Re: [FateRPG] crunchy medieval combat
- I'm a bit late to this, and I apologize if I cover ground that someone else has covered. Looking at your initial requirements, here's how I would handle this.First, I would define the "Fight" skill as only covering Fists and Knives. It does not cover swords, axes, bows, crossbows, etc. Anyone attempting to use these weapons gets a -2 to their roll.The various weapons are modeled by stunts. If you take the basic sword stunt, you can use Fight to use that weapon without a penalty. Each weapon also gets a bonus and a penalty. Like say that an axe gets +1 vs. a defender who is using a shield because it can hack the shield apart, and a -1 to defense, because it requires large swings that leave openings. (I don't know anything about axe combat, so that's just an example). You can nest other stunts for the weapon, which grant similar "Style bonuses."As for combat veteran, I would simply have it as a stunt that requires several weapon style stunts as a prerequisite. It grants you +2 to Defend against anyone who does not have the Combat Veteran stunt. So a veteran has a lot of experience at staying alive against newbies, but he's on an even playing field with other veterans.As for Armor, I would probably do something like apply half the armor rating (round down) to Athletics rolls. You're more likely to get hit, but you take less damage.This is just some ideas that came to me as I considered your proposal, and I tried to keep it "as simple as possible but no simpler."On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Danni Coy <danni.coy@...> wrote:I really like the way that combat works with fate core... and will use it for most games I want explore if I can make it fit a combat orientated medieval/fantasy campaign a little better.goals arebe as simple as possible but no simpler.allow for different fighting styles that feel distinct.explore the tradeoffs necessary in real medieval combat.should produce an interesting narrative of the fight - description should matter.it's all kind of a jumble at the moment - but here are some ideas.1) experience counts. veterans can predict what you are going to do before you do it and counter act your plans. So far i have a feat but this could really by expanded - the feat basically works like this -
feat - combat veteran ->
after an attacker declares his/her intention to attack but before they describe the manner of attack the combat vetaran writes down what he thinks the attacker is about to do (where and how the blow will land). if the description matches the description the attacker gives then the attack is automatically defended.
2) heavy armour weapons are very effective but tire you out quickly. I want some sort of tension between strategies where you try and take out your opponents quickly or wearing your enemy down.Not sure how to do this simply.3) Different styles of fighting. I have the following but i am not entirely happy with it. Some weapons require a lot of physical strength to use well, Some weapons require good athletics the most popular weapons require neither (and thus require less overall commitment). This can be modelled by using modify one skill by another
Depends on just how crunchy you want to be. If you care about things like flanking, phalanxes, and engagement, then weapon length can be a major factor, but just using aspects might not be crunchy enough. This is why I made the tactics rules.
BillOn Mar 16, 2013 4:22 PM, "Christopher Bartlett" <themusicalbrewer@...> wrote:
Surely, modeling weapon length is just as simple as a create advantage action with fighting or whatever skill you can justify. You could I suppose tweak this action to be a stunt by saying that not only do you get the +2 for creating an advantage, but the opponent who is now disadvantaged by weapon length, i.e. the pike man with the dagger-wielder deep inside his range could receive a penalty as well, but at the resolution we are using the +2 advantage should be enough. Am I missing something that would complicate this further?