akrippler

fantasy 5e book has a firing into melee talent that is like a +4 ocv only to stop your shots from hitting allies

i like it. the write up in the fantasy book even gave us the idea to write out a short synopsis about the enemy prominent characters and what their motivations were during the battle. made for some interesting rp moments throughout the fight. and when the alternative is the gm just handwaving the whole thing and giving us a description of what happened after i much prefer this method. i think the rules lined out are logical and concise, just trying to work out the small kinks listed above

i appreciate you taking the time to respond but I'm not sure i understand your context. i didn't ask any questions about dealing with non combatants in a mass combat scenario. i like your thinking though, it's important to include drama and character motivation even in a mass combat scenario.

my group is using the fantasy 5e supplement, we're having a ton of fun so far. Were going to be doing some mass combat soon so i wanted to see if anyone else has any experience with the rules and or can possibly clarify some things. ive ran a mock combat using the rules, i feel they're encompassing enough, move smoothly, and are logical so please don't try to convince me to use different rules or run a mass combat theatrically via smaller battles. i just want some community input, see if im glancing over something. Under "fighting" then "attacking individuals" its stated that a unit cannot attack an individual character. However under "prominent characters" in "combat" its states that if a unit "attacks an individual character back" it should be resolved without unit modifiers. How would you interpret this? Perhaps a prominent character can only be attacked if he attacks a unit? Under "determining damage" its states you should subtract the defenders unit modifier from the attackers with a minimum of 0. however under "prominent characters" when referencing an individual character attacking a unit it states he might not be able to do damage because of the unit modifiers, shouldn't it be a minimum of 0 as well? lastly aoe's are never mentioned save for the fact that they could possibly hit every character. so i need opinions on if you guys think they should do extra damage to a unit, and how youd math it out.

Well I feel dumb having glanced over that lol

Anyone have any ideas how to model a misericorde (long thin dagger used to deliver killing blows to wounded knights or during a grapple, small enough to fit in the chinks of armor, or visors) Should it be a special weapon? Or a naked advantage to mimic a fighters skill with a dagger?

everything lars does seems possible with enough points dropped (ie enough trainning) so it seems modeled pretty well to me

bows are pretty powerful, we just started a low power fantasy game at 75 points each, the archer is capable of a higher ka than anyone else, and can do it from a good amount of range before suffering penalties. even with the built in taxes (ocv to stop him from hitting allies in melee, psls against range, etc...) everything is pretty cheap when it comes down to actually putting out damage.

firing does require concentration so half dcv. unless you fire defensively then -4 ocv. so just buy 4 psls to counteract that and you can fire defensively every time

im a huge fan of psl vs hit location

well this thread took a turn. if anyone is still interested: we've decided to just roll with combat luck stacking on armor for now. agreed as a group to re-evaluate if anyone thinks it has become a problem... tankiest character in the group is 9rpd/12pd with armor. it seems a little high, but were playing a more role-play heavy game, and hes still in danger of getting knocked unconscious. which to a degree makes sense to me.. if you gave me a normal person, even with a little above average strength, a long sword and told me to damage a competent maneuverable person in llamelar armor (he is suffering no encumbrance with his current str/weight) i dont think i could realistically do any body to him. now a person with training (modeled by str only with sword) that is capable of upping the damage to 2 and a half d6, is fully capable of knowing the right spots to hit to actually hurt the armored person. as for the philosophical combat luck debate: Ive always seen it as a "grazed you" option. Arrow bounces off the armor, of if unarmored, scrapes the bone etc.... Sometimes we have fun with it and rename the power "Just a scratch!" or "Rolling with the punch." DND has similar mechanics in that if the monster rolls a 17 against the 18 AC fighter its more fun to say "His jaw snaps shut on your forearm but is unable to pierce the armor" rather than a simple "he missed" i mean we could theoretically argue that hit points from DND and stun/body in hero are really just plot armor points, once you reach 0 you've expended your allotment of bullshit before the inevitable happens.

ive used the crap out of your website for a long time now. thanks for responding

Throw in an extra lim to make it cheaper? or just keep it as the same cost?

Friends and I are going to be starting a low power hero fantasy game. We play 5th ed. Everyone wants to scoop a level of combat luck on account of how useful it is. But I feel like theres a problem. 3rPD from combat luck, plus some armor, lets say we get 4 from it. Thats 7 rPD, isnt this too much? Its impossible to do body damage with the average 1d6 weapon. I understand there are ways to bump up the weapon damage (extra str, deadly blows, etc...) but the average person is going to be incapable of hurting you save from stun damage. I wanted to see if anyone else has any experience, or thoughts on the subject. Ideas? Am I making a problem out of nothing?

Side effect that causes damage to player (extended CON drain would be best imo, but thats a pain in the ass. do body damage to make things easier) every time they use it. secondarily side effect that summons unfriendly monster when they fail on activation roll.