Jimm.Iblis wrote:

Use them, but don't let them bog things down. Make rulings on gut and memory if you can't recall precisely how a maneuver works. Reference it between sessions. As long as players have a roll, they'll forgive you if you explain that it'll work by the book next time.

Very true!

To get away from looking things up, players can also have the mechanics (adjustments/etc) written down on their character sheet. Some of the advanced combat rules, i.e., Off-Hand Weapon Parry, are probably going to be used often.

I don't see most advanced combat bogging play down if players know what they are going to do ahead of time. The rules are simple. I like the flavor.

Iron Ranger wrote:

achiriaco wrote:

Jimm.Iblis wrote:

Use them, but don't let them bog things down. Make rulings on gut and memory if you can't recall precisely how a maneuver works. Reference it between sessions. As long as players have a roll, they'll forgive you if you explain that it'll work by the book next time.

Very true!

To get away from looking things up, players can also have the mechanics (adjustments/etc) written down on their character sheet. Some of the advanced combat rules, i.e., Off-Hand Weapon Parry, are probably going to be used often.

I don't see most advanced combat bogging play down if players know what they are going to do ahead of time. The rules are simple. I like the flavor.

Don't disagree with this, but personally I like to look stuff up and I love to stop the game and pull out the books! I mean isn't that why we're there? Isn't that why I lugged it all there? Maybe it's just me, but it's fun. 
 

STOP THE GAME!!!!

Resurrecting this thread. Rereading through the advanced combat actions after my boys were playtesting Lost Cairns of the Savages the other day, where a horde of trap-door spiders were assaulting them, they decided to Parry and Block and withdraw. Here is where my question comes in (Jeff and David; dont kill me); why is it when a PC is parrying and blocking does it give the attacker an opportunity to "sunder" shields and weapons on a d20? I mean; the text even gives a chance to break MAGICAL weapons!! 

No where else in the rules (I am speculating here, and only because I have not found it) can an enemy break magical weapons on a nat 20. Why when the defender chooses to employ Parry and Block?

I get the idea that the assailant will be able to much more carefully land blows, but break magical weapons? And if that is the case, why only a +2 AC bonus?

Anyone help me out here?
 

achiriaco wrote:

Not sure if this has been discussed:
How many of you use the advanced combat rules?
For the game, I really like the flavor it can bring and options. What are your experiences?
Please discuss...
 

Almost never, and when I say almost never I cannot remember a single instance.  Not to say the players don't try interesting things in combat they just don't use the advanced rules.
 

Iron Ranger wrote:

Blackadder23 wrote:

I suppose because "parrying" specifically suggests you are stopping the blows with your own weapon, which would increase the chance of your weapon breaking. Also probably to impose a cost in exchange for the AC bonus, so your players won't be using it all the time.

Agreed.
And it is important to me that even magical items can be destroyed in this game.

Damn skippy. I wish they were destroyed more often -- I'd give more out! Conan never seemed to worry over THIS sword -- there are always more swords. But players. Hoo.

My players remember the advanced moves periodically, get excited, make a lot of jokes about recumbent fire, and forget. If you want them to remember, use them against them!

mabon5127 wrote:

achiriaco wrote:

Not sure if this has been discussed:
How many of you use the advanced combat rules?
For the game, I really like the flavor it can bring and options. What are your experiences?
Please discuss...
 

Almost never, and when I say almost never I cannot remember a single instance.  Not to say the players don't try interesting things in combat they just don't use the advanced rules.
 

Same here: I encourage my players to use "advanced thinking", hand out whatever modifiers I think apply, and never consult the Adv. Combat rules.
But for parrying/blocking, I've toyed with allowing PCs to apply their full FA as a modifier "not to be hit", in exchange for sacrificing their attack, but haven't bothered to work through the math and consequences of such.

I insist that recumbent fire be LARPed out.

mabon5127 wrote:

rhialto wrote:

mabon5127 wrote:

Almost never, and when I say almost never I cannot remember a single instance.  Not to say the players don't try interesting things in combat they just don't use the advanced rules.
 

Same here: I encourage my players to use "advanced thinking", hand out whatever modifiers I think apply, and never consult the Adv. Combat rules.
But for parrying/blocking, I've toyed with allowing PCs to apply their full FA as a modifier "not to be hit", in exchange for sacrificing their attack, but haven't bothered to work through the math and consequences of such.

Interestingly I allowed a similar thing.  Fighters could shift up to half their FA from offense to AC. One enjoyed the flexibility and strategy of the rule.  We went RAW for the campaign we just started.
 

As an aside, for houserules in general, I've considered a list of houserules which are all optional for the individual players to choose from. Again, not sure how it would work in practice.

mavfire wrote:

@Mabon5127- I like the idea of adding the FA into it....

Didn't seem to unbalance anything.  I like the versatility it gave the fighters.