Topic: The quicker combat attacker

[pyrotech]

I like dagorhir's table a lot.  It provides some distinction between some of the weapons that lacked it before, it doesn't break anything already in the game, and works with the existing rules with no other modifications needed.

I also like the idea of weapons doing different damage depending on how they are used, but that starts edging away from the faster/easier high adventure premise behind HARP.

Does anyone know how many of the weapons on the current equipment table lack differentiation from each other?  I wonder how many could be easily fixed with this.

It is something I could easily and safely houserule in without much worry.

-Pyrotech

[Bruce]

I like dagorhir's table a lot.  It provides some distinction between some of the weapons that lacked it before, it doesn't break anything already in the game, and works with the existing rules with no other modifications needed.

I also like the idea of weapons doing different damage depending on how they are used, but that starts edging away from the faster/easier high adventure premise behind HARP.

Does anyone know how many of the weapons on the current equipment table lack differentiation from each other?  I wonder how many could be easily fixed with this.

It is something I could easily and safely houserule in without much worry.

-Pyrotech

In essence every weapon in each category lacks "differentiation" from every other weapon in that same category. In Rolemaster just about every weapon does different damage as depicted in the various attack charts.

[Bruce]

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).


Thoughts??

I agree, and it is accounted for in my AP system. My guess is there are few people who have actually encountered and used an AP or second by second initiative system. It essentially solves a lot of the problems with the current limitations on the weapons. My AP system takes into account the fact that different actions will have different speeds at which they can be accomplished, this goes from the difference in attacking with a dagger to a war hammer to someone picking a lock.

To be honest, you guys sound a lot like the group of players when I first mentioned using an AP system. Their opinions changed a lot once they had a chance to experience the system after a few sessions.

IMHO using the current HARP fantasy core combat tables for anything limits a lot no matter what you do. A complaint I always hear is that it is so easy to reach the max on smaller attack types thereby at times limiting the effect the larger weapons have in combat, especially against the larger foes.
The core tables are so basic that there isn't much you can do to tweak them, but they do their job for a "simplified" combat system. If you do try to tweak them even a little it puts unnecessary (though minor) complexity without any real results except maybe to give the impression of improvement, like dagorhir mentioned.

Two of the things I am working on are now in a play test stage, my AP system and my expanded combat charts. I will not submit them to ICE until they work smoothly. Like I said before, it can change your game for the better. Trust me on this, or not.
Then again I know plenty of people who are afraid of change or of trying something new. I get that with trying to get people to play HARP as opposed to d20 or pathfinder.

Bruce

[pyrotech]

I've tried a number of rules with AP like rules for initiative.  To be honest I've never found the additional drag on combat to be worth the gains they add.  Even old 2nd ed Dnd did this with spells, Hero does something similar, and taken to the extreme phoenix command did as well (with 1/10 of a second impulses).  Time after time my friends and I have slowly dropped or altered initiative modifiers like this - we just haven't found one that doesn't slow combat down more than they enhance it.

I suspect an AP system would work better for Rolemaster (with the percentage of the round thing already a precedent) than for HARP.  HARP seems to have been built from the ground up to be a more streamlined (and thus more abstract and less realistic) system.

But of course you had better take into account that I dislike the trend in recent RPGs towards more tactical combats.  I dislike needing to track exact position, combat timing, and other details in combat.  Others are very likely to find a lot of value to such a system.

-Pyrotech

[Bruce]

I've tried a number of rules with AP like rules for initiative.  To be honest I've never found the additional drag on combat to be worth the gains they add.  Even old 2nd ed Dnd did this with spells, Hero does something similar, and taken to the extreme phoenix command did as well (with 1/10 of a second impulses).  Time after time my friends and I have slowly dropped or altered initiative modifiers like this - we just haven't found one that doesn't slow combat down more than they enhance it.

I suspect an AP system would work better for Rolemaster (with the percentage of the round thing already a precedent) than for HARP.  HARP seems to have been built from the ground up to be a more streamlined (and thus more abstract and less realistic) system.

But of course you had better take into account that I dislike the trend in recent RPGs towards more tactical combats.  I dislike needing to track exact position, combat timing, and other details in combat.  Others are very likely to find a lot of value to such a system.

-Pyrotech

Disclaimer: Please note that when I say AP systems I am also talking about the CEATS system for Rolemaster that I used back in the 90's.
Your experience matters and is greatly appreciated.
One of my players had experienced a system somewhat like an AP system when I first tried it back in the 90's. He mentioned it was different with the group I was running. At first it did bog down things quite a bit, but luckily I had players that believed in trying it out and making it work for the game. They all had suggestions and pitched in on making it work. There was one guy that was really good with math (CEATS was more complex and difficult with tenths and hundredths in decimal) of whom volunteered to run the initiative tracker sheet and I gave a little extra experience for that. Like I said it took 3 or 4 sessions before it finally clicked into place. So there is a learning curve and a hurdle that I believe comes from being so set in round systems. Please also note that in those days my gaming sessions could last 6 hrs or longer. So that is quite a bit of time.
It was a great experience for me and those players, it was mentioned that the CEATS system was the best thing about Rolemaster.
But a negative side effect of that great experience is that round systems seem so silly to me now and the games I play with round systems seem more like board games when it comes to tactical situations, and unlike a lot of RPGers out there I am not a great fan of board games.
Part of my plan is to try and help others experience at least some of what I did.
I have been asked to think about GMing (sorry "DM"ing) some pathfinder organized play sessions. I am not sure I really want to do that but it could lead the way into me getting more players into my HARP game. Not to mention that I would like to develop my AP system to be universal and playable with at least the headliner games out there.
Ok enough for this post, I will explain the test run the other night next.

Bruce

[Bruce]

We had our first playtest the other night on Thursday (14th of November), I ran a demo combat to see how my AP system worked.

We only had 2 hrs that night because the store owner had to leave at 8pm, and by the time the last player showed up and we were ready to go it was 6pm. The players still elected to do the test run because at least one of them is anxious to try it out. With me having to explain it and clarify the AP system every so often (along with rules corrections at the end) it took about a half hour to run the test so that left 1.5 hours to actually game which kind of sucked as the party encountered a dwarven construct and it was seriously whipping their tails (immune to stun and bleeders).

First let me explain that every 100 AP's is equivalent to 1 round of time. A question came up when one of the bad guys was coming out of stun and he was the last bad guy standing. He was stunned for 200 AP at an AP count of 90 (players attack) and he didn't resist stun so he came out of it on the AP count of 290 and the next PC actions were at an AP count of 320. One player suggested his actions start over when coming out of stun. I thought it a little unbalanced that his action would reset and he would have to wait almost a whole round to complete his attack, his attack speed was 95 AP's so it would have happened at 385. Another player recommended that he would be able to complete his action as though he had only paused for 200 AP's, so he would have acted at an AP count 295. I thought that a little unrealistic and came up with a tentative rule that when coming out of stun any actions you have planned take 1/2 the amount of normal AP cost (round up). The way I see it it is you can do some thinking as you are able to full parry at half effectiveness so it made sense you would be partially prepared to complete your action. So if the party didn't finish him off then his action would have happened at an AP count of 340, (95 divided by two round up = 50)+ 290.

BTW I am running the Cyradon starting adventures and we are at the part just before they get to the barracks to pick up the Gnome to look for some supposed food the aforementioned Gnome dreamed of. Please do not post any spoilers here, at least one of them reads my posts!

Bruce

[Thom @ ICE]

IMHO using the current HARP fantasy core combat tables for anything limits a lot no matter what you do. A complaint I always hear is that it is so easy to reach the max on smaller attack types thereby at times limiting the effect the larger weapons have in combat, especially against the larger foes.
The core tables are so basic that there isn't much you can do to tweak them, but they do their job for a "simplified" combat system. If you do try to tweak them even a little it puts unnecessary (though minor) complexity without any real results except maybe to give the impression of improvement, like dagorhir mentioned.

I fully agree with you on this. My own preference is for the Hack & Slash combat tables, but I do understand their issue (and that's been covered elsewhere).  As far as I am concerned - if an individual is skilled enough with using a spoon in combat they should be able to deliver an instant kill  (thus no damage caps) without having to rely on a lucky roll.

Two of the things I am working on are now in a play test stage, my AP system and my expanded combat charts. I will not submit them to ICE until they work smoothly. Like I said before, it can change your game for the better. Trust me on this, or not.
Then again I know plenty of people who are afraid of change or of trying something new. I get that with trying to get people to play HARP as opposed to d20 or pathfinder.

I'd like to think that I am not one of those who are afraid of change.  My concern is whether or not it becomes too complex for me to implement. There are lots of great ideas that work well, but if the complexity factor increases I'm often put off.   I'll definitely give it a try, especially to see how it can be mixed in with other stuff I'm playing with.

[Bruce]

My concern is whether or not it becomes too complex for me to implement. There are lots of great ideas that work well, but if the complexity factor increases I'm often put off.   I'll definitely give it a try, especially to see how it can be mixed in with other stuff I'm playing with.

Therein lies some of my hurdles. There are things I believe that should be included in such a system but can slow down combat and even make it complex for some people. So far I have been able to get past that by making those things "optional" rules. The system runs fine without them (at least so far). The way I am setting it up is so that each group can customize the AP system with various options and run it the way they want to.
Which is kind of like the way I am setting up the combat charts I am developing, though I am not sure developing is the right word. As I am taking a lot of cues from HARP core and Rolemaster. In these combat charts GMs will have 4 options:
1. One roll with crit resolution like Hack & Slash
2. Two roll resolution like Hack & Slash
3. Two roll resolution like Arms Law (using Arms Law)
4. And tentatively, a special table for a GM to use for every weapon and attack type in the game. The thing posted above about different weapons of the same type doing different damage can be easily handled on this table (dagorhir's post). But crits will still be rolled separately. This idea is still in development and could work decently enough. I am not sure this table and it's rules will be a part of my submission to ICE. We'll see.

Now so far my AP system has 3 optional rules:
1. Different speed modifiers for each type of weapon and creature.
2. Using the skill to modify the action time. This represents experience in how fast someone can do something.
3. Different ideas on how to use various skills in this AP system for more intense scenes in a game.

Bruce