Combat System

I like your idea.

As for dodging and blocking and parrying, these are still factored in the attack formula I posted a while back, and that seems to be acceptable. It was the role of armor that was the issue, and was now successfully resolved.

We can say that heavy armor can reduce a die to min of 1, medium 3, and light 5. The number of dice you can reduce will factor against all hits you take in a round, not separately for every hit; this way we can dole out a reducible die every 5 skill points, making even starting characters capable of effectively using their gear while still making you regret being surrounded or facing a monster with multiple attacks.

This system will bloody well work with magic, too. Good work.

Rather than imposing arbitrary limits based on die type, why not just ay the minimum reduction is one, and then don't include any, say, light armor that reduces the die past five. That way, if you find some bitchin' artifact-level thing like Cuirass of the Savior's Hide, you will get hellacious damage reduction, and rightfully so. However, non-artifact armors tend to have much more modest damage reductions (although things like Ebony, Daedric, and Ordinator armors are still likely to reduce dice to one or two).

I have to be honest - I appreciate how much work must have gone into that table of combat effects, but I really think we need to simplify it. The way it is currently, you almost need a flowchart to successfully complete each attack.
(Weapon Skill + Agility Bonus - weapon penalty) vs (Armor Skill + Agility Bonus - armor penalty - Encumbrance penalty)
[edit] Forgot to mention, we can include Fatigue penalties in here as well. And relally, I'd like to find a way to give the attacker an even better chance to hit since, if players are fighting foes on par with them and only hitting one time in five, combat is gonna take FOREVER. Suggestions?
This means that the attacker should always have at least some positive chance to hit unless he's sorely outclassed (and even then I say we have a chance, somewhere between one and five percent, that any attack will hit no matter how desperate). It also lets us use armor skill as a gauge for how well you dodge, while still allowing light armor wearers to dodge more effectively than heavy ones. Furthermore, it means that that jerkass who's been hogging all the loot since the start of the adventure will totally get what's coming to him when the big scary beastie shows up with an appetite.

Example will be in the next post.

Fresh off the boat from the mainland, we've got Throg Gro-Bashorz the Orc Barbarian. He's got an Agility of 30 (not very impressive), an Axe skill of 50 and a Steel Battle-Axe. Let's say that axe subtracts 10 from his chance to hit, 'cause it's slow. His attack total would be 43, and he gets one attack per round.

Throg is attacking Fargoth, a Wood Elf with an Unarmored skill of 20. His Agility is a very impressive 50. He has no armor penalty because he's a poofter wearing only a puffy shirt and brown pants. We haven't worked out the encumbrance system yet, but let's just say it's 10% of the total weight carried as a penalty. He's carrying 100 pounds of black dildos, so he takes another -10 to his dodge roll. This leaves his Defense total at 15. So Throg needs to roll a 28 or under to split this irritating Wood Elf in twain.

After having dealt with Fargoth handily, Throg now has to face the town guards. The guards are relatively amateur, with only 35 Heavy Armor skill and a mediocre 30 agility. They are wearing Legion Iron Cuirasses, which are bulky and tough to move around in, so they incur a -5 penalty to dodging. The guards are laden with roughly 50 pounds of armor and 10 pounds of weaponry. Overall, a -11 penalty to their defense, leaving their total at a still decent 27. Throg needs a 16 or better to hit the town guards, but unlike Fargoth (who was split like a ripe melon), the guards will have a certain amount of resilience against his attacks. They've also got Legion-issue Tower Shields. If they successfully roll to block (against their skill of 35), their shields will take another 3 damage off the attack after armor is applied (this is not a per-die deduction, but is taken off the bottom line).

An aspiring Dunmer rogue sees Throg fighting the guards and decides anybody on the wrong side of the law can't be too bad. The Dunmer's agility is 50, his Short Blade skill is 40, and he's got a steel short blade (+5 to hit). His attack total is 50. When attacking the same guard, he'll need a 23 to hit, and he can swing twice per round. If he hits, his blade will likely not do too much damage, but that's okay - he's swinging fast and furious.

Now all I have to do is figure out how this interacts with backstab and magicka and we'll be set!

I don't get this.

Trying to calculate combat is going to take a long time if you have to keep algorithms floating in your head. Is there a way to simplify it? I know that there was discussion about using a system similar to Dark Heresy. What about a hybrid with the d20 system?

Like you use the tens column of your skill and the governing attribute, add them together and roll versus a d20?

Let's say Throg has a starting strength of 55. His Axe skill is 50. That means he'd have to roll a 10 or lower on a d20 to hit something with an axe. Pretty impressive for a guy that just got off the boat.

Defense would be the same. Fargoth has an Unarmored skill of 20 and his Speed skill is 50. He needs to get 7 or lower to successfully dodge Throg's frenzied assault.

What do you think? You could throw in some modifiers based on encumbrance and stuff, but this was just a basic idea.

That might work. Personally, I'm attached to the d100, given that's what the game itself uses, but I'm open to alternatives. I think we should refine and simplify the system in place, rather than go back to the drawing board just yet. Obviously, if it turns out to be totally unworkable, we'll have to start over, but I don't think we've reached that point yet. Besides, while our good Saint made it seem a bit difficult, I think in actual play it'd be a lot easier because you'd have your character sheet with all the modifiers lying right in front of you. You wouldn't have to calculate the modifier every time. So, it seems complicated laying it all out like that, but I think the actual play would be a bit smoother because everything is just a fairly simple d100 roll +/- already listed modifiers. Now, I'm not meaning to shut you down, and I think that your idea has merit, but I'm still currently in favor of the extant system.

I agree with Admin. I quite like your idea mercury, it's definitely something to look into but If we go back to change the die/stat system we'd go back to square 1. I'm gonna have to go with the "try to refine d100" before we try anything drastic.

D&D calculations seems very alien and complex but in actual play it's a simple matter of looking down at your sheet, HOWEVER having to consults 4 different stats every dice roll is still unnecessarily complex.

STR+AGI+Weapon Skill - weapon type and encumbrance - opponent's AGI+armor skill+encumbrance+dodge is a bit of a clusterfuck, to be sure. I propose we get rid of the weapon type first. Carrying and swinging a huge axe should detract from your rolls but it's better for simplicity's sake. We can still have it in another form, such as skill perks. Say, carrying any weapon that weighs above a certain weight limit will give you a flat reduction in hit. Reaching a certain skill level (say f.ex: 25) nets you the Apprentice perk for said weapon which removes that penalty.

In the Character Creation thread, I changed the number of actions per round slightly - it's now 1 action, plus 1 per 25 SPD. This means that no starting character build will ever have fewer than one action.

In the Character Creation thread, I changed the number of actions per round slightly - it's now 1 action, plus 1 per 25 SPD. This means that no starting character build will ever have fewer than one action.

Make it so that every character can get as many actions as he wants, but pay fatigue for those above his SPD. That way effects that enhance SPD do something even if you're not teetering on the edge of getting another action (they alleviate your fatigue cost/risk of getting tired/whatever). Of course, the cost would go steeply up so as to stop characters from going far overboard, unless they have endurance and athletic skill from hell. If we come up with special attacks or something like that, ore powerful versions could take up multiple actions to perform. This would also be a deterrent to minmaxers, as you'd need appropriate stats to pull off advanced stuff, and that can't be done at lower levels without risking exhaustion.

Well, I had an idea about this, actually.
Actions take place in a set sequence. Instead of random Initiative, who acts when is always static and rated on a scale from 0 to 100. The first person to act is the person with the highest Speed. Then, 25 Initiative counts later, they get to act again. So you've got two combatants. A Bosmer with a speed of 55 and a Cliff Racer with a Speed of 33. The Initiative counter starts at 100, but nobody acts until Initiative count 55, at which point the Bosmer gets to take his first action. He attacks, or moves, or whatever. Then, at I count 33, the Cliff Racer pecks him in the eye. At Initiative count 30, the Bosmer shoots his bow and misses. At 8, the Cliff Racer SKREEs and pecks again. At count 8, the Bosmer drinks a fortify Speed potion and his Speed rises to 60.

Next round, the Bosmer's first action takes place at count 60. He hoofs it away from the Cliff Racer. At count 35, he acts again (even though the Cliff Racer hasn't acted yet this turn!) because he's so fast. At count 33, the Cliff Racer flies toward him. And so on.

I was also thinking we might want to levy a penalty on taking the same action more than once in the same turn. That will stop people from boosting Speed as fast as possible and then just wrecking everything with 5 actions per turn. The first attack would be at normal skill, and then each subsequent attack would be at a further -10 to hit. Similarly, your first move action would be at normal speed, and you'd have 1 less speed per additional move action.

Thoughts?

Saint Jiub wrote:Well, I had an idea about this, actually.
Actions take place in a set sequence. Instead of random Initiative, who acts when is always static and rated on a scale from 0 to 100. The first person to act is the person with the highest Speed. Then, 25 Initiative counts later, they get to act again. So you've got two combatants. A Bosmer with a speed of 55 and a Cliff Racer with a Speed of 33. The Initiative counter starts at 100, but nobody acts until Initiative count 55, at which point the Bosmer gets to take his first action. He attacks, or moves, or whatever. Then, at I count 33, the Cliff Racer pecks him in the eye. At Initiative count 30, the Bosmer shoots his bow and misses. At 8, the Cliff Racer SKREEs and pecks again. At count 8, the Bosmer drinks a fortify Speed potion and his Speed rises to 60.

Next round, the Bosmer's first action takes place at count 60. He hoofs it away from the Cliff Racer. At count 35, he acts again (even though the Cliff Racer hasn't acted yet this turn!) because he's so fast. At count 33, the Cliff Racer flies toward him. And so on.

I like the concept of it, but step back and look at it - two combatants with four attacks between them, and it already looks cluttered. Imagine having four players and a few monsters, and the usual disarray around the table as people don't pay attention, deliberate or get confused. It will get ugly, fast.

I still like it more than the old d&d initiative and clear-cut turns. Perhaps we need to devise a way to elegantly keep track of action order or lessen the headache in some other way.

I was also thinking we might want to levy a penalty on taking the same action more than once in the same turn. That will stop people from boosting Speed as fast as possible and then just wrecking everything with 5 actions per turn. The first attack would be at normal skill, and then each subsequent attack would be at a further -10 to hit. Similarly, your first move action would be at normal speed, and you'd have 1 less speed per additional move action.

Really no reason for that - it's not that easy to get abilities high (unless we fail to balance alchemy and enchanting) without quite a lot of extremely focuses leveling, and someone who focuses solely on boosting speed will be lacking in other departments. Then, bringing in penalties would only add more clutter than what already seems like clutter HQ, not to mention that they seem intent on actually punishing players who have high-SPD characters. -40 to hit makes the fifth attack largely useless.

And don't forget the feature inherent in your own proposed system - the enemy gets actions in between your actions. An archer could abuse this, but a melee warrior would take damage, and a mage would almost assuredly break his 10% magicka allotment and drain his reserves. With the enemy having a nearly guaranteed chance to retaliate, glass cannoning isn't the most bright and glorious combat strategy.

Slotha Sil wrote:

Saint Jiub wrote:Well, I had an idea about this, actually.
Actions take place in a set sequence. Instead of random Initiative, who acts when is always static and rated on a scale from 0 to 100. The first person to act is the person with the highest Speed. Then, 25 Initiative counts later, they get to act again. So you've got two combatants. A Bosmer with a speed of 55 and a Cliff Racer with a Speed of 33. The Initiative counter starts at 100, but nobody acts until Initiative count 55, at which point the Bosmer gets to take his first action. He attacks, or moves, or whatever. Then, at I count 33, the Cliff Racer pecks him in the eye. At Initiative count 30, the Bosmer shoots his bow and misses. At 8, the Cliff Racer SKREEs and pecks again. At count 8, the Bosmer drinks a fortify Speed potion and his Speed rises to 60.

Next round, the Bosmer's first action takes place at count 60. He hoofs it away from the Cliff Racer. At count 35, he acts again (even though the Cliff Racer hasn't acted yet this turn!) because he's so fast. At count 33, the Cliff Racer flies toward him. And so on.

I like the concept of it, but step back and look at it - two combatants with four attacks between them, and it already looks cluttered. Imagine having four players and a few monsters, and the usual disarray around the table as people don't pay attention, deliberate or get confused. It will get ugly, fast.

I still like it more than the old d&d initiative and clear-cut turns. Perhaps we need to devise a way to elegantly keep track of action order or lessen the headache in some other way.

I was also thinking we might want to levy a penalty on taking the same action more than once in the same turn. That will stop people from boosting Speed as fast as possible and then just wrecking everything with 5 actions per turn. The first attack would be at normal skill, and then each subsequent attack would be at a further -10 to hit. Similarly, your first move action would be at normal speed, and you'd have 1 less speed per additional move action.

Really no reason for that - it's not that easy to get abilities high (unless we fail to balance alchemy and enchanting) without quite a lot of extremely focuses leveling, and someone who focuses solely on boosting speed will be lacking in other departments. Then, bringing in penalties would only add more clutter than what already seems like clutter HQ, not to mention that they seem intent on actually punishing players who have high-SPD characters. -40 to hit makes the fifth attack largely useless.

And don't forget the feature inherent in your own proposed system - the enemy gets actions in between your actions. An archer could abuse this, but a melee warrior would take damage, and a mage would almost assuredly break his 10% magicka allotment and drain his reserves. With the enemy having a nearly guaranteed chance to retaliate, glass cannoning isn't the most bright and glorious combat strategy.

I suspect it's another of those things that sounds more complex than it really is. However, if you think it's easier, we can always just have each player act at their Speed.

On second thought, you're probably right about the second bit. Action penalties are probably not necessary, and would be especially detrimental to caster-types.

Saint Jiub wrote:
I suspect it's another of those things that sounds more complex than it really is. However, if you think it's easier, we can always just have each player act at their Speed.

Never said that. Giving each actor several turns each combat round makes for a more efficient synergy, and allows for actions to be planned. If a player fires off his attacks and then just stands there while the monster does its attacks, we might just as well give everyone one action/round and call it a day, because that's what it technically is. With actions split up as you propose, actors can see how the round is going and devote their upcoming turns to retreating, or healing, or pressing on the assault, or something else that proves advantageous. Rounds can become stages of combat, determining when fatigue and magicka penalties are faced, or when special attacks/activated perks "refresh", for example. But that's still me running on fumes; I seem to like sweet wine very much.

Anyway, yes, the whole thing doesn't LOOK complicated, even if may sound that way. Drawing a vertical line and then writing down acting order based on speed isn't exactly something that requires government funding and an Oxford degree. We could even format monster entries to show their actions this way.

Slotha Sil wrote:

Saint Jiub wrote:
I suspect it's another of those things that sounds more complex than it really is. However, if you think it's easier, we can always just have each player act at their Speed.

Never said that. Giving each actor several turns each combat round makes for a more efficient synergy, and allows for actions to be planned. If a player fires off his attacks and then just stands there while the monster does its attacks, we might just as well give everyone one action/round and call it a day, because that's what it technically is. With actions split up as you propose, actors can see how the round is going and devote their upcoming turns to retreating, or healing, or pressing on the assault, or something else that proves advantageous. Rounds can become stages of combat, determining when fatigue and magicka penalties are faced, or when special attacks/activated perks "refresh", for example. But that's still me running on fumes; I seem to like sweet wine very much.

Anyway, yes, the whole thing doesn't LOOK complicated, even if may sound that way. Drawing a vertical line and then writing down acting order based on speed isn't exactly something that requires government funding and an Oxford degree. We could even format monster entries to show their actions this way.

Sorry. you said "looks cluttered" and I read "looks complicated." My bad.

Hm. I may have found a hole in the system already. If you use your first action to cast one round invisibility + something else spell, you are virtually free of retribution for as long as you have magicka. We'll have to tweak invisibility to be usable as a utility spell (meaning cheap and long-lasting) without breaking combat.

Slotha Sil wrote:Hm. I may have found a hole in the system already. If you use your first action to cast one round invisibility + something else spell, you are virtually free of retribution for as long as you have magicka. We'll have to tweak invisibility to be usable as a utility spell (meaning cheap and long-lasting) without breaking combat.

Remember, invisibility is instantly broken when you do anything else. The only opportunity I can see to abuse it is if your speed is at least 26 more than your target, which would mean that you're able to act, turn invisible, and trollface for the whole round. This can be solved by AoE attacks, perception rolls, dispel and silence effects, etc.

Saint Jiub wrote:

Slotha Sil wrote:Hm. I may have found a hole in the system already. If you use your first action to cast one round invisibility + something else spell, you are virtually free of retribution for as long as you have magicka. We'll have to tweak invisibility to be usable as a utility spell (meaning cheap and long-lasting) without breaking combat.

Remember, invisibility is instantly broken when you do anything else. The only opportunity I can see to abuse it is if your speed is at least 26 more than your target, which would mean that you're able to act, turn invisible, and trollface for the whole round. This can be solved by AoE attacks, perception rolls, dispel and silence effects, etc.

Say that you cast 3d5 fire damage, 1 round invisibility spell. You become invisible after the damage is applied. Until your corresponding round next turn, you are invisible and the other guy can use his actions to cry tears of rage.

Maybe if we say that invisibility+something that would break invisibility breaks invisibility.

Trust me, things like that have to be written down.

I dunno though. It seems like that arbitrarily limits magic. First of all, that spell is hardly guaranteed to be cast, unless it's a VERY powerful wizard using it. And by the time a wizard is that powerful, his foes should also be powerful enough to counter invisibility, by use of their own magic, items, or whatever else.

Saint Jiub wrote:I dunno though. It seems like that arbitrarily limits magic. First of all, that spell is hardly guaranteed to be cast, unless it's a VERY powerful wizard using it. And by the time a wizard is that powerful, his foes should also be powerful enough to counter invisibility, by use of their own magic, items, or whatever else.

One turn of invisibility. That's about the cheapest invisibility spell you can get. Joining it with another tiny spell shouldn't be a problem.

So we make Invisibility a mid- to high-tier spell, and make it expensive. It shouldn't be easy to become invisible anyway. Low-level Illusion spells are things like light, and darkness; affects everyone in the area. No precision. Then you've got blindness, silence, night eye; these affect the perceptions of one person. Then you've got things like Chameleon and Invisibility, which affect one target, but alter the perceptions of everyone regarding that target.

Also, just for the sake of clarity, about actors, rounds, turns and actions.

Actor = somebody doing an action or laying a claim on an action. PCs, NPCs, monsters, traps, and so on. There's probably a better word but I'm not a native English speaker and can't be bothered to go to Amazon to hunt for thesauruses in the jungle.

A round is one full circle around the table - from the first action of the highest speed actor to the last action of the lowest speed actor. When everyone is done with their actions, it's the end of the round.

Turns = actions. You get turns depending on your speed score. Actors take turns acting depending on their speed score.

Now, there a thing about effect length. How do we measure it? We could use rounds, but losing a round's worth of actions could be catastrophic. Perhaps one of possible actions could be to attempt a save against an effect?

Saint Jiub wrote:So we make Invisibility a mid- to high-tier spell, and make it expensive. It shouldn't be easy to become invisible anyway. Low-level Illusion spells are things like light, and darkness; affects everyone in the area. No precision. Then you've got blindness, silence, night eye; these affect the perceptions of one person. Then you've got things like Chameleon and Invisibility, which affect one target, but alter the perceptions of everyone regarding that target.

Nobody is going to use it, then. With magicka pool being as tiny as it is (INT+WP/2, really?) I don't see a mage burning his entire reserve to become invisible for half a minute.

Let's just say that you can't combine invisibility with an effect that would break it and call it a day. Even if we only make it slightly more expensive than, say, fire damage, joining it with... wait, isn't invisibility just 100% chameleon? Why do we need invisibility anyway?

Slotha Sil wrote:

Saint Jiub wrote:So we make Invisibility a mid- to high-tier spell, and make it expensive. It shouldn't be easy to become invisible anyway. Low-level Illusion spells are things like light, and darkness; affects everyone in the area. No precision. Then you've got blindness, silence, night eye; these affect the perceptions of one person. Then you've got things like Chameleon and Invisibility, which affect one target, but alter the perceptions of everyone regarding that target.

Nobody is going to use it, then. With magicka pool being as tiny as it is (INT+WP/2, really?) I don't see a mage burning his entire reserve to become invisible for half a minute.

Let's just say that you can't combine invisibility with an effect that would break it and call it a day. Even if we only make it slightly more expensive than, say, fire damage, joining it with... wait, isn't invisibility just 100% chameleon? Why do we need invisibility anyway?

Invisibility gives you 100% not to be spotted, but Chameleon works on a percentage and doesn't break. That's the difference in the games. Now, if we want to make Chameleon breakable and just make Invisibility be 100% chameleon, that's fine, but it will drastically reduce the worth of Chameleon.

I just run into some remains of my misguided attempt to houserule Talhoffer into d&d 3e, and that got me thinking. Swordfighting drills are pretty much a sequence of guards and cuts, both of which we can easily define in game terms (guards you might know as stances and cuts as maneuvers, courtesy of weaboo). There'd be several "schools", with different techniques (ripoffs of German, Italian and English masters, Japanese kendo etc.); weapon skill would determine how powerful guards and stances you can effectively employ with that weapon (they'd have difficulty, like spells). You'd learn them like spells, by finding a master and paying him to train you. Also, like spells, you'd be able to combine them into more powerful attacks (provided you are a capable enough weapon master, or again by paying another weapon master to work it out for you). The tradeoff for this increased power would be that complicated attacks increase your chance of getting fatigued after the battle (or even during it!) and that we'd have a green light to make combat magic more potent, should need arise. Also, as each attack must begin with a guard, through an adequate cut, and end in a guard adequate for the cut, they can't be freely combined, and badly chosen guards and cuts could ruin the advantage of superior skill and equipment. Like tetris, but with decapitations and flying entrails.

Slotha Sil wrote:I just run into some remains of my misguided attempt to houserule Talhoffer into d&d 3e, and that got me thinking. Swordfighting drills are pretty much a sequence of guards and cuts, both of which we can easily define in game terms (guards you might know as stances and cuts as maneuvers, courtesy of weaboo). There'd be several "schools", with different techniques (ripoffs of German, Italian and English masters, Japanese kendo etc.); weapon skill would determine how powerful guards and stances you can effectively employ with that weapon (they'd have difficulty, like spells). You'd learn them like spells, by finding a master and paying him to train you. Also, like spells, you'd be able to combine them into more powerful attacks (provided you are a capable enough weapon master, or again by paying another weapon master to work it out for you). The tradeoff for this increased power would be that complicated attacks increase your chance of getting fatigued after the battle (or even during it!) and that we'd have a green light to make combat magic more potent, should need arise. Also, as each attack must begin with a guard, through an adequate cut, and end in a guard adequate for the cut, they can't be freely combined, and badly chosen guards and cuts could ruin the advantage of superior skill and equipment. Like tetris, but with decapitations and flying entrails.

I was actually thinking of a similar idea for melee. We could have various fighting styles alter your defense, attack, and damage, but cost a certain amount of Fatigue per round. If you're using a basic style (like Nordic Axe Style: -10 Defense but +10 Attack) the fatigue cost might only be 2 per round - something that pretty much everybody can do. But if you're using Advanced Akaviri Long Blade Style (+15 Attack, +10 Defense, +1-5 damage) it might cost more like fifteen or twenty Fatigue per round - a cost that only the greatest sword masters can maintain for long.

Saint Jiub wrote:

Slotha Sil wrote:I just run into some remains of my misguided attempt to houserule Talhoffer into d&d 3e, and that got me thinking. Swordfighting drills are pretty much a sequence of guards and cuts, both of which we can easily define in game terms (guards you might know as stances and cuts as maneuvers, courtesy of weaboo). There'd be several "schools", with different techniques (ripoffs of German, Italian and English masters, Japanese kendo etc.); weapon skill would determine how powerful guards and stances you can effectively employ with that weapon (they'd have difficulty, like spells). You'd learn them like spells, by finding a master and paying him to train you. Also, like spells, you'd be able to combine them into more powerful attacks (provided you are a capable enough weapon master, or again by paying another weapon master to work it out for you). The tradeoff for this increased power would be that complicated attacks increase your chance of getting fatigued after the battle (or even during it!) and that we'd have a green light to make combat magic more potent, should need arise. Also, as each attack must begin with a guard, through an adequate cut, and end in a guard adequate for the cut, they can't be freely combined, and badly chosen guards and cuts could ruin the advantage of superior skill and equipment. Like tetris, but with decapitations and flying entrails.

I was actually thinking of a similar idea for melee. We could have various fighting styles alter your defense, attack, and damage, but cost a certain amount of Fatigue per round. If you're using a basic style (like Nordic Axe Style: -10 Defense but +10 Attack) the fatigue cost might only be 2 per round - something that pretty much everybody can do. But if you're using Advanced Akaviri Long Blade Style (+15 Attack, +10 Defense, +1-5 damage) it might cost more like fifteen or twenty Fatigue per round - a cost that only the greatest sword masters can maintain for long.

Averagely competent swordsmen can go about fighting for five to ten minutes, so we might need less horrid fatigue cost. Still, there's too much still to be done with this before we have something to talk about... perhaps even dumping the multiple actions per round thing and adding speed stat to attack and defense.