Topic: The quicker combat attacker

[Bruce]

Actually I had no idea what to call this thread so forgive me.

I was reading the "Making Halfling and Gnome small sized creatures" thread and remembered something I read in a book about knights and castles (or some book I read on the subject).
In the later years of the middle ages the rapier was actually the preferred weapon of choice above other swords because it was so much lighter and thinner thereby making it faster than other weapons. The rapier was of a higher quality and therefore more expensive so usually only the high society of the day could afford them. The book went on to explain combat tactics and how the rapier was very effective against even armored knights. I believe the author also commented on his theory about the rapier being one of the reasons armor started becoming less preferred in combat. This was because a non-armored foe wielding a rapier could move circles around an armored foe. The book seemed legit and accurate.

Does anyone know anything more on this?

This is one thing that is basically impossible to accurately represent in standard round systems. Which is one of the reasons I liked CEATS (from RM companion VI) so much. Does anyone else use a system like CEATS or an action point system? The aforementioned systems are basically second by second combat sequences where characters act in sequence and not on a round by round basis. It makes  for a much more realistic game. BTW CEATS stands for Combat Environment Activity Tracking System.

I wonder, are there others who would be interested in seeing or using an AP system for HARP?

Bruce

FYI I am working on a AP (Action Point) system for HARP. I should start playtesting this week.

[Thom @ ICE]

I see that as being a weapon/attack differentiator.
What would you say to HARP weapons having the following:
* Crit Tables by Weapon Type (Already done)
* Initiative specific by weapon
* Fumble % specific by weapon
* Attack Bonus specific by weapon (Applies only to the OB used for attack)
* Defense Bonus specific by weapon (Applies only to the OB used for parry)
* Damage Bonus specific by weapon (Applies only to the final attack result)

This would then create differentiation of weapons and/or attacks and allows for improved benefits that work with the character.  What do you think?

[dagorhir]

Actually I had no idea what to call this thread so forgive me.

I was reading the "Making Halfling and Gnome small sized creatures" thread and remembered something I read in a book about knights and castles (or some book I read on the subject).
In the later years of the middle ages the rapier was actually the preferred weapon of choice above other swords because it was so much lighter and thinner thereby making it faster than other weapons. The rapier was of a higher quality and therefore more expensive so usually only the high society of the day could afford them. The book went on to explain combat tactics and how the rapier was very effective against even armored knights. I believe the author also commented on his theory about the rapier being one of the reasons armor started becoming less preferred in combat. This was because a non-armored foe wielding a rapier could move circles around an armored foe. The book seemed legit and accurate.

Does anyone know anything more on this?

This is one thing that is basically impossible to accurately represent in standard round systems. Which is one of the reasons I liked CEATS (from RM companion VI) so much. Does anyone else use a system like CEATS or an action point system? The aforementioned systems are basically second by second combat sequences where characters act in sequence and not on a round by round basis. It makes  for a much more realistic game. BTW CEATS stands for Combat Environment Activity Tracking System.

I wonder, are there others who would be interested in seeing or using an AP system for HARP?

Bruce

FYI I am working on a AP (Action Point) system for HARP. I should start playtesting this week.

Hi Bruce,

I have some serious doubts about your book. The rapier is actually a renaissance weapon best suited for duels between two individuals. It has a very thin and light blade design for stabbing. All but useless against armor. I do believe that by the time the rapier came into popular use the armor has already left the battle. And the firearm was the cause of that depart. Armor offers no protection against a musket ball.

Also, armors are not even half as cumbersome as rpg games (or even most book on the subject) would lead you to believe. But I rather leave Harp as it is on that particular subject.

[Bruce]

Hi Bruce,

I have some serious doubts about your book. The rapier is actually a renaissance weapon best suited for duels between two individuals. It has a very thin and light blade design for stabbing. All but useless against armor. I do believe that by the time the rapier came into popular use the armor has already left the battle. And the firearm was the cause of that depart. Armor offers no protection against a musket ball.

Also, armors are not even half as cumbersome as rpg games (or even most book on the subject) would lead you to believe. But I rather leave Harp as it is on that particular subject.

Thank you dagorhir. Now that you mention it, I believe I misquoted the book. It was more than a year ago when I read that book and at my age; what was I saying again?
I do distinctly remember the author saying how the rapier out classed all other swords in a single fight (obviously without armor), though I am not sure how much of that was based on historical fact. His argument made it sound very reasonable.
With everything I have read and then seen on the History channel (and no I don't believe everything I see on the History channel) I agree that armors were not the hard to move around in. To be honest 55 lbs (approximate weight of medieval parade armor) is not really that heavy to carry around once you get used to the weight. This is considering my personal experience wearing army backpacks that weighed between 30 to 60 or 70 lbs. And I would think having the weight spread all over like that would be easier,once you got used to it. Please correct me if I am wrong, I am only assuming based on my limited experiences.
Bruce

[Bruce]

I see that as being a weapon/attack differentiator.
What would you say to HARP weapons having the following:
* Crit Tables by Weapon Type (Already done)
* Initiative specific by weapon
* Fumble % specific by weapon
* Attack Bonus specific by weapon (Applies only to the OB used for attack)
* Defense Bonus specific by weapon (Applies only to the OB used for parry)
* Damage Bonus specific by weapon (Applies only to the final attack result)

This would then create differentiation of weapons and/or attacks and allows for improved benefits that work with the character.  What do you think?

The varied fumble range is also already developed, i.e. Rolemaster.
That might work ok with HARP. But it could get complicated with that much addition. I personally think the damage difference is good enough in whatever tables one uses. The real important undeveloped difference is in how fast the different attack sizes are. Your initiative modifier based on weapon type might work ok but with a standard round system you will still be attacking the same amount of times in a set of given rounds. So it would only solve part of the problem. The AP system I am developing brings weapon sizes (attack sizes) into a slightly better perspective.
To be honest with you, and I have said this before, I believe that once you get the hang of an action point system or a second by second tactical system the round system just doesn't seem to work or make sense any more.  I used a variation of the CEATS system in a Rolemaster group in the 90's and an older version of my AP system with a group running pseudo HARP a few years ago. Both times it ran great. The whole attack size thing and thinking about what and when your going to do something in a tactical situation comes into play. It can bring a level of intensity to the game only seen in movies. Will he get the spell off before they make it over the cliff or through the door? Can she take out that sniper before he fires another shot? Can the dwarven warrior get the wounded thief out of there before the dragon brings his tail around for another sweep? And so on. Trust me when I say this: It can change your game.

Thom, it seems like your already working on something that may or may not turn into a product for future use. If so how far along are you or is it just an idea for now?

Bruce

[Thom @ ICE]

Only ideas at this point.
In previous discussions the question has come up as to why anyone would use one weapon over another since their parameters are identical. Compare a Short Sword vs. a Dagger.  All combat parameters are identical - cost for short sword is double+ the dagger cost and roleplaying wise you can conceal a dagger far more easily than a short sword.


In my opinion, why not say that a dagger gets a bonus to Init over the sword, both are equal on attack bonus, fumble chance with a short sword is slightly higher, but give a short sword a +10 over the dagger in terms of damage?  The Main Gauche can then also be handled better  as it gets reduced significantly in damage, but gains the higher parry bonus.


This may appear to add a lot of complexity, but as these are static modifiers that are applied whenever that weapon is used it is a worthwhile consideration (IMO).


Taken to an extreme (off the top of my head right now) you could do away with attack sizes and cover that entirely with these weapon bonuses. After that I'm not sure you need damage caps at all.  And while I am still not sold on an AP methodology, if you wanted to allow weapon speed into the mix you could indicate that you get an extra attack for every 30 points of initiative.  An initiative roll/result of 33 gives you 2 attacks. A roll/result of 61 gives you 3 attacks.  Now that dagger with the higher init bonus becomes more desireable for the quick, unarmored combatant, while the heavily armored soldier takes the short sword and shield option. (Note - this is mostly off the top of my head and has not been fully thought through - so it may be absolutely flawed) 

[Bruce]

All this comes into account in the different things I am developing. From the alternate/redone/corrected combat tables (like H&S) to my AP system.
I think attack sizes and their perspective maxes are important for game balance. I don't think that a dagger should ever be able to do as much damage as a long sword, much less a great sword. An optional rule in my combat tables is the inclusion of armor reducing types of damage and crits. It will essentially be an easier way of doing all the separate RM combat tables, all on one (possibly two pages. I also already have separate weapon initiative speed mods for use in my AP system. Which is an optional advanced rule as opposed to the normal initiative speed mods based on attack sizes across the board. I may also work out initiative speed mods for animals and their attack types. These initiative speed mods are different than the normal initiative mods already listed. they will work in tandem but in a different way. Everything will be clarified and explained in my submission to ICE.

You should give an AP system a try one day, you might find you like it. I will be asking for playtesters soon, so if you would like to playtest my AP system please let me know.

bruce

[Zhaleskra]

Speed is more about the combatant than the weapon.

[GrumpyOldFart]

To be honest 55 lbs (approximate weight of medieval parade armor) is not really that heavy to carry around once you get used to the weight. This is considering my personal experience wearing army backpacks that weighed between 30 to 60 or 70 lbs. And I would think having the weight spread all over like that would be easier,once you got used to it.

This agrees with my experience of wearing 35-40 lbs. of cuir bouilli in the SCA. I found it much, MUCH easier than the same weight of backpack. The biggest problem I found with armor is that most of it breathes almost as badly as a wetsuit, so you kind of cook in the can, so to speak.

[Bruce]

Speed is more about the combatant than the weapon.

Agreed, and experience plays a larger part in how fast you can attack with a weapon of which I believe my AP system takes care of all that, and more.

Bruce

[Falenthal]

In previous discussions the question has come up as to why anyone would use one weapon over another since their parameters are identical. Compare a Short Sword vs. a Dagger.  All combat parameters are identical - cost for short sword is double+ the dagger cost and roleplaying wise you can conceal a dagger far more easily than a short sword.


In my opinion, why not say that a dagger gets a bonus to Init over the sword, both are equal on attack bonus, fumble chance with a short sword is slightly higher, but give a short sword a +10 over the dagger in terms of damage?  The Main Gauche can then also be handled better  as it gets reduced significantly in damage, but gains the higher parry bonus.


This may appear to add a lot of complexity, but as these are static modifiers that are applied whenever that weapon is used it is a worthwhile consideration (IMO).

Regarding to this, I'll paste here a house rule I use for some weapons and that was posted a time ago. Maybe someone will like it:

The dagger vs. short sword and mace vs. morning star comparison made me shiver as well. I want to keep it simple in HARP, but I think there are some minor tweaks that can make some weapons more attractive and give some flavour to the arsenal. I don't want to modify a lot, but I think I'll be using this changes:

Short Sword (Crit. Small 0/ Cap 90)
Flail (Crit. Large +20/Cap 110)
Morning Star (Crit. Medium +10/ Cap 100)
Quarterstaff (Crit. Medium 0/ Cap 100)
Hand Axe (Crit. Medium 0/ Cap 100 Fumble 01-03)


The main difference is that, for some of them (except quarterstaff), the cap is the same for their critical type, but the mod to their damage has risen by +10. The idea is that a short sword won't do much more damage than a dagger, and never as much as a long sword, but it will do it more often. That is, a short sword will hit his cap more often than a dagger, but they both have the same cap.
This applies to morning star vs. mace or flail vs. war hammer: this helps compensate their higher fumble range with the fact that those chains help increase their damage.
As for the quarterstaff, I just applied what has been said before: Large critical is too much for a wooden pole.
And the hand axe, I imagine it as a dwarven weapon for choping down orcs, not a wood-axe. Therefore, it's stats are equal as the ones of a broadsword. For wood-axes, I'd use Small criticals.

[dagorhir]

In previous discussions the question has come up as to why anyone would use one weapon over another since their parameters are identical. Compare a Short Sword vs. a Dagger.  All combat parameters are identical - cost for short sword is double+ the dagger cost and roleplaying wise you can conceal a dagger far more easily than a short sword.


In my opinion, why not say that a dagger gets a bonus to Init over the sword, both are equal on attack bonus, fumble chance with a short sword is slightly higher, but give a short sword a +10 over the dagger in terms of damage?  The Main Gauche can then also be handled better  as it gets reduced significantly in damage, but gains the higher parry bonus.


This may appear to add a lot of complexity, but as these are static modifiers that are applied whenever that weapon is used it is a worthwhile consideration (IMO).

Regarding to this, I'll paste here a house rule I use for some weapons and that was posted a time ago. Maybe someone will like it:

The dagger vs. short sword and mace vs. morning star comparison made me shiver as well. I want to keep it simple in HARP, but I think there are some minor tweaks that can make some weapons more attractive and give some flavour to the arsenal. I don't want to modify a lot, but I think I'll be using this changes:

Short Sword (Crit. Small 0/ Cap 90)
Flail (Crit. Large +20/Cap 110)
Morning Star (Crit. Medium +10/ Cap 100)
Quarterstaff (Crit. Medium 0/ Cap 100)
Hand Axe (Crit. Medium 0/ Cap 100 Fumble 01-03)


The main difference is that, for some of them (except quarterstaff), the cap is the same for their critical type, but the mod to their damage has risen by +10. The idea is that a short sword won't do much more damage than a dagger, and never as much as a long sword, but it will do it more often. That is, a short sword will hit his cap more often than a dagger, but they both have the same cap.
This applies to morning star vs. mace or flail vs. war hammer: this helps compensate their higher fumble range with the fact that those chains help increase their damage.
As for the quarterstaff, I just applied what has been said before: Large critical is too much for a wooden pole.
And the hand axe, I imagine it as a dwarven weapon for choping down orcs, not a wood-axe. Therefore, it's stats are equal as the ones of a broadsword. For wood-axes, I'd use Small criticals.

When it comes for short swords, I see then more like the roman gladius which was a stabbing weapon. My house rule for short sword has them as a Medium Puncture weapon instead of a Small Slash. The Dagger remains a Small Slash.

[Bruce]

Hmm interesting. I also questioned the damage for the HARP quarterstaff being in the "large" scale until one of my players explained it me, (in fact just tonight he did). His main point was it is a two handed weapon, so it should do more damage. To be honest I have seen people wield quarterstaves and they can do some really heavy damage. I can maybe see it doing medium damage if it was wielded one handed (with negative mods to OB) but medium damage for two handed seems a bit unfair with that weapon. Oddly enough it is rarely used in my games.
Truth be told I hold the quarterstaff as a "sleeper" weapon because it is very quick and can do some lethal damage, but it is never seen that way and is usually passed by as being not-very-lethal, much like the spear.

Bruce

[Luxferre]

Hmm interesting. I also questioned the damage for the HARP quarterstaff being in the "large" scale until one of my players explained it me, (in fact just tonight he did). His main point was it is a two handed weapon, so it should do more damage. To be honest I have seen people wield quarterstaves and they can do some really heavy damage. I can maybe see it doing medium damage if it was wielded one handed (with negative mods to OB) but medium damage for two handed seems a bit unfair with that weapon. Oddly enough it is rarely used in my games.
Truth be told I hold the quarterstaff as a "sleeper" weapon because it is very quick and can do some lethal damage, but it is never seen that way and is usually passed by as being not-very-lethal, much like the spear.

Bruce

Have you seen damaga caused by a mace? I think it should be the same for a quarterstaff. So medium is quite good for a completely wooden and often improvised weapon.

[dagorhir]

I have been considering changing the attack size of weapons in values from -20 to +20, using increments of 5. That would give more variety for weapons.

[Bruce]

I have been considering changing the attack size of weapons in values from -20 to +20, using increments of 5. That would give more variety for weapons.

That would work except the combat tables go up by 10's. 71-80, 81-90, 91-100, etc.
Not to mention there isn't much variety on the standard HARP tables. They only go up to 120, so it limits the variety even more with a +10 or higher base bonus to damage.

Bruce

[dagorhir]

I have been considering changing the attack size of weapons in values from -20 to +20, using increments of 5. That would give more variety for weapons.

That would work except the combat tables go up by 10's. 71-80, 81-90, 91-100, etc.
Not to mention there isn't much variety on the standard HARP tables. They only go up to 120, so it limits the variety even more with a +10 or higher base bonus to damage.

Bruce

That's true about the tables going by 10s, but It would certainly give some players the impression of having more variety.

I haven't put to work in for this because of how little it would affect the game in the end.

[Thom @ ICE]

The fact that the charts go up by 10's is not really an issue since your rolls are by 1's.


A roll of 76 with a +5 bonus is 81 and takes you into that next result so every bonus point counts. 


I like Dagorhir's concept - and would love to see what he comes up with as it might fit right in with the stuff I am playing with.
I still think that a weapon like a dagger should have significant initiative bonus compared to a warhammer, though it would likely be a minor bonus (but every bonus point counts).


For the other modifiers....
Damage - Similar to Dagorhir, but I would not limit it to +/-5 multiples. 
Damage Caps - Set it by weapon instead of weapon size
Parry - Similar to the rules already in place for Sai, Main Gauche, etc. but applicable both as +/- for every weapon

Thoughts??

[dagorhir]

Since I allow weapons to be used in different ways, what I come up with would look quite different.
For instance a dagger (small weapon) would be:
-10 Slash/Cap 90
-5 Puncture/Cap 95
-20 Crush/Cap 80

A short sword (Medium weapon):
+0 Puncture/Cap 100
-5 Slash/Cap 95
-10 Crush/Cap 90

I would start with a cap of 100+Damage Value and I would perhaps adjust them by weapon later. Though that may get complicated.

As for initiative modifiers, even though small weapons are faster, larger weapons tend to have more reach. There is already initiative modifiers for one-handed, two-handed and pole arm weapons. I prefer to leave it at that.

[dagorhir]

I have something in my weapons grid that isn't in Harp, which is weapon size. On the first round the large weapon would gain a +2 Initiative bonus per size step larger, and on subsequent rounds the small weapon would gain a +2 Initiative bonus per size step.

Size of the weapon determine if it can be used one-handed or two-handed (or both) depending on the character's size. Here would be my starting point for damage on the weapons primary attack type.

Size	Damage	Cap
Tiny	-20	80
Tiny - Small	-15	85
Small	-10	90
Small - Medium	-5	95
Medium	+0	100
Medium - Large	+5	105
Large	+10	110
Large - Huge	+15	115
Huge	+20	120