Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Scale Weapon Expertise and Mastery so that larger weapons get a bigger cut. (Pun intended.)

And also reduce defend dice by half the number of dice of damage the offending attack does minus the defending weapon dice or shield hits stopped. (round up):

Hence ST 40 giant's "spiked club" does 4d+4 and a master fencer attempts to defend with a very fine rapier of 1d+4, that's a three die advantage so it takes two dice off the normally 6 dice super defend. The giant needs to roll his DX of 10 minus 2 for Mastery or adjDX 8 on only 4 dice instead of six.

A Large shield normally stops 2 hits and with Shield Expertise this is 3 hits, so a battleax at 3d has no advantage and the shield defense requires a 4 die roll to hit. (-1 to DX for the Shield Expertise of course.)

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

It's an interesting idea, Henry, but what is the motivation? Is it realism or game balance?

I don't know much about combat, so I can't speak much on realism. I guess you're figuring that the big ol' battleaxe is hard to parry and so that makes a hit easier, though it seems to me that a failed parry would still blunt the blow somewhat.

In terms of game balance, this would make big guys that much more difficult to fight. There's some sense to that, since I've found that ogres, for instance, are not all that difficult to beat. However, we'd have to keep in mind that this cuts both ways and the high ST PC would gain additional advantages that might screw up the current balance. For instance, the rapier fencer would suddenly have no defend bonus against someone armed with a lowly saber. (A saber is 2d-2 compared to the rapier's 1d, for a difference of one die[1], so that's one die off of the normally 5d roll.)

Of course, there's the additional issue that this is another rule easy to forget in the heat of battle.

[1] If 2d-2 does not count as a one die advantage over a 1d (or 1d+1, due to Fencer talent), then adjust the weapon up as needed.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

It's in dice, but the Rapier with Fencer talent is normally a 5d defend, so facing a saber cuts this down to a 4d defend. (At -1 for Fencer)


When facing big weapons use a big shield with Expertise, as per all of human history.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Quite right. I meant he loses the additional one die bonus that Fencer gives.

So, realism is at least part of the reason for this rule.

It's an interesting suggestion.

I suppose that the minimum number of dice is still three for the big galoot -- that is, that this rule only takes away additional dice granted by defend, which is what you meant by "defend dice". Thus, the fencer still has an advantage over the non-fencer, since the galoot rolls four dice against the fencer and only three against the non-fencer.

This has the effect that Defend isn't a viable option for low ST characters in many situations. There's no benefit at all for the (non-Fencer) rapier user to defend against a fighter with a sabre -- though he can still defend against an ST 10 hammer user. In effect, this makes Ax/Mace an even worse choice for the middling ST fighter.

I'm not saying these are bad consequences. Poor Molly and wizards in general are often going to lose the Defend option with either staff or dagger and be that much more fragile. In terms of realism, I think that effect makes sense. An ST 6 dagger wielder surely can't parry a battleaxe effectively (parry in the sense of the Defend option; the Two-Weapons parry option is unchanged by this rule). In terms of game balance, this may be a very big change.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

The two weapon parry would still stop four hits from the battleaxe, which would then only need to roll 3/DX to hit.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Fair enough. I was thinking of the one-handed parry option, not the two-handed.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Adding 1 per die of damage would make Weapon Expertise more appealing to characters strong enough to wield 3d weapons. As it is, the talent's primary attractions are the defensive benefits.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Takes ST 13 to achieve 3d and DX 12 and IQ 11 to get weapons expertise. That would be a long term plan, working one's way up from a rapier to a bastard sword (assuming he started with expertise).

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Of course you start with expertise because ST is much cheaper than talents.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

That's why I focused on starting with expertise, but other character progressions are possible.

A ST 9, DX 12, IQ 11 character with expertise needs 700XP to become ST 13. A ST 13, DX 12, IQ 11 character requires 1500XP to gain expertise.

But, of course, someone might start with the latter character and later realize that expertise would be really good to have (especially given your house rule).

ETA: I've a house rule that the first two talent points can be bought at half-cost, just to encourage character diversity and the early gaining of talents. Thus, the ST 13 character could gain expertise for a cheap 1000XP -- still more than the ST 9 expert needs, but not double.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

I'm assuming that the character would not be starting with expertise. Also, note that Weapon Expertise (Sword) does not cover both rapier and bastard sword; one needs Fencer for rapier.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

I'll be darned. I plumb overlooked that rule (as did Henry, I suppose). Right there in the description for expertise: "Expertise with the sword also does not include fencing weapons, which have their own Expertise (see below)." So, no expertise for the saber either. I'll bet I have an NPC or two that have that illegal combo.

(The suggestion to "see below" is a bit roundabout. You have to flip through the whole book until you come around to the other side and eventually to the page before Weapon Expertise.)

So, the only ways to get expertise with sword and ST 13, starting from a 32 point character, are to buy expertise later in the game or to buy it at the beginning but not use it until you reach ST 11 and the short sword, which would be more than a bit suspect.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

So heavier swords are worse with expertise than lighter swords are.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

How so?

It was already the case that you could use Fencing only with rapier or saber. The "new" discovery (thanks, Shostak) is that you can't use expertise with rapier or saber.

I don't see how this makes heavy swords worse. If Fencing is better, then heavy swords were already worse.

Anyway, as usual, Henry, there are many advantages and disadvantages that you overlook when proclaiming that one thing is better or worse than another. If you want to do more damage, then a heavy sword is better than a light one, generally speaking.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Broadman, Human, age 20
ST 12, DX 12 (11), IQ 8, MA 10
Talents: Knife, Shield, Sword
Language: Common
Weapons: dagger (1d-1), fine broadsword (2d+1)
Armor: Large shield stops two hits

Thinman, Human, age 20
ST 9, DX 12, IQ 11, MA 10
Talents include: Fencer, Knife, Shield Expertise
Language: Common
Weapon: dagger (1d-1), very fine rapier (1d+3)
Armor: Small shield stops two hits, -2 to be hit

Broadman hits (adjDX 9) 37.5% for an average of 6 hits past the shield, hence 2.5 hits/turn

Thinman hits 74.07% for an average of 4.5 hits past the shield, hence 3.3 hits/turn

Broadman does have the advantage due to Reactions to Injury, hence the heavier sword is better.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Weapon Expertise gives lighter weapons a damage bonus that, although equal to the bonus given to heavier weapons, is a higher percentage of their basic damage. I don't think one can say that a shortsword dealing 2d damage is objectively better than a broadsword dealing 2d+1 or a two-handed sword inflicting 3d.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Returning to the original idea... I find the proposed defensive adjustments intriguing, Henry. Have you playtested this at all or is it just a thought experiment at this point?

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

A mathematically informed wild guess.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Good catch. I had just read through that as I was generating my Elf fencer physicker who would have been neat to roll out in the game but being an elf made him a less desirable pick. LOL!

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

My first question is, what are you trying to fix? This applies to both the offensive and defensive changes you proposed.

Regarding the offensive change (+1/damage die proposal), this would break the balance of the weapon table for weapons of difference dice at the same ST. So, a mace will get more enhanced damage than a hand axe, spear or quarterstaff (all being ST 11 weapons). The mace already has a better damage spread and now this makes it worse. I already with Shostak's take, "I don't think one can say that a shortsword dealing 2d damage is objectively better than a broadsword dealing 2d+1 or a two-handed sword inflicting 3d." That is, I don't see a need for this change. This change implies you find weapon expertise not effective enough. Thus my first question. The way I see it weapon expertise seems to be a very good buy, thus this is not a needed change for that perspective either.

Regarding the defensive change (reducing defensive dice based on relative weapon damage). In real life parrying/defending is a complicated thing. In a fight against a foe of roughly the same capability, having a lighter weapon/shield makes it easier to be your block in the way of your foe's weapon. Having a larger blocking surface (eg. a bigger shield), is both good and bad. I makes it a slower blocker but it may already be in the way of the shot without having to move. When talking about shields, typically in a one-on-one fight you are better off with a smaller shield, assuming you can match the speed and skill of your foe. If not, then the bigger shield may be better. When facing multiple foes (say in a shield wall), then a bigger shield is better. That is just size/mass/weight of the weapons. There is also the shape (axes and sais), durability and number of hands on it that contribute to its ability to block. But damage does not equate size/mass so it is not a good match there. Long story short is, I am not sure adding this extra complexity is a good thing. Thus back to my first question. Is it you find the expertise skills too effective and wish to reduce their affect? If so, then yea maybe this is a good change.

Or is the purpose of both of these to give ST more of an advantage?

If you are adding complexity, it is good to have a clear reason for doing so.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

The big reason is to up the advantage of ST, so perhaps do that directly.
Reduce the advantage of a defend by one die for each multiple of ST the attacker has over the defender.
So if the attacker has double the defender's ST then ordinary defends are useless and more advanced defend options are down one die.
Four hex dragon claw attack vs ST 9 Master Fencer doing a super defend which is usually 6 dice, but is now reduced two dice (for 3x ST) to a roll on four dice of DX 13 base, minus 2 DX for the talent is an 11 or less.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Well these will achieve that goal.

Balance issues will be the only concern. I mentioned a balance issue between weapons of same ST. For the defensive change, there is a game effect problem in some situations it will remove defending altogether as an option. For these you may want to tweak your rules... if it does not make it even more complex.

For example, for the offense bonus instead make it based on ST instead of based on weapon. Say for every full 12 ST a character has, they get an additional +1. Or at set ST clip levels (+0 below ST 12, ST 12 +1, ST 15 +2). This will benefit the fighter for having the ST (with the right weapon type) even if it is under ST for him. So, even more of a pay-off. Maybe your idea is better. Just throwing out ideas. For the defensive bonus tweak, put a minimum of 4 dice on a defend. This way the defend option never just goes away.

Good luck.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Dragons and Giants are DX dumpers, so limit the amount that goblin daggers make them totally useless.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Goblins cannot defend while being trampled underfoot. ;-)

Yes, I hear ya.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Hence Acrobatics to almost entirely eliminate trampling.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Geez you got that goblin down to being a superhero!

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

How does a goblin have significant advantage here? He can defend, but that won't put the Giant down. Moreover, as Axly pointed out, the Giant can push back and perhaps trample. Sure, you might have an acrobatic goblin, so that he can remain on his feet time and again, but that's a talent point spent right there, just so the goblin can keep defending time after time.

Ignoring the probability (which is nearly 1 here) that the dagger is a dagger-staff with an attack as a free action, all I see is a stalemate, not a victory.

Of course, the dagger-staff wielding acrobatic goblin might also be a dagger expert, too, so at some point he might feel confident to take a stab or two.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

I have a Goblin that may need a dagger-staff provided that He figures out how to get one.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Surely you've brought enough goblins to engage the dragons and giants.


In that case whichever one is attacked defends and the rest attack. ("we're delaying our actions in order to determine which one us slowbro will claw at.")

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

I've always puzzled over how things should go when one figure is outnumbered. Let's say that A and B are both engaged with X. If A and B can wait and see what X does, so that they can defend if needed and otherwise attack, then X can wait and see what A and B do, so he can attack one who doesn't defend. We appear to be at a stalemate.

Now, you could just say that the figure with lowest adjDX can't wait and see, which would prevent any stalemate. Thus, if A is fastest and B slowest, then in effect, B must decide first, followed by either X or A (and if A still wants to wait, then X is second). That's one solution.

At present, I have a houserule that if X can ask A if he's defending and if so, he can attack B. He can ask just one figure, so if C and D are also in the mix, after asking A, he must commit to attacking B, C or D (who may then Defend). Once A answers the question, if he said he's defending then he is. In this way, up to two attackers may waste their action on Defend (for one, I guess it's not a waste).

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

And if each figure has picked "wait", I declare the turn over.... and the asteroid that's about to obliterate the entire map is now one turn closer to landing on everyone. So let's begin that next turn.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

When you say "the entire map" which page of ITL are you talking about? Something the size of the map on page 129? 168? 171? Larger?

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Oh big. Really really big. Mega mega big. Everything on the dining room table - both sides. Except my croissant. Nobody touch my croissant.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

The way we have long (long, long) played, using the optional Delayed Actions rule, is:

Figures act in (polearm charge, then) adjDX order. (Usually, this means figures take that opportunity to attack as soon as they can, as that's generally how fights are won.)

If more than one figure for some reason elects to delay their action, then when all figures have acted, those delaying figures get asked in reverse adjDX order what they do, and they can no longer delay without losing their action for the turn.

This is rarely needed, but it solves all such problems.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

So, tell me how you deal with the situation I mentioned explicitly.

Suppose that A and B are in X's front hexes. Consider the following possibilities:

(1) A and B have lower adjDX than X. They have not explicitly declared any action and X announces that he will attack A. Can A then announce Defend? Or must he announce it back in the movement phase? If A announces Defend at the point that X announces he will attack A, is X locked in or can he decide to attack B?

(2) Same adjDX ranking as (1), but A announced during the movement phase that they would be defending. X decides that he will attack B. Can A switch to attacking X when his turn comes? (Explicitly so, per the new qualifications in the main forum, but I'm asking about your ruling.)

(3) Same as (1), but A and B have higher adjDX and have decided to wait and see. Does this change anything?

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Hexagram #9 suggests that everybody take a half move, declare Defend, then when their turn to act comes (delay is an optional rule!) they switch to attack if they've not been attacked yet.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

That's a different question, and I've played it both ways. I slightly prefer allowing people to defend or dodge when they are attacked, if they want to (they rarely do). I then say people are locked when they actually say they do something, but not when/if they pre-declare an option.

So I would prefer to play that it would go like this:

Movement: No one bothers to pre-declare anything.
X: I attack A.
A: I defend.
(X cannot back out of his attack on A at this point, because that would make an endless loop possible.)

But I don't mind playing like below, in your case (2):

Before X acts: A and B declare Defend.
X: I attack B.
(B must now defend - resolve the attack)
A: No one's attacked me. I change my option and attack X.

(If A can't do that, then A needs to waste their whole turn doing nothing. I see that as a big problem, and an extra reason to almost never Defend.)

It depends on whether you allow people who haven't pre-declared their option to Defend or not. If you do, then it only changes when during the turn those fighters will act, as you get:

A & B: We delay our action.
X: I delay my action.
(everyone else acts)
X: Ok, I need to choose.
A & B get to choose whether to defend or attack based on what X does.

If you DO require pre-declaration to Defend, then you get something slightly different:

A & B: We Defend, and delay our action.
X: I delay my action.
(everyone else acts)
X: Ok, I need to choose.
If X attacks A, A must Defend. B can attack.


Only if everyone wants to defend if attacked. In this case the highest DX attacks and his target has chosen to defend, so he does, then the next highest DX who hasn't actually defended, attacks.

In practice, few melee fighters want to defend when attacked. They almost always just attack.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

But they wouldn’t be “doing nothing.” Instead, they acted defensive and enjoyed the benefits of that action by not being attacked that round. They are having their cake and eating it, too.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

I really only allow delaying actions (it is optional), for timing of spell casting with Aid.

For example, your wizard has a higher DX than his apprentice. The wizard delays casting his spell until his apprentice has casted Aid. The same DX count the Aid goes off, the wizard casts.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Not the way I see it. Declaring an option is merely saying what you intend to do, but you can change your mind and take whatever legal action when your turn to act comes, unless you already took it.

Particularly when you let people say they Defend or Dodge in response to attacks, this makes complete sense, because then no one ever needs to pre-declare an intent do Defend, so if they're not attacked then they certainly don't (and if they are attacked, they rarely do either, because they want to attack).

If you do require pre-declaring Defend, then there is a cost to doing so, in that you must defend if someone attacks you, which most fighters do not want to do.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

I think Steve Plambeck has the right idea, simply doing away with declaring actions at all until it is time to act according to adjDX, or declaring Defend in reaction to at attack, at which time, it is cemented in.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Here's the situation as I see it. There are two easy cases.

• If A declares in the movement phase (pre-declares, in other words) that he will Defend and X attacks him, then A must Defend as he said.
• If A's action comes before X's and he doesn't "hold" it for later, then he does whatever he says he will do.

Now the interesting case is this: X's action comes before A's (whether due to adjDX or holding an action) and A has not declared a Defend action previously. What happens then?

There are a few possibilities I can think of offhand.

1. A cannot Defend if X attacks. If he had wanted to do that, he should have declared during the Movement phase.
2. A has a chance to say "I Defend" prior to X's declaration of his action. X will thus know whether A is Defending or not when he chooses to lock in his action.
3. As above, A has a chance to say "I Defend" prior to X's declaration of an action, but if X does not Attack, A can still switch actions later.
4. A can wait until X announces his action, at which point he can choose to Defend if X is Attacking. He would, of course, be locked into that action. X has already announced his attack and so he's stuck attacking someone Defending.

(1) limits the ability of A to react to actions by choosing to Defend. It's pretty drastic. (2) can force A to choose to Defend even though he's not Attacked because X chose a different action. (3) gives A the ability to Defend if X attacks and Attack if X doesn't, which puts X in a hard place if A has an ally with him. If X attacks, his target will defend while the other guy attacks. (4) has the same effect.

I don't want (3) and (4), because a one-on-two battle is already hard enough. With those two options, X will have to roll 4 (or more) dice to hit one guy while the other guy rolls 3 to hit him. One-on-two should be deadly, but that's just not even fair.

I have my own half-thought solution, but I don't like it much, so I'd like to hear how others play it.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

If you allow declaring Defend in reaction to an attack, then two-on-ones are nigh unwinnable. The lone figure X will always be attacking someone who is defending (if he attacks at all, which is kinda essential to winning), while the other guy will hit with a 3/adjDX roll.

(Skarg's players rarely defend, but I do think that having one guy defend while the other attacks seems like a winning strategy to me in most situations, just so long as their opponent is wasting his attack on the defending fella.)

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

You don't have to play characters as though they know the rules.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Yes, that's the way I think works best:

* It's the fastest and easiest.
* It doesn't require pre-declaring (which never happens in the examples, slows play, and requires remembering what everyone's declared option was.
* No one ends up wasting their turn because they pre-declared an action that ends up being meaningless or inappropriate when their turn to act comes up.
* It lets characters who find themselves confronted by something extra-deadly, try to do something to avoid getting killed.
* It makes Dodge and Defend slightly more useful, and more likely a fighter will actually choose to use it sometimes for tactical reasons, instead of just always choosing Attack.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

It's not wasting an attack to attack someone who's Defending. You get a chance to hit, and if they Defend, they are losing their attack. Preventing an enemy attack is a big deal, and in many cases, a better result than hitting them (unless it was a minimal threat).

A "2 vs 1" is almost never a case of two foes staying in one's Front hexes for a series of turns - there's almost always more to it, such as an ally who can come help, and possibility of getting away and fleeing. So again, having one of the two foes not attack, tends to be a good outcome.

Also, very frequently, the two figures will move to opposite sides of their single foe. At this point, the single figure can only face one of their foes, and that foe can choose to Defend if they want to, while the other foe attacks the single figure at +2 DX or +4 DX on 3 dice.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Sure, but that's unsatisfying to me. A trained fighter knows a few things about tactical advantages, after all.

Besides, even if I decide that NPCs choose suboptimal tactics, I can't insist my players do the same.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

That last paragraph is a good point. Perhaps the negative features of options (3) and (4) aren't so dreadful as I supposed.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

The way a figure fighting two or more opponents can get an attack in against a non-defending opponent is to delay their action until the others have already attacked. It is dangerous in that it invites two or more attacks, but once someone makes an attack they are no longer able to defend, and the loner might be able to take them out. If they also delay until he acts, the turn is over with no action, which could give time for reinforcements to even the odds.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

The main thing that bothers me with options (3) and (4) is that the person considering a Defend action has more information available than one considering an Attack action. If A can choose Defend in reaction to X's choice to Attack, then his decision is better informed than X's. X doesn't know what A is doing when X chooses Attack. A knows what X is doing when he chooses Defend (or he can change his order later).

Skarg's right that a two-on-one with both figures in the front hexes of the lone guy isn't usually a stable arrangement. It's usually only one turn. But for that one turn, I see the following possibilities:

(1) X Attacks A. Then A Defends and B Attacks X.
(2) X Defends. Then both A and B change their options to Attack X.

My current houserule is not ideal, but works to undo some of the advantage that A and B have. If A reacts to X's declaration of an Attack by Defending, then X can change his order. This can only happen once per turn, so if B declares that he is also Defending, X can't change to attacking C or back to A.

Similar concerns apply to missile weapons. If A and B are fighting X, all with missile weapons and none moving more than one hex, then either X wastes a shot on a dodging figure while the other figure shoots at X or X dodges while both figures shoot at him (assuming that the figures are keen on dodging, of course). The two-on-one advantage is made worse because those who choose a defensive order do so knowing that the opponent will be attacking them. A Dodge/Defend is thus never wasted, but an Attack order may often be against a suboptimal target.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

(2) X's defend action is invalid, since X attacked A in (1)

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Sorry, (1) and (2) are not sequential. They are the possible final outcomes I see. Either X announces that he will Defend, so A and B can both choose (or change to) Attack, or X announces that he will Attack, so that his target will Defend and the other guy will attack X.

Think of it this way:

I would regret a Defend action if I am not Attacked (it's a wasted action). But, according to RAW, I can always change a regrettable Defend.

I would regret an Attack (usually) if I Attacked a target who Defended while there was another possible target not Defending. According to RAW, every time I choose to Attack in a two-on-one, I'm likely to regret it.

That's the asymmetry I don't like.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

Ah! I misunderstood

One need not find regret in attacking a figure who winds up defending, since, at the very worst, you are preventing them from attacking, and you still have a chance of inflicting harm. Defending is no guarantee against being on the receiving end of a whole lot of hurt.

But, as mentioned earlier, deferring action until a foe commits to an action is always an option; if one figure attacks (and you survive) immediately counterattack while they can't defend.

Re: Weapon Expertise: +1 per die of damage
 

My preference is to say that whole turn actions like Dodge and Defend are committed the moment actions start. If you're not sure if you want to Defend then say something else and switch to Defend when you know.