Results 11 to 20 of 20
Thread: Bang!
-
01-09-1998, 07:43 PM #11Tim NuttingGuest
Bang!
-
01-12-1998, 01:04 AM #12Samuel WeissGuest
Bang!
-
01-12-1998, 03:51 AM #13c558382@showme.missouri.Guest
Bang!
On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Randall W. Porter@6550 wrote:
>
> The same thing can be said for any weapon - early arquebuses being less
> horrific than (say) a heavy Crossbow. If you want a system that has a
> 'realistic' damage handling mechanic, you're playing the wrong game.
>
The D&D system is abstract. It needed tinkering. But it is very good a
representing a certain kind of combat- men at arms vs men at arms.
Armored warriors fighting one another is handled very well in the core
rules. The fighters sup and the BR rules add to that. The real defect in
the system is the fight between lightly armored rouge types and heavily
armored warrior types. For a while this just kind of irritated me, but
thieves in my campaigns have tended to be skulkers, I never devoted myself
to finding a solution.
With the advent of the Brechts and their preference for light armor and
weapons I had to deal with or never satisfy myself with Brecht-Anurian
combat. Now I felt forced to resolve the problem. Eventually I settled on
a two level approach.
1) I stole the Italian and Spanish fightingn styles from the renaisance
era sup (the name of which eludes me just now) and re-named the Brecht
fight style and Berghagen fighting style. Its a type of weapon
specialization.
2) A revised armor class system that produces all the familiar armor
classes (warrior in plate, w/shield=2, thief in leather=8, mage=10) but
was based on a combination of class and armor type. My armor class
calculation goes like this:
Start at 10, just like the core rules.
The following AC table supercedes the standard one:
Armor Armor Class
None 10
Leather, Padded, Hide, Studded 9
Ring, Scale, Splint 8
Brigandine, Chain, Banded, Plate 7
Dwarven Plate 6
A shield increases AC by 1
Character AC
Class modifier
Wizard 0
Rouge -1
Bard -2 (and a few Rouge kits as well as some Priest types)
Priest -3
Warrior -4
All monsters use their Monsterous Manual AC's
According to this system:
a mage with no armor is AC 10
a thief in leather is AC 8
a warrior in plate mail and shield is AC 2
however,
a warrior with no armor is AC 6
a bard in chain is AC 5
a warrior with no armor parrying with a fireplace poker has AC 4
Furthermore, armors absorb some damage:
armor slash pierce bludgeoning
Banded Mail 3hp 1hp 1hp
Brigandine 2hp 1hp 0hp
Chain Mail 3hp 1hp 0hp
Hide armor 2hp 1hp 1hp
Leather armor 1hp 0hp 1hp
Padded armor 0hp 0hp 0hp
Plate Mail 3hp 3hp 2hp
Ring Mail 1hp 1hp 0hp
Scale Mail 1hp 1hp 0hp
Splint Mail 2hp 1hp 1hp
Studded Leather 2hp 1hp 0hp
Brecht Fighting Style: (replaces One-Handed Style for those trained in it)
Costs one proficency slot. Character must have rapier or saber proficeny.
Brecht Style grants one AC benefit per level of proficeny. One may be taken
upon starting out. Additional slots can be purchased once per three levels;
eg. a second at 3rd, a third at 6th level &c. These bonuses rely on evasion
and movement and hence are allowable only when the normal dex bonus is. The
character must be fighting with a saber, rapier, dagger, or be unarmed to get
this benefit. Available for fighters, rouges, and some priests (Nesirie, Sera,
Eloéle).
Berghagen Fighting Style: (replaces Sword and Shield Style)
Costs two proficency slots. Character must have rapier proficency. The
Berghagen Style teaches the swordsman to mirror his opponent's posture and
guard, making it impossible to attack without first shifting position or
attacking the defender's blade. Therefore, a Berghagen Style swordsman cannot
be attacked with a small or medium weapon of weight 4 or less in my revised
weight system, in any round in which he has the initiative. Also, using
Berghagen Style gives the practitioner one free parry. In order to parry some
type of protection must be employed for the left (off) hand. In addition to a
buckler, a second weapon (of smaller size) a leather glove, cloak, or floppy
felt hat are all common. If an attack hits the character, they roll to hit
against the attacker's AC. If successful, the attack was parried and no
damage is taken. If not successful, normal damage is taken. Available for
fighters, rouges, and some priests (Nesirie, Sera, Eloéle).
For characters with both Brecht and Berghagen Styles:
Only one can be employed at once. This must be declared before initiatve is
rolled. If no mention is made, the previous round's style is still in effect,
or on the first round, Brecht Style is assumed.
When using a weapon with a speed of 4 (or 5 on horseback) or less, a critical
hit allows a second free attack, rolled normally.
On a fumble against an opponant with a rapier, a fumble may mean a broken
blade. Roll a saving throw vs crushing blow (succedes on a seven or above)
failure indicates a broken blade, now possessing the characteristics of a
dagger.
***
This system is abstract. But it satisfies my demands for a sence of who
should beat whom in combat, and how often. I also demand Endurance
proficency checks after 15 rounds of combat (for a rested character), or
20 rounds for characters with the Endrance proficency. PC's without the
prof check at -5, as always. Failure gives you a -2 for all rolls. The
exaustion rules come into effect here. Dwarves have staying power.
Whether its a judo competition, boxing, what have you, scoring is somewhat
abstract. What counts is not the realism of the system, but the
reasonability of the results.
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu
-
01-12-1998, 02:22 PM #14DKEvermoreGuest
Bang!
In a message dated 98-01-10 07:13:16 EST, you write:
> I personally don't think that gunpowder as Randal Porter mentioned
> (bombards and matchlocks) would unbalance the game hinging on one
> condition: THE PLAYERS DON'T INVENT IT!
>
Hmm... Invented in Aduria? That's scare the pants off 'em..
hehehehehehheheh
-
01-12-1998, 04:26 PM #15Neil BarnesGuest
Bang!
On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, James Ruhland wrote:
> it'd be interesting to see someone monekying around with primitive steam
> engines and clockworks (steam power and clockworks were known in
> hellenistic times, but was just used for "toys" like opening and closing
> temple doors, and raising and lowering fancy thrones.)
This is something Aubrae (my 18 intelligence Mage PC) thinks of a lot.
Her current plans involve using giant prisms & lenses to split light
into lots of different colours & duplicate a Prismatic Ray spell.
The only problems so far are:
a) Cost (she doesn't have 100+ GB to spare)
b) portability - complex arrays of mirrors & prisms & lenses are quite
fragile & heavy.
But one day. BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
:)
neil
-
01-13-1998, 12:57 AM #16c558382@showme.missouri.Guest
Bang!
In his highly respected book, _The Military Revolution_, Geoffrey Parker
writes (pp. 17-18):
"The performance of these early firearms, however, still left much to
be desired: a well trainedarcher could discharge ten arrows a minute, with
reasonable accuracy up to 200 meters, but the arquebus of the earlier c16
took several minutes to reload and was accurate only up to 100 meters.
And yet, for all that, the gun remained attractive because it required
virtually no training for use. As J.F. Guilmartin put it: 'Where a few
days and a good drill sergeant might suffice to train a reasonably good
arquebusier, many years and a whole way of life were needed to produce a
competent archer.' Undoubtedly the introduction of the musket in the
1550's, begining with the Spanish regiments in Italy, accelerated the
process, since the new weapon could throw a 2-ounce lead shot with
sufficient force to penetrate even plate armor 100 meters away. Gradually
the musketeer became master of the battlefield and drove off most other
military specialists. The first to go were the broadswordsmen, whose skill
with their double-handed claymores had struck terror into most enemies:
there are few references to them after 1515. The halberd vanished shortly
afterwars and for a time, even cavalry became relatively scarce.
Crossbowmen had largely disappeared by the mid-century, and even England
finally dropped longbows in favor of handguns during the 1560's.
Although a rearguard action was fought in favor of the longbow by some
armchair strategests, their case was not generally heeded: in Robert
Barret's _Theory and Practice of Modern Wars_, a military treatise of 1598,
a 'gentleman' reminded 'a captain', that Englishmen in the past had done
well enough with the longbow; to which the captain witheringly replied,
'Sir, that was then and now is now. The wars are much altered since the
fiery weapons first came up."
Hans Delbruk, in his fourth volume of _The Art of War_, (pp. 39-40) notes
that competitive shooting was being held as early as 1430, and that by this
time front and rear sights had already been invented. Furthermore, he
states, "The advantage of the new weapon over the bow and crossbow was its
great penetrating power and its long range. At the shooting tournaments
toward the end of the c15 shots were made with firearms to distances of
230 to 250 paces, whereas the range for a crossbow amounted to only 110 to
135 paces." He adds that this is with smoothbore firearms, rifled barrels,
though already invented, were "unsporting". He goes on to state that the
heavy knightly armor remained superior to the soft balls of the arquebus,
but that the musket's 2-ounce ball made armor superflouos. Du Bellay
writes of the musket in 1523.
J.R. Hale in his landmark _War and Society in Renaissance Europe, 1450-
1620_ wrote, (p. 46) "After a century-long apprenticeship portable firearms
and artillery came radically to effect the conduct and conditions of war.
For the soldier they changed the weapons he carried, the formations, the
nature of his wounds, for they broke bones and led to the loss of limbs
from gangrene." He too mentions the superior "hitting power" of firearms,
noting (p. 51) "From the 1540's the heavier musket, supported by a rest
stuck into the ground, gained acceptance because, in spite of its longer
loading time, it could piercwe all but specially reinforced siege armor at
200-240 paces."
It is clear that the scholarship of military history finds archery inferior
to firearms by the early c16, and absolutely outdated by the mid-c16.
It is also important to remember that PC's will not chose the military
models designed for a higher rate of fire, but will tend toward sporting
types with rifled barrels and higher acccuracy. Firearms cannot be compared
to pre-gunpowder weapons in a D&D campaign, without making all other
weapons obsolete, as occured in Europe, or watering the weapons down quite
a bit. DM's could introduce the earliest forms of the weapons, but might
then be forced to prevent their development artificially. In Birthright,
where a regent can say to his lieut. with the alchemy proficency, "Research,
good wizard. For I need a better fiery weapon."
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu
-
01-13-1998, 01:36 AM #17KiniggetGuest
Bang!
Guns SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN BIRTHRIGHT I'm an army ranger and I would much
rather sword fight then use my A1 M16 to fight some one. Even it there where
only cannons allowed they would still make castles obsolite and make a mockery
of realm spells like raze. If you want guns play some civil war game!
-
01-13-1998, 06:14 PM #18prtr02@scorpion.nspco.coGuest
Bang!
Ken G writes:
It is clear that the scholarship of military history finds archery inferior
to firearms by the early c16, and absolutely outdated by the mid-c16.
It is also important to remember that PC's will not chose the military
models designed for a higher rate of fire, but will tend toward sporting
types with rifled barrels and higher acccuracy. Firearms cannot be compared
to pre-gunpowder weapons in a D&D campaign, without making all other
weapons obsolete, as occured in Europe, or watering the weapons down quite
a bit. DM's could introduce the earliest forms of the weapons, but might
then be forced to prevent their development artificially. In Birthright,
where a regent can say to his lieut. with the alchemy proficency, "Research,
good wizard. For I need a better fiery weapon."
While this is accurate, it's not quite precise. As the historical examples
given show, the "earthly" record leaves considerable room for debate. (If it
didn't we wouldn't need historians! ;))
It's certainly true that it was much easier to train a recruit in the use
of "vile gunpowder" than the bow. What does this mean for BR? Archers should
take longer to muster? Handgunners should be cheap? How to make this fact fit
into the existing system would take some work.
Unless you alter Cerilian history in your campaign, firearms aren't going to
overtake bows for quite some time. On earth, the first handgunne appeared
between 1325 and 1365. Again, the matter is open for debate- I certainly lean
toward the latter. The Spanish musket of the 30 years war is 250 years away.
If you can get a BR campaign to cover that amount of time, and the
corresponding sweep of Cerialian history, count me in as a player! Most early
fiery weapon development occured in the area of siege weapons. It should be a
long time before your players can find or develop a hand cannon that's worth
the trouble for adventuring. At a seige, sure. Tromping through the sleet and
snow of Vosgaard to attack the ice troll's lair, no.
I don't think you'll have to artifically retard firearm development in any
"normal" campaign. Try for the feel of late hundred year's war. A few crude
bombards that we need to develop rules for as to how they affect castles will
add to the flavor of BR. I don't think Elizabethan-quality firearms would.
Unless of course you like my Cerialian Age of Exploration campaign kernel-
"Watch out evil empires of Anduria! The exiles of Cerilia are back with a
Vengence!- and ship mounted cannon *Kerboom!*.
Randax
-
01-13-1998, 09:48 PM #19c558382@showme.missouri.Guest
Bang!
I would agree with Randal Porter on both his counts, firstly that bombards
are not a serious problem until the mid c15. Before that they were used
much like old style artillery, to destroy buildings, more than against
walls. Second that introducing gunpowder next week into your campaign
(rather than as an existing feature) gives the DM a long time to use it as
a curiousity, while it remains comperable to the existing weapons. What
Delbruck esp. pointed out, was that the sporting versions of these
weapons, became superior by the mid c15, a full hundred years before their
domination of the battlefield.
Kenneth Gauck
c558382@showme.missouri.edu
-
01-14-1998, 02:28 PM #20TriztGuest
Bang!
On 13-Jan-98, c558382@showme.missouri.edu (c558382@showme.missouri.edu) wrote
about Re: [BIRTHRIGHT] - Bang!:
- ->I would agree with Randal Porter on both his counts, firstly that bombards
- ->are not a serious problem until the mid c15. Before that they were used
- ->much like old style artillery, to destroy buildings, more than against
- ->walls. Second that introducing gunpowder next week into your campaign
- ->(rather than as an existing feature) gives the DM a long time to use it as
- ->a curiousity, while it remains comperable to the existing weapons. What
- ->Delbruck esp. pointed out, was that the sporting versions of these
- ->weapons, became superior by the mid c15, a full hundred years before their
- ->domination of the battlefield.
Things happens much faster in a campagin than it would have happned if it had
been a real world. don't foget that when we are in introducing new things like
firearms, then it will be as easy to introduce other new things like the
compass (done in the brecht module) binoculars, windows of glas in every house
and so on. BR is already quite close renessance, look on brechtur, it's quite
long from the Hansa as I would liked to have it.
IMO if firearms would appear in BR it should only be some optional "rule" and
now books/adventures/modules would be written using it, this for it's much
easier to add something new than remove it, a good e.g. is Elminster and his
sisters for they are refereed to in every FR module. I fear that will happen
too when firearms are introduced to BR.
As so many has already pointed out (I have done this before), if you want to
have a RPG with firearms, go and buy one which has that already and not try to
change BR.
//Trizt of Ward^RITE
-
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Similar Threads
-
How Big Was the Bang at Deismaar?
By geeman in forum The Royal LibraryReplies: 30Last Post: 03-25-2003, 02:14 AM
Bookmarks