more accurately fits into how the sword is used in that grip configuration.

With the existing rule, the longsword essentially gets a bash maneuver. It should already have this in half-sword, or at very close range normally. My proposition would change it so that it gets a longer-ranged bash, plus hooking in a way that the rules almost already support.

So it would ultimately be less effective at dealing damage, but very effective at draining an adversary's combat pool -- precisely what the rules try to emulate already, but more realistically, and with more versatility.

>>17262934

Derp, just checked the rules. Pole-axe doesn't have the bash maneuver, for some reason, despite the text beforehand describing hammerheads on pole-axes. And much derp was derped.

Alternatively, the rule could just be that cut and thrust are replaced with bash and hook, at the cost of lowering the weapon's range by one level.

>>17263187

Also, pole-axe Proficiency is used for these purposes. Given that most characters will have a slightly lower Proficiency in that area, it makes it a tactical choice rather than just heaping more power onto the longsword.

>>17262600
>>17262934
Hm... That would require creating a new type of action, that can be inserted in the exchange between the attacks and defenses.
Changing your hold on the weapon needs to have a CP cost, but as of now only maneuvers can allow this, and they include the following attack.
For consistency, half-swording should be treated like that too, and maybe some other things (stances ?).

Maybe something similar to terrain rolls could work.

>>17262934
That makes a lot of sense, really. My main concern now is more pedantic: what should the stat conversion look like from weapon to weapon? If I reverse a Longsword does it retain its hilt rating? What is its bashing ATN and its DTN?

Off the top of my head, I would suggest that this improvised bashing weapon uses both hands, has a reach of 1 less than its default use, a bashing ATN of its base slashing ATN +1, a DTN of its base DTN +1, a hilt value of zero, and a DR of st+0.

Reasonable? Realistic? Reasonably realistic?

Also, should it use the Polearm proficiency or Mass Weapon?

>>17263226
Both half-swording and murder-stroke involve a drastic switching of grips on the weapon. It seems to me a CP cost should be paid in any of these cases. Make the switch a maneuver that immediately goes to a bash and has an activation cost of two (which happens to be the default penalty between Longsword/Greatsword and Polearms)

>>17263332

I think the Proficiency could be left up to the player, but it must be pole-axe, polearm or mass weapon.

As for new TNs, I don't think the DTN should go up; the weapon is still easy to wield defensively and crossguard can be used for parrying. But the ATN should go up, since you're giving up so much of the versatility of the blade. And making the DR ST+0 is sensible, unless the longsword in question has a special crossguard or pommel designed for this purpose (in fact, weapon commissioning rules are probably a good idea).

Making the hilt rating 0 is also sensible.

On a broader tRoS2.0 note: what house rules are people using currently? I personally allow my players to spend Spiritual Attributes to reduce wounds by one on-the-fly (as opposed to having to buy Drama points ahead of time). It helps me feel better about the prospect of killing them off too easily when the Dice Gods frown upon us.

>>17263503
And a morning bump. As for house rules - I don't, I haven't got a group.

>Sad Trombone Noise.

It needs a broader support for firearms and hand-to-hand combat.

>>17261014
I don't think that restricting the setting is a good idea. That's not the selling point of this game like it can be in some others. As you said, the combat system is much cooler than most, and that's why we play it; besides that, we all have varying preferences regarding the setting in which we would want to insert the riddled fights. The more leeway we have, the more we'll play with this system.

If anything, I think we should drop the social priority from character creation, as it fits poorly in other settings than weyrth. Or add guidelines to it to adjust the status and starting wealth depending on the rest of the world.

Sorry guys, haven't had a chance to work on the wiki today. I'll devote tomorrow afternoon or evening to it instead.

Bumping with a female drown in covering armor.