Fixing T5 - BRAWLING & BLADE COMBAT

[Supplement Four]

- BRAWLING & BLADE COMBAT -



Problem: Some find the simple opposed throw mechanic provided in T5 for unarmed or melee combat to be undesireable and even broken in some aspects.





Solution: Use the rule provided here as the fighting task for either Brawling or Balde combat.





Brawling & Blade Combat Fighting Task

3D < (C + S) + (DEF) + (Mods)

C+S = Characteristic + Skill
DEF = Opponent's Defense represented by the negative value of opponent's skill
Mods = Modifiiers that may apply to the situation





Optional Rule: Multiple Attacks

Combatants may attempt two or more attacks during the combat round at the cost of +1D to difficulty per extra attack. Thus, a character attempting two attacks in a round would make each attack using 4D difficulty.

If this optional rule is used, then Ref's are encouraged split the attacks as fairly as possible. For example, if Arid is making three attacks against Zoedin, then allow Arid the first attack, followed by Zoedin, followed by Arid's other two attacks. And, all of Arid's attacks will be made at 5D difficulty.

 

[cuTTer]

- BRAWLING & BLADE COMBAT -



Problem: Some find the simple opposed throw mechanic provided in T5 for unarmed or melee combat to be undesireable and even broken in some aspects.

I suspect I may ultimately go with what was in the Beta, Fighting was an Action, not a Task.

The difference? All combat was resolved on 2d6, with characteristic, skill, speed, size, range and 'mods' working the same way but you minused range (again) at the end.

Mods for H-t-H were attacker's Str minus defender's Str.

I put together a spreadsheet comparing the numbers required and their associated percentages for the Action system and the Task system, I think I prefer the former.

 

[Supplement Four]

I suspect I may ultimately go with what was in the Beta, Fighting was an Action, not a Task.

The difference? All combat was resolved on 2d6, with characteristic, skill, speed, size, range and 'mods' working the same way but you minused range (again) at the end.

If I understand correctly, you subtract range twice with HtH?

Why would you need a Speed mod with HtH combat? Or...that's a zero modifier with HtH?

Would you mind showing me a simple example?

Mods for H-t-H were attacker's Str minus defender's Str.

Hm. I can see that, but it seems that skill makes more sense. In my task above in the OP, the target number is really: Characteristic + Skill - Defender's Skill.

This way, the more skilled character at fighting gets an advantage--and still, a big, tough, high STR SOB is still harder to beat up than a weakling. But, a weakling with skill will be able to defend himself better against an attacker with low skill but high STR.

 

[Magnus von Thornwood]

Fixing the Titles.

Could you stop with the "Fixing" in the thread titles and perhaps use a more neutral and correct word like "Optional" or even "House Rules" since "Fixing" implies broken as opposed to I don't like how the Core Rules as written function?

The Core Rules aren't bloody broken and need fixing, they work pretty well you just don't like how they do. Which are two different things.

Also we already have two sticky threads that cover errata. :devil:

 

[Supplement Four]

Could you stop with the "Fixing" in the thread titles and perhaps use a more neutral and correct word like "Optional" or even "House Rules" since "Fixing" implies broken as opposed to I don't like how the Core Rules as written function?

The Core Rules aren't bloody broken and need fixing, they work pretty well you just don't like how they do. Which are two different things.

Also we already have two sticky threads that cover errata. :devil:

I think most agree that T5 needs "fixing" and is hard to play without tweaks or House Rules, straight out of the box. Therefore, I think the titles are appropriate.

Some things about T5 are just down right broken. For example (since this thread is about Brawling and Blade combat), the as-is opposed throw from T5, hidden in the skills chapter, doesn't fit well a character fighting three enemies (three baddies against one character). Some would call that broken, since that situation can easily happen in a game. Others would say it's just a poorly written rule.

Eitherway, it needs fixing, unless you're OK with one baddie NPC having a strong edge against three PC brawlers.

The PCs would do better to send in one fighter against the baddie rather than the PC and two friends. Every additional fighter on a side gives the smaller side an edge to win, using the T5 mechanic.

Since that defies logic, I think its easy to agree the mechanic is broken.

And, needs to be fixed.

 

[SanDragon]

Reverse the polarity!

(that is, change the advantage to those who have numbers on their side.)

 

[SpaceBadger]

Eitherway, it needs fixing, unless you're OK with one baddie NPC having a strong edge against three PC brawlers.

The PCs would do better to send in one fighter against the baddie rather than the PC and two friends. Every additional fighter on a side gives the smaller side an edge to win, using the T5 mechanic.

Since that defies logic, I think its easy to agree the mechanic is broken.

Well... I'm not personally this good, but I have heard other judokas (judo fighters, judo players, whatever term your club uses) who are more skilled state that it is easier to fight two than one, because you can use them against each other in various ways. (I suppose that also depends on them being less skilled, otherwise they would be able to avoid that tactic.)

Just something for consideration, while I agree that in most circumstances that mechanic sounds a bit off.

Edit: Hmm, on reflection, actually I think I could pull this off on two or more opponents as long as they were less skilled than me. I think that is the key, that the solo guy is at least one or two skill levels better than the multiple opponents. Against a couple of unskilled dummies just looking to gang up and not knowing what they are doing... that could be fun. :devil:

 

[SpaceBadger]

I just took another read on S4's original post, and overall I like it. I think the subtraction of opponent's skill accounts for the importance of that differential that I mentioned in my post above, and the issue of unequal numbers of combatants in a fight could be factored in as MODS in his formula.

I do think there should be some accounting for multiple opponents actually making a fight easier if there is a sufficient difference in skill levels. Say at one skill level higher, the solo fighter doesn't take a negative mod for being outnumbered; at two skill levels higher, he actually gets a positive mod as he can use the opponents against each other. (Edit: just realized I'm thinking in CT terms for skill levels; does T5 generally go for higher levels? If so then adjust as appropriate.)

I don't know if T5 breaks down brawling into multiple skills, or just uses a catch-all "Brawling" skill. To my mind, if you want to distinguish different types of brawling, it could be appropriate to have one skill for striking-oriented martial arts like boxing or karate or taekwondo, another for grappling/throwing arts like judo and wrestling, and the "brawling" as a catch-all for just using whatever technique you've got, probably learned through experience rather than training (or for mixed arts such as jujitsu).

As for using one type of brawling skill against another, I think one ought to ignore all the folks who think their particular method is just the best and should have bonuses, and instead just match skill level against skill level, generally.

Again looking at my own experience, I have done wrestling and judo, but never studied any striking type martial arts beyond a couple of lessons. My experience w hitting people is pretty much limited to scuffles in junior high and high school (which would of course have gotten me expelled under current rules; alas for our poor sheltered youth of today!).

Still, if I was fighting a novice at striking type fighting, I'm pretty sure that he would find himself (a) not hitting me, and (b) ending up hitting the ground hard, or in a rather painful hold, or both. But if the punchy-kicky guy was higher skilled than me, my attempt to grapple or throw would most likely end up with me getting punched or kicked someplace tender and painful. So I don't think any particular type of brawling should be placed higher than any other, just compare overall skill levels.

*

Edit: The utility I see in differentiating different types of brawling would depend on certain situations, as a striking-oriented fighter could have a neg mod if he was specifically trying to grapple or throw an opponent, and a grappling fighter would not do well at jump-kicking no matter how good he is at wrestling. I guess it depends on the level of detail desired; for me, that kind of detail adds to the roleplay, maybe the some way that some feel about the details of their guns.

*

 

[Supplement Four]

Say at one skill level higher, the solo fighter doesn't take a negative mod for being outnumbered; at two skill levels higher, he actually gets a positive mod as he can use the opponents against each other.

I thought about multiple opponents when I wrote the rule. The DEF mod will come from the attacker's main target, even if the target has two buddies helping him. Though, the attacker can switch the focus of his attack to a new defender in the round, if the attacker uses the optional multi-attack rule.

And, there are things like a bare-fisted fighter against a samurai with a sword. The Ref should up the bare-fisted fighter's difficulty to hit the sword-bearer by +1D, and probably, the samurai should get -1D difficulty to hit the dude that's only using his fists to defend himself.

I don't know if T5 breaks down brawling into multiple skills, or just uses a catch-all "Brawling" skill.

It looks likes there's a basic Fighter Skill, and there are Knowledges. Blades and Unarmed are the main knowledge skills, but it looks like Melee or Brawling can be used inter-changeably. In other words, Brawling is a type of Unarmed Knowledge.

 

[Supplement Four]

Reverse the polarity!

(that is, change the advantage to those who have numbers on their side.)

How would you do that with the T5 Opposed roll as written? It's one task for an entire combat, or one task for one round of fighting. The rules are similar but not exactly the same. And, they work OK as long as all combatants are in it for themselves--no teaming up.

The rule becomes broken when it is used to handle allies vs. enemy allies.

 

[cuTTer]

If I understand correctly, you subtract range twice with HtH?

Not just H-t-H, any combat. It just so happens that for H-t-H and melee your speed and range considerations will typically be zero.

Lets take a guy with Strength 7 and a Skill of 3, so his Fighting Number is 10.

He's Fighting another dude with the same stats, Size 5, Range 0, Speed 0.

2d6 < [Fighting Number 10] + [Speed 0] + [Size 5 - Range 0] + [Att.Str 7 - Def.Str 7] - [Range 0], so 15 or less on 2d6.

It may not be pretty but I can understand it.

For ranged combat you are subtracting range twice, once to represent the distance to the target, once to modify the size of the target, but still just rolling 2 or 3d6.

If I ever get a chance to actually run T5 I'll probably go my own way with opposed rolls based on margin of success rather than simply the lowest number rolled.

 

[Supplement Four]

2d6 < [Fighting Number 10] + [Speed 0] + [Size 5 - Range 0] + [Att.Str 7 - Def.Str 7] - [Range 0], so 15 or less on 2d6.

Hmm.. That's seems clunky to me.

I think the rule should be a bit more intuitive and easier to calculate in the heat of the moment. For now, I'm sticking with the OP.

 

[cuTTer]

Hmm.. That's seems clunky to me.

I think the rule should be a bit more intuitive and easier to calculate in the heat of the moment. For now, I'm sticking with the OP.

Removing the unnecessary components it's essentially FN + 5, +/- Str difference, I can live with it, though freely admit I'm not sure if I want to yet.