Questions for a new RPG System

[wkwkwkwk1]

So, I was bouncing around an idea for an RPG system around my head (not that it will ever see the light of the sun, I just like to do this kind of creative thinking), and I came across a few conundrums:

Note: If I put a word within quotes, it means that it isn't the real word, but I use that word so that D&D players can understand what it is with relative ease

The stats for this system would be: Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Endurance. Fairly standard. However, the "skills" of this game (including stats), are bought through skill points, and it so happens that some skills are "Spot" and "Listen", for instance, which means one of two things: they don't get a bonus from any of the stats, or they get a bonus from Int, which already gives bonus to several things, because it is the only mental stat.

A possible solution would be to add a fifth stat, Wisdom. However, to prevent a stat from being better than the other, it would have to give bonuses to something else. For instance, it could give a bonus to "Will Saving Throws" (discussed further below), or be used for "Cleric" spells, which would also discourage "Mystic Theurge" character types. But it would require a different "MP" pool, which would complicate things quite a bit. And it would still be inferior to Int.

***

This system's magic is separated into "schools" [Battle ("Evocation"), Mental ("Enchantment"), Blessing (Abjuration), and Healing], which brings us to the second problem: this system uses a "damage reduction" system (sorry for the repetition of "system") for armor, along with an "Armor Class" system. The same system works for magic, but enchantment would be the only "save-or-suck" school, as opposed to the Battle school, which again relies in (on?) damage reduction, separated into energy types.

***

Third problem: Where to fit spells such as "Teleport"; Smite (a burst of holy damage, comparable to D&D's Holy Smite), and so on?

Thanks in advance, and sorry for the long read
wkwkwkwk1

Spoiler: Is this in the right forum section?

Show

I couldn't decide whether to put this thread under "Roleplaying Games" or "Homebrew Design", so please move accordingly.

[Grinner]

How much complexity are you willing to tolerate? Because I have an idea...

The stats for this system would be: Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Endurance. Fairly standard. However, the "skills" of this game (including stats), are bought through skill points, and it so happens that some skills are "Spot" and "Listen", for instance, which means one of two things: they don't get a bonus from any of the stats, or they get a bonus from Int, which already gives bonus to several things, because it is the only mental stat.

A possible solution would be to add a fifth stat, Wisdom. However, to prevent a stat from being better than the other, it would have to give bonuses to something else. For instance, it could give a bonus to "Will Saving Throws" (discussed further below), or be used for "Cleric" spells, which would also discourage "Mystic Theurge" character types. But it would require a different "MP" pool, which would complicate things quite a bit. And it would still be inferior to Int.

Add a fifth stat as a sort of mental hit points stat and offload as much of Intelligence's responsibilities onto it as possible, leading me to...

This system's magic is separated into "schools" [Battle ("Evocation"), Mental ("Enchantment"), Blessing (Abjuration), and Healing], which brings us to the second problem: this system uses a "damage reduction" system (sorry for the repetition of "system") for armor, along with an "Armor Class" system. The same system works for magic, but enchantment would be the only "save-or-suck" school, as opposed to the Battle school, which again relies in (on?) damage reduction, separated into energy types.

Have the other mental stat determine the character's "mental HP" and use Intelligence as the damage reduction element.

[wkwkwkwk1]

How much complexity are you willing to tolerate? Because I have an idea...



Add a fifth stat as a sort of mental hit points stat and offload as much of Intelligence's responsibilities onto it as possible, leading me to...



Have the other mental stat determine the character's "mental HP" and use Intelligence as the damage reduction element.

Hmmmm. You certainly got me thinking...

Let me sleep it over, and I'll tell you something tomorrow! Thanks!

[Scipio_77]

I have always been a fan of the WoD model, where you can combine any skill with any stat. Sure, realistically there are combinations which won't get used much. But if you have a climb skill then stamina+climb, intelligence+climb, dexterity+climb, strength+climb or wisdom+climb are all going to make sense in various situations.

[wkwkwkwk1]

Let's see:

I'm not a big fan of that WoD system, really. Some of the options are viable, though, maybe do something in the likes of: Climb (Str/Dex), in which only the best of the scores apply. Stamina (in this case Endurance) would only come into play in long climbs, under the shape of "Fortitude Saving Throws".

As for Wisdom...

Maybe there should be different Mana/Energy/Whatever pools for Mage and Priest spells, one from Int and another from Wis. But that would make things more complicated. Maybe the best from Int or Wis could be used for determining the Energy pool, and Int/Wis would only determine the "DC" of Mage/Priest spells, respectively, as well as the resistance to certain types of magic.

As for the schools of magic: perhaps Mage and Priest Spells could be separated into their respective schools, and one could choose to train each separately, increasing specialization and uniqueness.

About "Mental HP": There could be an optional rule where being hit by, say, a Stun or Daze spell would decrease the "MHP" pool by, say, 10 points. Therefore, when defending from future attacks, the bonus to "Will Saving Throws" would be reduced by 10. These points could only be replenished by resting, or powerful magic. Definitely interesting.

Comments?

[wkwkwkwk1]

Note: Keep in mind that this system is optimized for PbP RPGs, or similar mediums, where time is not a factor, and calculations won't make the game grind to a halt

Sooo... I came across another problem:

Historically speaking, soldiers wearing, say, full plate armor, would be pretty much immune (or close to it) to slashing weapons, right? From here on, I'm going to assume so. If that's wrong, please tell me so. In the case of piercing weapons, many attacks would be deflected, but some might get through gaps between the sections. In the case of bludgeoning attacks, the armor would absorb a part of the force of the blow, but they would probably be the most devastating weapons against such armor, I suppose. Again, if I'm wrong, please correct me.

So. About the RPG system consequences. Wearing full plate armor would give immunity (or close) to slashing attacks, a high "AC" bonus, but little "damage reduction" against piercing weapons, and low "AC" bonus but high "damage reduction" against bludgeoning weapons. This would be the "realistic" system, meaning a longsword fighter should have a spare mace for such occasions. However, this could be bad for those who want to play specific roles, such as, say, a swashbuckler, that would have his slashing weapons rendered useless by someone in full plate.

Now, I could take another, more "fun" approach, which would be to give full plate the same "AC" bonus and "damage reduction" against every type of damage, throwing realism out of the window.

What do you think?

wkwkwkwk1

[Honest Tiefling]

I am not wholly sure that is correct. A DnD Greatsword is a slashing weapon, yet, it probably resembles the claymore and other large weapons designed to battle full plate. Large picks are piercing, and yet were also sometimes used to pierce plate.

I would also worry about making Full Plate super duper good, while not penalizing people for trying to wield large weapons indoors.

[wkwkwkwk1]

I am not wholly sure that is correct. A DnD Greatsword is a slashing weapon, yet, it probably resembles the claymore and other large weapons designed to battle full plate. Large picks are piercing, and yet were also sometimes used to pierce plate.

I would also worry about making Full Plate super duper good, while not penalizing people for trying to wield large weapons indoors.

Certain (heavier) weapons will have the ability to pierce armor but, for instance, scimitars were not designed to pierce heavy armor, nor were short swords, right?

Addressing your second question: Every armor needs a certain Strength score to wear, even if the character is proficient with it. Besides, full plate would not be an armor by itself, but rather composed of several body slots. Also, large weapons will have penalties for fighting in close quarters.

[Vitruviansquid]

Two-handed swords were not able to defeat full plate armor, nor were spears, lances, and arrows, nor were hammers and maces. Very few weapons short of particularly powerful crossbows and firearms could be said to "defeat" full plate armor, but if you were a better fighter, there's a lot you can do with using weapons as levers, with wrestling the guy down and finding a gap in his armor close and personal-like, and such.

I haven't seen it work that well whenever games try to get into physical damage types like having separate slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning weapons. To follow your example, if plate armor grants immunity to slashing weapons, what if it was, say, ten foot tall ogre with an ogre-sized battleaxe? Couldn't that shear right through your human-scale plate armor? Even if it didn't, wouldn't the force of the battleaxe still basically act like a big club when it's wielded with that much force and crush the human like a tin can? Or, if I was using a spear against a skeleton that resists piercing, wouldn't I swing it around like a bludgeoning staff rather than try to stab it with the tip? Does this mean you have to stat out each possible usage of a weapon when you're writing your system?

[wkwkwkwk1]

Two-handed swords were not able to defeat full plate armor, nor were spears, lances, and arrows, nor were hammers and maces. Very few weapons short of particularly powerful crossbows and firearms could be said to "defeat" full plate armor, but if you were a better fighter, there's a lot you can do with using weapons as levers, with wrestling the guy down and finding a gap in his armor close and personal-like, and such.

I haven't seen it work that well whenever games try to get into physical damage types like having separate slashing, piercing, and bludgeoning weapons. To follow your example, if plate armor grants immunity to slashing weapons, what if it was, say, ten foot tall ogre with an ogre-sized battleaxe? Couldn't that shear right through your human-scale plate armor? Even if it didn't, wouldn't the force of the battleaxe still basically act like a big club when it's wielded with that much force and crush the human like a tin can? Or, if I was using a spear against a skeleton that resists piercing, wouldn't I swing it around like a bludgeoning staff rather than try to stab it with the tip? Does this mean you have to stat out each possible usage of a weapon when you're writing your system?

Eh, not really, so what do you suggest? Make the "AC bonus" equal to all types of damage?

[Vitruviansquid]

There are a lot of reasons I don't like AC either and all it implies, either.

I would personally just not even try to make the armors in my game that accurate to real life. Instead, I'd paint in the really broad strokes - you have no armor, "light" armors (made of non-rigid materials linen, leather, or cotton) and then "heavy" armors made of metal (whether it's as scales, mail, plates, or whatever). If you do locations for armor, then you might let someone have no coverage, partial coverage, and full coverage, and players can mix and match where they are covered with what kind of armor.

As for melee weapons, there really isn't a need to get very specific about what weapon everyone's wielding. Take all your short, swingy weapons (axes, maces, and swords) and make them all "sidearms" or "hand weapons" if that doesn't sound scary enough. Take all your big swingy weapons, like battleaxes, two handed swords, poleaxes, and such, and call them "Great Weapons" or "Two-handed weapons." Spears may or may not belong in their own category, depending on if your system supports them feeling unique. Maybe you can give players a bit of room to min-max by letting them specify a simple property for their weapon, like if they have a "stout sidearm," it might do more damage but be less accurate than a "light sidearm." Other properties you could use are "long," "cruel," "hidden," and so on.

I'm not sure what kind of feel you're going for, but I generally don't think it's appropriate to go as in-depth about the medieval armory as DnD does.

[wkwkwkwk1]

There are a lot of reasons I don't like AC either and all it implies, either.

I would personally just not even try to make the armors in my game that accurate to real life. Instead, I'd paint in the really broad strokes - you have no armor, "light" armors (made of non-rigid materials linen, leather, or cotton) and then "heavy" armors made of metal (whether it's as scales, mail, plates, or whatever). If you do locations for armor, then you might let someone have no coverage, partial coverage, and full coverage, and players can mix and match where they are covered with what kind of armor.

As for melee weapons, there really isn't a need to get very specific about what weapon everyone's wielding. Take all your short, swingy weapons (axes, maces, and swords) and make them all "sidearms" or "hand weapons" if that doesn't sound scary enough. Take all your big swingy weapons, like battleaxes, two handed swords, poleaxes, and such, and call them "Great Weapons" or "Two-handed weapons." Spears may or may not belong in their own category, depending on if your system supports them feeling unique. Maybe you can give players a bit of room to min-max by letting them specify a simple property for their weapon, like if they have a "stout sidearm," it might do more damage but be less accurate than a "light sidearm." Other properties you could use are "long," "cruel," "hidden," and so on.

I'm not sure what kind of feel you're going for, but I generally don't think it's appropriate to go as in-depth about the medieval armory as DnD does.

This system uses damage reduction (in percentage) as well.

Also... I don't really like that system. Though I won't be going as deep as D&D. Think Avernum and Geneforge from Spiderweb Software

[Jay R]

Spot and Listen can't be based on Intelligence. We all know the cliche of the absent-minded professor who is brilliant but doesn't pay attention. I suggest that you add a mental stat for "situational awareness," which would be used for Spot, Listen, Sense Motive, Survival, Surprise, Balance, etc.

But if I ever design a game, I won't use "Intelligence" in the usual sense. There would be some sort of Magic stat, used as wizards use Intelligence, and a "World Awareness" stat for Knowledge skills, but the character's intelligence would not be measured - simply because most people cannot play a character with lower INT than their own, and nobody can play one with higher intelligence than their own.

This would end all attempts from players to try to get me to make their decisions for them based on the idea that their character is so much smarter than they are.

[Honest Tiefling]

What about a Perception stat to do...Just that.

[wkwkwkwk1]

Spot and Listen can't be based on Intelligence. We all know the cliche of the absent-minded professor who is brilliant but doesn't pay attention. I suggest that you add a mental stat for "situational awareness," which would be used for Spot, Listen, Sense Motive, Survival, Surprise, Balance, etc.

But if I ever design a game, I won't use "Intelligence" in the usual sense. There would be some sort of Magic stat, used as wizards use Intelligence, and a "World Awareness" stat for Knowledge skills, but the character's intelligence would not be measured - simply because most people cannot play a character with lower INT than their own, and nobody can play one with higher intelligence than their own.

This would end all attempts from players to try to get me to make their decisions for them based on the idea that their character is so much smarter than they are.

I already decided to add a fifth stat, Wisdom, for such things. Thanks all the same!

Well, you can play a character with lower Int than yours (hell, many of us have probably done this in real life, even), but I agree you can't play a character with higher Int. Still, that will be the name of the stat, for the sake of simplicity and familiarity.

[wkwkwkwk1]

What about a Perception stat to do...Just that.

Eh... If I had several stats, like, say, seven or eight, I could do just that, but I'd like to keep them to a minimum, and keep them from being too situational. I'd like every stat to be helpful for every kind of character. Thanks all the same!

[kyoryu]

So, I was bouncing around an idea for an RPG system around my head (not that it will ever see the light of the sun, I just like to do this kind of creative thinking), and I came across a few conundrums:

Have you ever played or read GURPS?

[wkwkwkwk1]

Have you ever played or read GURPS?

I've heard (read: "read") about it, but never actually played or read it. I'm downloading the basic set right now, though.

[Knaight]

Eh... If I had several stats, like, say, seven or eight, I could do just that, but I'd like to keep them to a minimum, and keep them from being too situational. I'd like every stat to be helpful for every kind of character. Thanks all the same!

I routinely use four, and Perception makes the cut. I've found it's pretty much useful for everyone.

Historically speaking, soldiers wearing, say, full plate armor, would be pretty much immune (or close to it) to slashing weapons, right? From here on, I'm going to assume so. If that's wrong, please tell me so. In the case of piercing weapons, many attacks would be deflected, but some might get through gaps between the sections. In the case of bludgeoning attacks, the armor would absorb a part of the force of the blow, but they would probably be the most devastating weapons against such armor, I suppose. Again, if I'm wrong, please correct me.

It's more complicated than that. A lot of weapons that get labeled as slashing are actually pretty useful, you just don't try to cut with them. A lot of armored fighting involved getting around the armor, often with grappling, getting up close with a dagger, etc. Weapons that would get labeled as slashing were often really useful in getting to this point. There are a lot of ways to use swords as levers and then stab with them; hitting someone really hard with a polearm might throw them off balance a bit and open an opportunity for a better shot, axes also could be used as levers and were useful as hooks (though a lot of battlefield roles filled by larger axes in the earlier medieval period transferred to polearms later). A complete set of plate was also generally pretty effective against a lot of bludgeoning weapons.

You could try to model the complexities, focus a lot on grappling in armored combat, so on and so forth. Alternately, you could abstract a bit. One method would be to use armor as damage reduction, and pair it with a system where you do more damage with a better hit. That actually models a fair amount, as armor has to be worked around, but it has to be worked around less with some weapons than others, and in the context of much larger creatures striking much smaller ones, working around it just requires making a solid hit somewhere. Look at how Fudge does it, it's surprisingly elegant, though there are a few points that probably warrant tweaking (e.g. daggers and grappling).

[Madcrafter]

Have you ever played or read GURPS?

This is what I kept thinking reading through this thread. Though it may go a little too deep for your tastes, it has the sort of style of weapon armour interaction that you seem to be looking for.

You might want to start with just the quick start rules though, the Basic Set takes a while to get through.

[Arbane]

I've heard (read: "read") about it, but never actually played or read it. I'm downloading the basic set right now, though.

Before trying to build your own RPG, I strongly recommend reading as many wildly different ones as you can get hold of. D&D, Call of Cthulhu, GURPS, FATE, Nobilis, kill puppies for satan, Dread, Unknown Armies, Legend of the Wulin, World of Darkness, d6, Tribe 8, Monsterhearts, Tenra Bansho.... All have very different approaches to their rules, and what the game is meant to DO.

[Jay R]

Historically speaking, soldiers wearing, say, full plate armor, would be pretty much immune (or close to it) to slashing weapons, right?

Wrong. A more accurate statement is that they are pretty much immune to the use of a slashing weapon as it would be used against an unarmored fighter.

Fiore de Liberi gives many pages on how to defeat a man in full plate with a longsword. The short answer is don't slash at the plate. Instead, find the openings, slide inside, break his arm, knock him down, etc.

In the case of piercing weapons, many attacks would be deflected, but some might get through gaps between the sections.

Sure, but don't think of it as "some might get through". The thrusts will be aimed only at the gaps, and positioning is used to get access to them. Why would I stab at anything but facial openings, armpits, or sliding under a plate? You fight the conditions in front of you; you don't fight as if he's unarmored and hope for a lucky result.

In the case of bludgeoning attacks, the armor would absorb a part of the force of the blow, but they would probably be the most devastating weapons against such armor, I suppose. Again, if I'm wrong, please correct me.

Probably, but you still aim for weaker points, not at the overlap of two plates.

So. About the RPG system consequences. Wearing full plate armor would give immunity (or close) to slashing attacks, a high "AC" bonus, but little "damage reduction" against piercing weapons, and low "AC" bonus but high "damage reduction" against bludgeoning weapons. This would be the "realistic" system, meaning a longsword fighter should have a spare mace for such occasions. However, this could be bad for those who want to play specific roles, such as, say, a swashbuckler, that would have his slashing weapons rendered useless by someone in full plate.

Now, I could take another, more "fun" approach, which would be to give full plate the same "AC" bonus and "damage reduction" against every type of damage, throwing realism out of the window.

What do you think?

wkwkwkwk1

Unless you want to simulate a much more detailed reality than you currently know, you need to simplify it. Yes, it's harder to get an attack to slide in beneath a plate, so the plate improves general defensiveness, but generally, any metal weapon can defeat any armor - if the wielder knows how to use that weapon against that armor.

So giving plate the same AC against any weapon is less unrealistic than you think; it's just that the simulation isn't specific enough to detail the fact that this doesn't represent the strength of the armor, but the difficulty of slipping past it.

[kyoryu]

Before trying to build your own RPG, I strongly recommend reading as many wildly different ones as you can get hold of. D&D, Call of Cthulhu, GURPS, FATE, Nobilis, kill puppies for satan, Dread, Unknown Armies, Legend of the Wulin, World of Darkness, d6, Tribe 8, Monsterhearts, Tenra Bansho.... All have very different approaches to their rules, and what the game is meant to DO.

I'd totally agree with this. It sounds like you've had a very limited exposure to systems, and getting a good feel for how different systems attack various problems is a great way to start your design.

[wkwkwkwk1]

I routinely use four, and Perception makes the cut. I've found it's pretty much useful for everyone.

Do you mind telling me the other four stats? It's just because I find it hard to model several things without either of Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Endurance

It's more complicated than that. A lot of weapons that get labeled as slashing are actually pretty useful, you just don't try to cut with them. A lot of armored fighting involved getting around the armor, often with grappling, getting up close with a dagger, etc. Weapons that would get labeled as slashing were often really useful in getting to this point. There are a lot of ways to use swords as levers and then stab with them; hitting someone really hard with a polearm might throw them off balance a bit and open an opportunity for a better shot, axes also could be used as levers and were useful as hooks (though a lot of battlefield roles filled by larger axes in the earlier medieval period transferred to polearms later). A complete set of plate was also generally pretty effective against a lot of bludgeoning weapons.

You could try to model the complexities, focus a lot on grappling in armored combat, so on and so forth. Alternately, you could abstract a bit. One method would be to use armor as damage reduction, and pair it with a system where you do more damage with a better hit. That actually models a fair amount, as armor has to be worked around, but it has to be worked around less with some weapons than others, and in the context of much larger creatures striking much smaller ones, working around it just requires making a solid hit somewhere. Look at how Fudge does it, it's surprisingly elegant, though there are a few points that probably warrant tweaking (e.g. daggers and grappling).

Thanks for the great insight!

Before trying to build your own RPG, I strongly recommend reading as many wildly different ones as you can get hold of. D&D, Call of Cthulhu, GURPS, FATE, Nobilis, kill puppies for satan, Dread, Unknown Armies, Legend of the Wulin, World of Darkness, d6, Tribe 8, Monsterhearts, Tenra Bansho.... All have very different approaches to their rules, and what the game is meant to DO.

As I said at the very beginning of this thread, this is not a serious project, it's just something I've been bouncing around my head, both to exercise my creative thinking and because I just like it

Wrong. A more accurate statement is that they are pretty much immune to the use of a slashing weapon as it would be used against an unarmored fighter.

Fiore de Liberi gives many pages on how to defeat a man in full plate with a longsword. The short answer is don't slash at the plate. Instead, find the openings, slide inside, break his arm, knock him down, etc.

Sure, but don't think of it as "some might get through". The thrusts will be aimed only at the gaps, and positioning is used to get access to them. Why would I stab at anything but facial openings, armpits, or sliding under a plate? You fight the conditions in front of you; you don't fight as if he's unarmored and hope for a lucky result.

Probably, but you still aim for weaker points, not at the overlap of two plates.

Unless you want to simulate a much more detailed reality than you currently know, you need to simplify it. Yes, it's harder to get an attack to slide in beneath a plate, so the plate improves general defensiveness, but generally, any metal weapon can defeat any armor - if the wielder knows how to use that weapon against that armor.

So giving plate the same AC against any weapon is less unrealistic than you think; it's just that the simulation isn't specific enough to detail the fact that this doesn't represent the strength of the armor, but the difficulty of slipping past it.

Again, thanks for the great insight!

As for aiming the piercing weapons at the openings, well, the other guy will try to block the jab with the plates, rather than let you jab at the openings.

Also, if, say, a longsword and a mace were to hit the same person in full plate (assuming it doesn't get through the gaps), wouldn't the mace have a greater effect in terms of balance and so on?

[Jay R]

As for aiming the piercing weapons at the openings, well, the other guy will try to block the jab with the plates, rather than let you jab at the openings.

Of course. This is common to every blow fought in every fight. The opponent is trying to stop the blow you're throwing. Fiore dei Liberi and Lichtenauer spend time in their 15th century books explaining how to do this, and how to prevent it.

Also, if, say, a longsword and a mace were to hit the same person in full plate (assuming it doesn't get through the gaps), wouldn't the mace have a greater effect in terms of balance and so on?

Depends? What mace blow, and what longsword blow?

If the mace holder throws a shot at the side of the helmet, he's throwing a good mace shot. It will have good effect - knocking him off balance, dazing him, maybe even some damage, if the helm isn't padded well.. If the swordsman throws the same shot the same way, he's throwing a worthless longsword shot, and it will have little effect.

But similarly, if the swordsman throws a slow, careful thrust that comes up under the gorget, he could easily cut open a throat or artery, ending the fight instantly. If the mace holder throws the same shot, it will do essentially nothing. That's not a mace shot.

That's why he doesn't throw that shot.

There are good, legitimate blows for each weapon, but they aren't the same blows.

[wkwkwkwk1]

Of course. This is common to every blow fought in every fight. The opponent is trying to stop the blow you're throwing. Fiore dei Liberi and Lichtenauer spend time in their 15th century books explaining how to do this, and how to prevent it.



Depends? What mace blow, and what longsword blow?

If the mace holder throws a shot at the side of the helmet, he's throwing a good mace shot. It will have good effect - knocking him off balance, dazing him, maybe even some damage, if the helm isn't padded well.. If the swordsman throws the same shot the same way, he's throwing a worthless longsword shot, and it will have little effect.

But similarly, if the swordsman throws a slow, careful thrust that comes up under the gorget, he could easily cut open a throat or artery, ending the fight instantly. If the mace holder throws the same shot, it will do essentially nothing. That's not a mace shot.

That's why he doesn't throw that shot.

There are good, legitimate blows for each weapon, but they aren't the same blows.

I see. Therefore, the abstraction through Attack Rolls and AC

[wkwkwkwk1]

Of course. This is common to every blow fought in every fight. The opponent is trying to stop the blow you're throwing. Fiore dei Liberi and Lichtenauer spend time in their 15th century books explaining how to do this, and how to prevent it.

Depends? What mace blow, and what longsword blow?

If the mace holder throws a shot at the side of the helmet, he's throwing a good mace shot. It will have good effect - knocking him off balance, dazing him, maybe even some damage, if the helm isn't padded well.. If the swordsman throws the same shot the same way, he's throwing a worthless longsword shot, and it will have little effect.

But similarly, if the swordsman throws a slow, careful thrust that comes up under the gorget, he could easily cut open a throat or artery, ending the fight instantly. If the mace holder throws the same shot, it will do essentially nothing. That's not a mace shot.

That's why he doesn't throw that shot.

There are good, legitimate blows for each weapon, but they aren't the same blows.

I see. Therefore, the abstraction through Attack Rolls and AC, I suppose. Thanks!

[Knaight]

Do you mind telling me the other four stats? It's just because I find it hard to model several things without either of Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, and Endurance

The complete set is Strength, Agility, Toughness, Perception. It's not the only set I use, but it's a generic fallback that I use pretty heavily. Intelligence is generally rolled into skills instead of working broadly; the system is one where one rolls just an attribute or just a skill so this works.

[wkwkwkwk1]

The complete set is Strength, Agility, Toughness, Perception. It's not the only set I use, but it's a generic fallback that I use pretty heavily. Intelligence is generally rolled into skills instead of working broadly; the system is one where one rolls just an attribute or just a skill so this works.

Looks good, but not really my approach

[Knaight]

Looks good, but not really my approach

I suspect it's not many people's approach. Point is, Perception holds its own even in that context. Granted, as a GM I am really fond of ambushes, spies, etc. but it works out.