Even ArM's sacred cows are hotly contested, but for me it boils down to a few things.

1. Mythic Europe setting, where the world is "as contemporary 'people' believed it to be", but also including the fictional Order of Hermes, and myths and legends taken from any time prior to the setting date, and at most a century afterwards.

2. A non-balanced group of character types- magi, companion and grog, where the magi is more 'powerful' than any other type.

3. Troupe play, based around a covenant made up of magi, companions and grogs.

4. The core mechanic for Abilities being Stat + Skill + mods + 1D10. The core mechanic for Arts being Stat + Tech + Form + mods + 1D10. A core mechanic for laboratory time; an aging mechanic that allows the game to be played over the course of a *covenant's* lifetime. Different die types-- stress, simple and quality.

5. A four part division of the supernatural world-- Divine, Infernal, Magical and Faerie.

6. An Order of Hermes made up of 12 Houses and Tribunals.

~Alex

I mean, the actual mechanics seem about right (attack total vs defence, any carry over added to damage etc) so in my opinion it is probably the round structure that causes the problem (aside from the fact that different readings of the combat section have me rolling damage one week and using a flat score the next - can anyone tell me the correct way to do this?).

I want to adjust the combat round slightly so that instead of all the strict intent, init/engage, move, missile, melee, magic (and fatigue if using vanilla rules) we just have a single Action per round. The mechanics stay the same but you sort out your initiative and that gives your action order in the sub-melee. I don't particularly care what you are doing; you act when it is your turn (okay, or store up your move for later in the round or something).

Can anybody see any problems in that? Can anybody suggest a system (using the same actual die rolls) that would make combat easier and faster to play?

As for the other points:

Example ease factors should be given for each broad ability type. For instance, to craft a masterwork is difficulty 15, to "know" the name of the 3rd bishop of Verona is a knowledge difficulty of 12.

I think, with some inference, we can work out when a spell needs to be created as a ritual (for some reason I want to say "when the spell affects an are larger than the magus can see"). But I agree, we should build on the 4th edition and tighten the definitions up further.

Keep Imaginem, please.

I would like to see the Confidence rules disappear, or at least be restricted to some kind of virtue. That is personal prejudice though, as I have never found them that useful (still, better than the 3rd edition version of the rule though).

I'm sure inspiration will strike at some point, but untill then, that is my short wish list.

Mark

My combat goes roughly like this:

Roll initiative

Each combatant gets one attack and one defence.

Attacker rolls stat + skill + mod + 1D10

Defender rolls stat + skill + mod + 1D10

Attacker can inflict damage or keep margin

Defender gets to attack.

If the defender gets attacked more than once in the same round, they cannot defend against it unless they give up their attack.

A shield gives a free defence action-- thus someone with a shield can be attacked by two people at once and still attack, or they could defend against three people.

Magic goes at the end of the round, unless fastcasting, in which case the Qik + Finesse roll determines normal initiative.

I also roll for initiative each round for the first two rounds; I keep the initiative of the second round for the rest of the combat.

>>I think, with some inference, we can work out when a spell needs to be created as a ritual<<

I agree. IMO, the only definite cause for a spell to be a ritual should be its duration; anything over Sun.

I'd be persuaded that Magnitude 7+ spells should always be rituals.

>>I would like to see the Confidence rules disappear, or at least be restricted to some kind of virtue.<<

I disagree here. I like Confidence and really think it should be more like the Willpower from White Wolf Storyteller.

~Alex

In hierarchical order of sacred bovinity, the things to keep or not keep IMO are:

(1) The setting - including:
(1.1) Mythic Europe as historical Europe of a given time, plus superstitions and beliefs of contemporaries come somewhat more true than we perceive it now.
(1.2) The Order of Hermes, including its theories about magic, the Code of Hermes, the Peripheral Code, and its #### into Mythic Europe as grown over four editions now.
(1.3) The Hedge Magicians as embodiments of medieval magical practices and believes.
(1.4) The framework of the Realms of Magic, Faerie, Divine and Infernal.
(1.5) At least some of the Secret Societies from Mysteries.

The best argument I have for a publisher to keep the setting of a 5th edition mostly intact is the fate of Traveller after Traveller - The New Era. That transition to a substantially altered background was very cleverly done, and nevertheless killed the game for good.

(1.1) Historical medieval Europe undergoes a major transition between 1240 and 1260. So it is a very important decision, how far to advance in time for the 5th edition.
Will the Stupor Mundi Federico II still be alive, and hence all the political and even apocalyptic expectations about him? Will the flagellant's movement have begun?
How strong will the influence of the Dominican scholars be? How much improved the general knowledge of Aristotle?
Will 'ad exstirpandam' have been issued already? How common will persecution of individual heresies have become?
How far will the wilderness have been pushed back? How much interregional trade of grain and migration of herds will there be?
Much of this is decided by just going one or two decades more or less into the future for the canonical time of 5th edition. I suggest to be cautious here, and to not advance beyond 1240.

(1.2) IMO nothing should be changed here. Retrofitting changes here into existing campaign would be very difficult since they redefine the world of the PCs. Also the relation between Order and Mythic Europe requires very delicate handling in each individual campaign, and does not bear tampering well.

(1.3) IMO at least Cunning-folk and Natural Magicians are now fully part of the setting, should be kept, and covered early in 5th edition. A discussion of hedge magic rules follows below.

(1.4) If in 5th edition canonical time is advanced beyond 1250, the Realms might have to be tempered to the changing believes of the people, and lose some of their fantastic appeal.

(1.5) For 5th edition it will certainly be considered whether to fully integrate The Mysteries into the setting, or not. If they are integrated fully, about two third of them would likely have to go or be downgraded to status of Esoteric Lineage, unless the number of Hermetic Magi in the world were greatly increased, thus significantly changing the setting. If it comes to this, I would like the following to be kept: Golden Bee, Wise Ones, Heralds, Mantes, Cult of Twilight, Huntress of the Wood, Pillar of Hiram. I choose those from which IMO the greatest variety of campaigns will benefit, and which are still unobtrusive enough so as not to interfer with SG decisions about their campaigns.

(2) The rules system on Hermetic Magic - including:
(2.1) The basic system for Hermetic Magic with its 5 Techniques and 10 Forms.
(2.2) The assignment of magnitudes to effects.
(2.3) The mechanics surrounding this system (Magic Resistance, types of spells and spell casting, aura interworking etc.).

The basic system of Hermetic Magic is the founding stone of Ars Magica, so changing it substantially would incur some of the same risks than changing the background. Still I have more desiderata here than for the setting.

(2.1) should stay as is, IMO.

(2.2) A 5th edition is a marvellous chance to remedy some of the quirks introduced by ArM4. Capabilities assigned to characters in a grown campaign setting must fit this setting and rules systematics must adapt to it, not vice versa.
I read that there is some discussion to throw out Imaginem completely. It - especially Perdo Imaginem - is IMO a major source of problems in ArM4, but I certainly would not go that far.
Magically created wealth could be handled conclusively by additions to the Code of Hermes (as in Heirs to Merlin already done for the Stonehenge Tribunal), or also in the framework of new systematics.
Both problems were introduced together with the Basic-Range-Duration-Target scheme. When these scheme is redone for a 5th edition, the problems can as quickly disappear as they appeared in ArM4.
(A scheme for determination of magnitude which encompasses other qualities of Target than just its extensiveness could e. g. easily remove both the 'PeIm' and the 'magically created wealth' problems.)

(2.3) Here 5th edition has a chance for greater clarity and stringency which it should not pass by, especially if targeting new players.
* Magic resistance could be rewritten from scratch, providing clear rules as to which magic must be resisted, can be resisted or cannot be resisted, when that resisting will occur and what its effects are.
* I suggest also to provide some means to boost a Parma with Vis, to keep it viable in direct confrontations of Magi even after five years of campaign. This would also fit better into the setting than the current situation, where everybody who has spent ten years as a Magus, has enough Vis and courage, and draws quicker, can breach the Parma of a centenarian Magus.
* Integrating the Ritual into the spell systematics is IMO desirable.
* The attempt in the Mysteries to give new importance to the otherwise marginalized Penetration talent and to mastering spells should at least be considered when designing 5th edition.

(3) The rest of the basic mechanics, including:
(3.1) Characteristics
(3.2) Ability system
(3.3) Learning and study rules
(3.4) Mechanics of nonhermetic traditions
(3.5) Combat system

Most rules here have already been freely changed in the past, but for the basic system of characteristics, abilities and dice rolling.

(3.1) To promote roleplaying, I would appreciate if 5th edition gave a clear upper limit for the four mental characteristics of humans, which cannot be exceeded even with the help of magic. In ArM4 terms, this could be stating, that no magic can bring a human (or Magus') Intelligence, Perception, Communication or Presence beyond what is explained under Mythic Characteristic.

(3.2) Especially with regard to the study rules, it might make sense to revise the distribution of abilities between talents, skills and knowledges. E. g. some crafts are actually technical knowledges which can be studied from books (like craft: architecture or craft: veterinarian), while Finesse and Penetration look to me like skills, which can be taught and not only practiced.
* Rolling D10 to add to sums of skills and characteristics overly stresses the random component of undertakings, as Michel de Verteuil noticed. He suggested rolling D6 instead, which appeals to me, too. Botches and critical successes would then of course also need ...[Message truncated]

Regarding points 1 and 2 aside from reversing their importance I am in complete agreement (I find system more important than setting for Ars.)

On point three my opinions differ from your own.

3.1 I've never had any need for characteristic caps (and I've been playing on and off since 1988). In Ars 4th edition legendary characteristics are given a rating of +5 (although you can have a +5 without being legendary.) How do you justify going higher? A guideline that I use in my games when it comes to designing spells is that the characters are not aware of attributes, as a result the spell description should not speak about modifying the attributes directly. a spell that increases a person's ability to lift and carry objects would be a good spell. A spell that allows a character to use their weapon with greater force would be fine. A spell that allows a character to break down doors with the power of their body would be a good spell. A spell that increases a character's strength presupposes that the inventing magus has a clear conception of game mechanics, which is illogical.

So in short. I haven't had the problem but I don't think that it would be a big deal to include sufficient text in the new edition to head off the issue without taking up too much space.

3.2 Yuck!! a pox on your pathetic six-sided die. Have you ever played shadowrun? If you have, you've probably noticed that a die roll modifier of even one on a six sider is critical. You might as well not even roll dice in Ars Magica if you change to a six-sided die. Using a ten sided die a contest in which one of the participants has a skill + stat of 2 more than the other is won by the more skilled character 64% of the time and tied 10% (and naturally won by the less skilled opponent 26% of the time) when using simple dice. When a six-sided die is used the more skilled character wins 72% of the time and they tie 17% of the time. So for a difference of only one point in stat and one point in skill the disadvantaged person has a about a one in ten chance of winning a contest with a six sided die and a 1 in four chance with a ten sided die. If the difference is three the less skilled participant will only win a contest 8% of the time. I prefer to have the dice roll mean more. This is a game we play for fun after all, I want to give the underdogs a chance. It makes for better stories.

3.3 Groups of scholars working together can already blow the lid off of the advancement system by having a tractati or commentary writing circle. I don't believe that we need to exacerbate this situation. In fact I believe that the rules should be tweaked to slow down art advancement above level 20.

3.4 (First of all I don't think that hedgies are at all core.) I love that the different types of magic in mythic Europe are truly different from one another. With Gruaegachan and Volkhevy and shamans and Kabalists and Vitki and Ascetics and so on the only thing that a hermetic can know when he encounters an exotic magician is that he doesn't know what he's encountered. This adds incredible depth to the story. It would be a travesty to systematize them all into a boring sameness. (Not that some of the rules couldn't use some editing.)

3.5 Of course we redo the combat system! It would be inexcusable if this weren't done

//hashed this to death over and over on the Berkley list//
For lack of time I ditched the Berkeley list 5 years or so ago. And to brighten up the occasional lonely supper the Atlas forum serves me just fine right now.

//I've never had any need for characteristic caps (and I've been playing on and off since 1988). In Ars 4th edition legendary characteristics are given a rating of +5 (although you can have a +5 without being legendary.) How do you justify going higher?//
I don't want it to go any higher - indeed the ArM4 system is built on at least non-physical characteristics capped at +5. But e. g. with Cunning-folk Charms this ceiling is easily breached - an oversight perhaps. To avoid such oversights in ArM5, I asked for the caps.

//Yuck!! a pox on your pathetic six-sided die. Have you ever played shadowrun? If you have, you've probably noticed that a die roll modifier of even one on a six sider is critical. You might as well not even roll dice in Ars Magica if you change to a six-sided die. Using a ten sided die a contest in which one of the participants has a skill + stat of 2 more than the other is won by the more skilled character 64% of the time and tied 10% (and naturally won by the less skilled opponent 26% of the time)...//
You're pulling my leg here ... At least I believe that you could do the basic numbers right - but to appease literal minded kibbitzers, here they come.

With ten-sided dice (Win/Tie/Loss) Percentages for opposed simple rolls:
Equal Characteristic+Ability: (45%/10%/45%)
Characteristic+Ability 1 off: (55%/9%/36%)
Characteristic+Ability 2 off: (64%/8%/28%)
Characteristic+Ability 3 off: (72%/7%/21%)
...

Assuming Characteristic = 0 for both opponents, here is the Ability costs in those situations:
Ability +1 ( 1 Exp) vs. Ability +1 (1 Exp): (45%/10%/45%)
Ability +2 ( 3 Exp) vs. Ability +1 (1 Exp): (55%/9%/36%)
Ability +3 ( 6 Exp) vs. Ability +1 (1 Exp): (64%/8%/28%)
Ability +4 (10 Exp) vs. Ability +1 (1 Exp): (72%/7%/21%)

Saying that in this simple example
for putting 3x the Exp into an Ability you got a 10% shift in your favor,
for putting 6x the Exp into an Ability you got a 19% shift in your favor,
for putting 10x the Exp into an Ability you got a 27% shift in your favor.

For me this is too much impact of the dice, and too little of the character.

Lets do the same with a six sider:

Equal Characteristic+Ability: (41.7%/16.7%/41.7%)
Characteristic+Ability 1 off: (58,3%/13.9%/27.8%)
Characteristic+Ability 2 off: (72.2%/11.1%/16.7%)
Characteristic+Ability 3 off: (83.3%/8.33%/8.33%)
...

Saying that in the example above:
for putting 3x the Exp into an Ability you got a 16.7% shift in your favor,
for putting 6x the Exp into an Ability you got a 30.6% shift in your favor,
for putting 10x the Exp into an Ability you got a 41.7% shift in your favor.

To me this looks much more appropriate.

//Groups of scholars working together can already blow the lid off of the advancement system by having a tractati or commentary writing circle. I don't believe that we need to exacerbate this situation.//
Neither do I. But the writing circles IMO show, that there is a clear need to provide a solid, working rule for study groups, instead of entrusting this to creative use of rules designed for other purposes.
(You might have noted that I also suggested simplifying the book study rules.)

//(First of all I don't think that hedgies are at all core.) I love that the different types of magic in mythic Europe are truly different ...//
Hmmm - the hedgies from Hedge Magic, whose rules provide the foundation for a lot of the others, are not linked to specific cultures. They can and should be adapted to such cultures, of course.

But I still think that systematic integration of hedge magic into the core rules would be a great benefit.
First it assures better compatibility of hedge magic rules with the core system - and we both appear to agree on the necessity of improving this compatibility.
Second it allows for better lab and teaching rules, and a richer set of applicable Virtues and Flaws, than we could hope for if all hedge magic were described on the 3 to 6 pages Tribunal books could spare.

Well, that was my supper today ...

Yours,

Berengar

I hadn't thought about Cunning-folk Charms. I can see the value of hard caps. (But personally I'd try to rewrite cunning folk charms and the other things that break +5 rather than putting an arbitrary +5 limit.)

"You're pulling my leg here ... At least I believe that you could do the basic numbers right - but to appease literal minded kibbitzers, here they come."

Whoops, I messed up. Sorry about that. I still prefer the ten sider numbers as you posted. Six sided dice are too fragile when it comes to appling die roll modifiers for my taste. I prefer a -2 penalty to penalize 20% rather than 33.3%. More randomness is good. Rolling dice is more exciting when the dice really matter.

Maybe it's slightly superficial, but I always felt that rolling 2d6, with botches on snake-eyes and exploding dice on boxcars,is a more intuitive and accessible mechanic than is currently used. The range of results is similar too, although they're slightly higher and have a normal distribution curve rather than being linear.

The dice mechanics are confusing in the current rules. I don't see why it's necessary to have differentiation between simple, quality and stress dice (or at least, it would be easier to do with 2d6 - just ignore snake-eyes and/or boxcars rules respectively). Also, having a set 1-in-36 chance of botching (from 2d6) seems a much more streamlined and fair system to me than having a Storyguide arbitrarily choose how many botch dice a player should roll whenever they roll a 1 on a d10.

I think this is a good thread as it highlights the major things I'd like to see in a possible revision, as well as the things I wouldn't like to see changed. To re-iterate I would like to see:-

a) A more reader friendly design, with better graphical layout.
b) An integration of newer magic systems into the core rules (mainly from The Mysteries).
c) A modernisation of certain game rules, to simplify combat primarily and update Covenent design to make it more of a feature in the game.

There ya go, again...

The only benefit I see with 2d6 is the cool clacking they make when you roll them across the table.

I'd like to see the botch rule changed slightly though. I keep thinking along the lines of a botch ease factor. Instead of rolling a number of dice, just roll one (Simple) against a number defined by the SG (just as he might hasve specified the number of dice). If you roll over the number, you are safe. If you roll on or under, you botch, severity defined by how much you missed the roll by. Not sure how it would work in open play though. It does keep things a little more consistent though in rolling a single die.

I'm with you on overall page layout and design and I think John Nephew has stated that is a goal for the line.

I'm not sure that the core rules should be "cluttered" with minor magics (like cunning folk or raqi) but I do think that where we have a well defined set of virtues supporting those, we should look at whether they could go in the book. The stylistic additions Mysteries brought to the line, for my money, should be injected into the core rules going forward. This is a real win for Atlas in my opinion. They have been able to change the feel, on the basis of a single volume, of the game for those of us who have started to adopt Mysteries.

Now to combat. I like the base mechanic. It is simple and logical and with some quirks like armour and fatigue worked out (and making clear whether damage and soak are rolled and not relying on a "read between the lines" approach). The stylistic change I would make hinges on how a combat session is run. Big rant, so new paragraph...

Now, maybe this has just been my games so far, but as a SG, I usually end up running every combat round, deciding on the actions of the bad guys and having to coordinate anything up to 10 init steps, with maybe up to 5 spells and no doubt a round of arrow shot. This is all a bit much for my addled brain. There should be much more emphasis in the rules on farming out the combat to the players themselves. What do I mean? Well, we already have a convention where sub-melees are resolved in each round, and not specifically in init order. What I would like to see, and what I will adopt going forward is a system whereby players take control of sub-melees. Pair them off or whatever is appropriate and give them the stats for the bad guys. While one player attacks with his character, the other is defending with the bad guy, then they swap and so on.

I think it would make a good rule of thumb, with the SG controlling any "special" enemies and being on hand to adjudicate where needed. I think it would speed things up (compared to the pace I am currently able to manage combat) and ensure that as many players are involved as possible. It does mean a little extra prep overhead, but I think it would be worth it. And if the players fudge the rolls a little so that their characters come out on top, or sub-melees and combat rounds get a little out of step, so what? As long as they have fun doing it. If the SG wants to inject real danger, he or she is free to step in with a gribbly as needed. I am sure a few game designers could take the idea and run with it and explain it better than I can. It doesn't change the rules, just how they are applied.

We should have a big combat session coming up in a couple of weeks, so I think I'll have a go at getting the players to run it themselves.

This highlights a possible flaw in the whole Ars game. It claims to promote a troupe-led covenant-based saga but (present saga excepted) these things usually end up being run by just one person. I think the "troupe" idea can be extended by not just suggesting that players create a grog, companion and magus characters but also an "enemy" or "personality" which they might design a story or stories around. There are some oblique suggestions to this (3rd edition, 4th edition, both?) but it doesn't go very deep. I think this will entice the players to contribute more to the game setting and enhance the whole experience.

Okay, I've said a lot more than I wanted to. I'll be getting back to work now.

Mark

The problem with combat is that on the one hand it's too structured, yet on the other hand it tries to be tactically narrative. Pendragon, wherever possible should be the benchmark of how to do combat right in a game medieval low fantasy game - I just don't think Ars magica delivers quite at the moment. It needs to be stripped down and streamlined before any further options or complications are considered, in my view. Honestly, I liked the more basic system in 3rd Edition better (where defence totals could be pre-determined as hit targets and there wasn't the narrative hangover of effect over the rounds). I just don't find the ultra-detailed tactical style particulary appealing for the game. I do like the way the combat skills are formatted though (Like Two-weapons, or Sword-and shield). Maybe that's just me.....

I like the idea of having players create enemy characters though, but I'd imagine it probably would be more likely as an optional sidebar, when push comes to shove. Troupe style play still is a bit of a leap for some newbie players, but I agree it should be made as more of a selling point in the game.

So, to streamline (leaving aside my ideas for how to actually run a combat) I would probably lose the reach stuff with regard to determinig absolute numbers. Leave it to the story guide to say, "well, you're using a spear to fight a guy with a knife, have a [bonus/penalty] for your trouble".

I like the "roll over" this is what makes things a little more tactical. It doesn't add that much complexity.

Init per round? I think again a discretionary thing this. If nothing much changes from one round to the next, then keep the same inits. If a spell threw a whole mess of earth in the air (for instance), then lets roll init again as combatants regroup and "refocus" (sorry, played D&D last weekend).

Please, no hit points. I like the stark simplicity of body and fatigue levels. I am looking to use Rune as in interlude soon, and I am happy with the combat system there, but ars is different. I don't want to be tracking hit points all session. Ars has a core mechanic and I don't think we need to mess with that bit.

I wouldn't mind some suggestions in the book as to combat tactics. For instance, when we started playing in this saga, we did a quick and dirty combat with a mounted guy in armour, an archer and a couple of foot soldiers. It was quite revealing just how quickly the archer died through being too close to the enemy and having nowhere to run.

I'm sure there'll be more on this subject...

Mark

Hate

>"So, to streamline (leaving aside my ideas for how to actually run a combat) I would probably lose the reach stuff with regard to determining absolute numbers. Leave it to the story guide to say, "well, you're using a spear to fight a guy with a knife, have a [bonus/penalty] for your trouble"."

From my experience the engagement rules are the part of the system that works well. (Not that I'm unwilling to scrap it. Just that this isn't the part that caused me trouble before I re-did the combat system for my game.)

>"I like the "roll over" this is what makes things a little more tactical. It doesn't add that much complexity."

This I hate. It is abstract and it forces you to do a great deal of arithmetic in your head. You might be thinking "I can add and subtract numbers with ease. I've been doing it since I was 7." I thought so originally as well. However when I had a room full of people telling numbers to me and a big stack of NPC's to calculate for I realized that I was wrong. Even when I knew the system well it was a pain. My players never got their heads around it. Think about how this slows down play. I'll try and give you an example of a reasonable _best_ case scenario.

Dave: my total is 12

Storyteller: Your total was twelve and the opponent?s total was um (pause to remember and add in first strike bonus) 21 so he has an advantage of (pause) 9. (Pause to think about the opponent?s damage value in comparison to the PC's soak value) He'll roll that over into a bonus for next round. Okay, Bob what did you get?

The next round you have to remember what bonuses each combatant rolled over from the previous round. Either you take good notes (and kill the excitement) or you give yourself a headache trying to keep everything in your head (and kill the excitement). It is my opinion that carryover mechanics should not only be expunged from the combat system but from certamen as well. Choices make the game interesting but we can find ways of giving the characters choices without a preponderance of arithmetic. (I posted some alternate certamen rules on WEB RPG that I think do this pretty well.)

>"Init per round? I think again a discretionary thing this. If nothing much changes from one round to the next, then keep the same inits. If a spell threw a whole mess of earth in the air (for instance), then lets roll init again as combatants regroup and "refocus" (sorry, played D&D last weekend)."

In the present system you only do an engagement test when the combatants want to be at different ranges. We often only ended up doing one per combat.

>"Please, no hit points. I like the stark simplicity of body and fatigue levels. I am looking to use Rune as in interlude soon, and I am happy with the combat system there, but ars is different. I don't want to be tracking hit points all session. Ars has a core mechanic and I don't think we need to mess with that bit."

As an alternative to Rune I could send you the set of rules that I settled upon. It's a four or five page document that talks about changes to the current rules rather than setting down a new set of rules. As a result it's not too easy to understand. It puts a great deal more power in the hands of the storyteller as well. You're welcome to it if you'd like it. (From your post it appears that you have had different problems with the system than I had so it might not be of any use to you.)

>"I wouldn't mind some suggestions in the book as to combat tactics. For instance, when we started playing in this saga, we did a quick and dirty combat with a mounted guy in armour, an archer and a couple of foot soldiers. It was quite revealing just how quickly the archer died through being too close to the enemy and having nowhere to run."

Mounted horsemen are incredible in the system. Take a look at the first round of combat in the FAQ example and you'll see.

The tactical problem that I see with the rules in the 4th ed book is the combat with multiple opponents penalty. By using "football style" tactics where multiple characters attack a single opponent while other opponents are ignored the system can get both exceedingly deadly (is it -3 per opponent or -5?) and very sloppy;

Brian: Great, everyone wants to be at reach range so there's no engagement test. Sara and I attack goon #3 while Bob and Dave deal with goon #4.

Storyguide: Well goons one and two beat up on you Brian while three and four attack Dave.

AAARRRGGHHH !

>"I'm sure there'll be more on this subject...
Mark"

Unquestionably.

My hope is that we get a total rewrite with some close scrutiny by playtesters who are unrepentant minmaxers and will really want to find all of the holes. I found third edition combat to be the fastest moving system I'd ever dealt with and while I was once really excited about fourth edition combat the three years I used it before I changed were quite painful.

Edited 3/19/2003 12:55:26 PM ET by ERIK_TYRRELL

In extreme, but still plausible, situations, it could be to the advantage to the wielder of a longshaft weapon to engage at range reach. If it is likely enough that the will lose the engagement contest (note that there are any number of range reach weapons/combos that equal the init bonus of long shaft weapons), then they should take the penalty and avoid the contest to prevent losing the contest and taking the range penalty on top of giving a first strike bonus to their opponent. Many of the same issues listed above apply.

Requiring people to attempt to engage at their optimal ranges tends to prevent the first case. In the second case, all it does is require a character with a long shaft weapon to hurt themselves. I don't believe that it should ever be disavantages for a character to attempt to engage an opponent at a longer range than the opponents weapons.

Another solution would be to always count the first strike bonus, but that will require substantially more rolls in combat.
Kevin

This is apropos of little; I just wanted to get my two cents in.

Kevin

Imagine the scene, four essentially non-combatant magi attending a faerie court and witnessing the sentencing the White Lady's Admiral for "treacherous crimes". Cue the escape plan where the guards that brought him in are revealed as traitors, give him a weapon, and apparently make a rush to attack the White Lady.

Now, I did kind of spring this on the players, so fair play to them for picking up the ball and running with it.

We had four bad guys (and the Admiral controlled by me) and four good guys. We had four players, which I split into good guys and bad guys. The bad guys had to "sieze the flag" and the good guys had to "protect the flag".

They were given combat stats and a few faerie powers with which to play.

Basic rules:
No engagement contests, just straight initiative
Roll initiative each round
No carry over, all bonus applied to damage
Attack and defense rolled separately

We had an interesting time. I've never seen a combat session go so smoothly. One thing I was concerned over would be the bad guys getting a raw deal through the players "spiking the cannon". This didn't happen, even to the extent of the bad guy players using the faerie powers at opportune moments to secure benefit.

I don't think we lost anything in dropping engagement contests.

Initiative each round didn't really hurt and gave people the option to recover after a particulalry poor round.

I do think we lost a lot by dropping roll-over. As the guards were wearing the same armour (which gave a soak of 6/7) there was very little they could do to each other without the occasional double 7.

Interestingly, just as if the group had magi and grogs on the field of play, magi actions slipped right in, even down to some excellent magic to tie up the bad guys and subdue the Admiral.

I will be using this approach going forward, although I think where more is at stake (bad guys against grogs etc) I might have to provide some story experience reward for good combat or something.

The scenario we played through was very simple and I didn't bring in too many variables. But there was a little bit of players "claiming" bonuses and advantages, which, if they were reasonable, they got away with. Next time, I can pay attention more to the environment they are fighting in and let the combatants get on with the rough stuff.

Mark

Did you allow any carry over within a round like the differences of attack onto the Damage.

As this sounds pretty much like the way we are normally running ArM4 combat, in general its very smooth.

You can make it faster (we find) by dropping the Def roll to a average 6, then all you have is attack and Initiative, this makes it bit more deadly, but it does make the combat a lot faster.

Also if palyers attack to shield, weapon, not the opponent when in stalemate it can make things very different.

Gary

I think I would still like to roll defence separately as it throws in another variable that the players can fret over and enjoy.

Incidentally, the big success of the combat came when one of the magi rugby tackled our bad guy rather than trying armed combat, which wasn't getting anywhere, so different tactics were employed quite well.

I'm actually looking forward to the bigger combat which should come around in a week or so.

Mark

The dice system should not be changed... in particular the d10 stress die, which is important for the magic system in particular.

The stress die very cleverly gives the underdog a chance: no matter what the odds as my enemy can botch (at least 1 in 100 chance) and I can roll fantastically high

scores after a series of '1's. Stress dice also have a nice feel as a mechanic (for those for whom playing a game is as important as telling a story). In a crucial moment,

weighing five botch die in your hand and casting them has a nice drama. The same goes for the '1's... where every extra '1' creates a widening grin which grows in size

as the chance of rolling it diminishes. Who doesn't like a game where, despite working in essentially 1-10, you can sometimes roll 80? (1 in 1000 chance).

Those rare, high score stress die results work very well when interpretted as bursts of magical power: "So, you spontaneously conjure just a tiny candle flame so as

not to wake the guards...well, the bad news is that they are awake... but the good news is that they are temporarily blinded". The chance of rolling a '1' also

encourages magi to spend fatigue when trying for a big effect that they "might just manage".

You have a hard time converting the d10 stress die into a d20:
Botch on 19 or 20... roll & double on a 1 or a 2?
That doesn't have a nice feel to it.
If you reduce botches to '20' and doubles to '1' then you half the chances of botches and doubles. That would have a deep impact on the mechanics of the game that only lots of playtesting would dig out. Much more trouble than it is worth!

Nat