My untested HR

[Woodclaw]

This is why I use Anydice.com for probability numbers

At least we're both agreed that Woodclaw can't do probability mathematics either

It's always hard to get ones head around probabilies ... I once had a mathematician explain some of this dice stuff to me, and some of it stuck and even made sense after a while.

Well, I only did statistic for one year in high school, so it's very likely that I screwed up badly. I'm going to review my probably table and correct the results.

[Woodclaw]

Okay thanks to Hermes suggestion I discovered AnyDice, which is a huge resource over my handmade and deadly screwed math.

Now the correct number for Eye and Gandalfs rolling two Feat Dices and keeping the best are: Eye 0.7%, Gandalf 16% (roughly).
Still, this means that the chances of rolling a Gandalf are doubled as well as the chances of rolling a Edge.

The question is: does this bonus compensate losing 1 point of close combat defense and increasing Fatigue by 1 point?

[Robin Smallburrow]

Woodclaw

Have u read the earlier discussions on this issue in both this and the original forum? You seem to disregard the skill penalty for using a weapon in the off-hand without proper training. I came to the conclusion that there should be a new Specialty or Virtue to avoid the skill penalty ( such as the Corsairs of Umbar who fight with two weapons regularly) I do agree with your feat reroll idea though.

Secondly, in comparing the benefits with a shield, you are factoring in that a Shields bonus is doubled against Ranged attacks?

Robin S.

[Woodclaw]

Woodclaw

Have u read the earlier discussions on this issue in both this and the original forum? You seem to disregard the skill penalty for using a weapon in the off-hand without proper training. I came to the conclusion that there should be a new Specialty or Virtue to avoid the skill penalty ( such as the Corsairs of Umbar who fight with two weapons regularly) I do agree with your feat reroll idea though.

Yes, I've read some -- but probably not all -- of those discussion, but I disagree with the idea of forcing the characters to take an extra something to use dual wielding and only dual wielding. While it might seem easier counterintuitive I think that all the three main fighting style (shield, dual wielding and two-handed) should be roughly equal which -- in my eyes -- means that either the character need extra training to use each one of them effectively (as in Dragon Age) or doesn't need training at all (as in A Song of Ice and Fire).
Given that in TOR you don't need extra training to use a shield or a two-handed weapon effectively, I prefered not to add extra complications just for dual wielding.

Secondly, in comparing the benefits with a shield, you are factoring in that a Shields bonus is doubled against Ranged attacks?

As far as I understand, the doubling happens only during the opening volleys or during another similar situation, where a character is both aware of the attack and relatively free to move, so I didn't factored in at first. I might have to reconsider that.

[Woodclaw]

Well, after my showing zero skills at statistics, I went back to the drawing table and rethought a couple of details, mostly the Dual Wielding requisites.

Rocmistro observed that 2/1 is pretty low as a requirement to proper Dual Wielding.

-I don't think that skill level 2/1 adequately reflects the challenge. EVERYBODY starts the game with a 2/1 weapon spread (everyone has dagger 1). Might I suggest making it a 3/2 spread?

A bit of testing showed that this was the case and that it got worst with experience, since a character could keep the secondary weapon at 1, raise only the primary weapon and keep enjoying the benefits of Dual Wielding.

As temporary stopgap I'm testing this variant: "A character who wish to fight with two weapons has to be skilled with both weapons and his rank in the seoncdary weapon can't be lower than 1 respect to the main one."

This is hardly a perfect system, but I think that it might work a little better. I'm aware that thsi variant gives an edge to characters with cultural weapon groups which, I think, isn't all that wrong considering that it provides a bit of a counterbalance to their impossibility to use favoured weapons.
Strangely enough the biggest rule-breaker so far are those characters wielding paired short weapons (dual short swords, dual daggers or dual hatchets) since they get the maximum benefits from the rule. Considering that these weapons are hardly top tiers (although dual short swords effectively have a Edge of almost 8) I think that I can live with it for the time being.

[Woodclaw]

More Damage on Forward

Status: tested once

Idea
It's no secret that, after a while, going in a Forward Stance for anything but Combat Tasks is plain suicide for the characters and that high level character can do the whole combat in Defensive without a problem. This is something that I really don't like and I consider it a jab against the quality of the game. For me the key idea is that a character who choose Forward does so to dispatch his enemies faster, while Defensive is meant to keep th situation under control. So, it makes sense to me that these two aspects are linked to damage as well.
This is my second attempt to fix it and I think it might work decently.

Rule
When a character fights in Forward Stance, he always add his Damage rating one time more than his actual level of success, up tp a maximum of three times.
Whereas, a character fighting in Defensive Stance adds it one time less, down to a minimum of zero.
Hence a character with a damage of +5, fighting in Forward Stance with an axe (damage 5) would inflict 10 damage on an Ordinary Success, 15 on a Great Success and 20 on a Extraordinary Success.
The Same character fighting on Defesive would inflict 5 damage on Ordinary and Great Success and 10 on an Extraordinary one.

Notes
I haven't tested how this rule might change the game if applyed to adversaries too.

[Rocmistro]

Seems a little clunky to me. What about the Forward = max extraordinary success, Open = max great success and Defensive = max success proposal?

[Glorelendil]

Seems a little clunky to me. What about the Forward = max extraordinary success, Open = max great success and Defensive = max success proposal?

Huh. I have "Woodclaw's Rule" in my simulator that is similar to that, but +1 (e.g. 3 extra successes allowed in Forward) but I think I prefer your version (0,1,2) because it doesn't require creating a new category of success. ("Ludicrous Success")

The thing I like about both versions is that its utility scales with weapon skill, as does the issue it is meant to address. So it's not really powerful until it is needed.

[Rocmistro]

Well someone else had proposed this rule and I liked it. The only thing I would add would be a mastery that allows an additiona level of success in Open or Defensive. I don't think I would go with "Ludicrous Success" for the reasons you mentioned, unless I was playing in Spaceballs TOR.

[Corvo]

I adopted a different house-rule to solve the same issue,
but I like this one.

By the way, it got the side effect of enhancing the usefulness of high Body (if you go Forward, you know you are going to use your Body).