Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Bang!

  1. #11
    Tim Nutting
    Guest

    Bang!


  2. #12
    Samuel Weiss
    Guest

    Bang!


  3. #13
    c558382@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

  4. #14
    DKEvermore
    Guest

    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

  5. #15
    Neil Barnes
    Guest

    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

  6. #16
    c558382@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

  7. #17
    Kinigget
    Guest

    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!

  8. #18
    prtr02@scorpion.nspco.co
    Guest

    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

  9. #19
    c558382@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

  10. #20
    Trizt
    Guest

    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

  1. How Big Was the Bang at Deismaar?
    By geeman in forum The Royal Library
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 03-25-2003, 02:14 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
BIRTHRIGHT, DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, D&D, the BIRTHRIGHT logo, and the D&D logo are trademarks owned by Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and are used by permission. ©2002-2010 Wizards of the Coast, Inc.