Another SPD thread

[Doc Democracy]

Different this time though (I hope). I'm not talking about getting rid of the SPD chart or doing other funky stuff with it. Instead I'm talking about changing the way it is used in the game.

 

I've been wrestling with how I want to use Hero to play in Glorantha. I am currently thinking about combat and how weapons seem pretty much the same in most systems and don't provide much extra colour until you get to the fancy magical ones.

 

I was thinking of making the heroes base 3 SPD for just about everything in the system (we can work movement and everything else based on that). In combat however I was thinking of giving weapons particular combat speeds. So a broad sword - the base weapon would be SPD 3, a dagger would be SPD 4 a short bow would be SPD 6 etc etc. (These are notional values - I haven't set anything in stone yet - I thought I'd run the idea through here first)

 

I was thinking that I could give each weapon STR and DEX minimums. For each minimum that you don't have the combat speed of the weapon decreases. If you have enough extra DEX then you can increase the combat speed of the weapon (removing any need to mess around with the price of DEX).

 

I was also thinking that armour would need a STR minimum else your base combat speed would be reduced as well.

 

I thought of this on the way into work this morning on the tube. I'm hoping that people will be able to tell me why this is a terrible idea so that I don't have to go to all the work of designing the armoury for Glorantha...

 

 

Doc

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Another SPD thread

 

It would probably be a lot easier to implement modifiers to "initiative" (i.e. DEX for determining Combat Order) to simulate weapon combat speeds and armor effects, rather than modifying SPD for that purpose. Would that work for what you have in mind?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Another SPD thread

 

Well, I wanted the look and feel of the Glorantha I liked playing in.

 

In that system they used a strike rank system. Each weapon had a strike rank that was added to the base strike rank of the character (defined through DEX and SIZ). That meant that some characters could pick up a small (low SR) weapon and attack twice or even three times in a round while others would only be able to attack once (poor DEX and low SIZ). Missile weapons had no SIZ SR and with only DEX to consider often went three times in a round for a character who could only attack once in melee.

 

It worked in the game and I wanted a similar look and feel (even if it does mean I'll do a lot of base work trying to balance things out).

 

Initiative just doesn't cut it - but thank you for the first attempt to stop me doing the work!

 

 

Doc

[Bloodstone]

Re: Another SPD thread

 

Autofire might be preferable to limited Speed, wither built into the weapons themselves or as some type of naked advantage.

 

Out of curiosity, what's the number of attacks that you can make with your bare hands vs a dagger? Because if it's higher then or equal to a dagger, then really all characters probably effectivly have +3 limited Speed (only to attack) or some such. The reduced number of attacks should then be applied as an extra time type limitation on larger, slower weapons.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Another SPD thread

 

Autofire might be preferable to limited Speed' date=' wither built into the weapons themselves or as some type of naked advantage.[/quote']

 

Autofire probably doesn't quite cut it, though I'll give some thought to more funky applications...

 

Out of curiosity' date=' what's the number of attacks that you can make with your bare hands vs a dagger? Because if it's higher then or equal to a dagger, then really all characters probably effectivly have +3 limited Speed (only to attack) or some such. The reduced number of attacks should then be applied as an extra time type limitation on larger, slower weapons.[/quote']

 

Hmm. Good point. I never thought about it. I think that HtH attacks were pretty fast (small weapon, low SR). That would mean that everyone would attack most often in melee using no weapons - though missile weapons would be faster.

 

Thank you - I'd have missed the fisticuff implications completely.

 

 

Doc

[Markdoc]

Re: Another SPD thread

 

The simplest way to do this (I think) is to apply SPD modifiers to each weapon. As noted, the fist is your base attack (SR1 in RQ) - punching is the fastest attack there is, but it does little damage (note, this was one flaw in RQ - I was playing a troll and with his 2d6 damage bonus from STR, plus 1d6 for a bite, he could do greatsword damage at SR1. Gobble, chomp, munch!).

 

What I'd do, to save you much reworking, is to to take the already existing STR MINs and use them as SPD minuses, with the caveat that you round in the player's favour. Thus a weapon with STR MIN 5 or less would have no effect on your SPD, a weapon with STR min 6-15 would drop your SPD by one and so on - in that case it might be worthwile to have a SPD of 3.3, so you could use an 8STR weapon at no SPD penalty, suddenly making SPD much more granular. Add in a STR cost for Armour and you end up with a combined modifier that would drop most people to SPD1 (I assume you can't go lower than 1). You might want to choose something other than raw STR Min (STR Min -5, for example) but this way the math is already done for you. If you did do this, I would drop the damage penalty for STR min - the SPD penalty would replace it.

 

Also with this approach, a higher base SPD makes you faster - but you would lose most of that if you chose to use heavier weapons or armour. In contrast, big muscular guys could use big muscular weapons without being slowed down so much - but using lighter weapons would not make them faster - thus avoiding the troll exploit above, where you end up with a character who does big damage AND gets to attack multiple times.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Another SPD thread

 

The problem with this approach (and it is a long while since I have played a StormBull Duck...) is that weapon speeds are not really accurate reflections of how often you can attack with something.

 

As Markdoc points out a fist is potentially the 'fastest' weapon, capable of striking in the least time and hitting several times in quick succession BUT a bare-hand fighter against a sword wielder will give apparently counter-intuitive results - in fact the 'slow' sword wielder will get in more attacks because the fist fighter just can't get into a position to launch his blistering assault.

 

Moreover I don't see speed in combat as (necessarily) a simple measure of the frequency that you can launch an attack, but rather an indication of the frequency with which you can launch an attack that has any reasonable chance of having an in-game effect. Even a SPD 1 character would swing the sword more than once in a turn, it is just that only one of those swings has a chance to hurt an opponent, or parry a blow - the rest is just sfx.

 

The problem is not easily solved, but one approach is to enforce combat modifiers for relative weapon efficiency. I think there are some rules in the book but I don't have it with me to give you a reference. Of course RWE varies situationally: a shortbow is far harder to use in melee than at range...

 

I do appreciate I've completely sidestepped your question....

 

The way you describe things in the initial post, it seems to me that what you might be (or possibly are) doing is giving weapons stats much like vehicles. A vehicle has a speed and a dex, which is the maximum performance that a character can get out of it, but a character may not be able to use it to full efficiency if their own speed and dex are not up to it. That sort of approach could work well...you could then trade off strength over the minimum to enable you to increase the 'maximum' for the weapon (maybe 5 STR = +3 DEX or +1 SPD ?) effectively cutting down on your damage potential to weild the weapon more quickly and accurately?

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Another SPD thread

 

Rather than the limited SPD approach, what about giving each weapon a STR min (as normal) and a "DEX + STR Min" at which the character can reduce the Rapid Attack penalties by 2, effectively allowing two attacks in the phase with no penalties.

 

Adding to this, there could be one or more further increments which allow a further -2 reduction, so if your DEX + STR is, say, 10 points over the minimum for the first increment, you get a second reduction to the Rapid Attack penalties.

 

You could add some further tactical choices by adding a rule that STR can either be used to add to DEX for this purpose, OR be used to meet the STR minimum and add damage, forcing a choice between more strikes and higher damage (and curtailing the enhanced impact of STR somewhat).

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Another SPD thread

 

Rather than the limited SPD approach, what about giving each weapon a STR min (as normal) and a "DEX + STR Min" at which the character can reduce the Rapid Attack penalties by 2, effectively allowing two attacks in the phase with no penalties.

 

Adding to this, there could be one or more further increments which allow a further -2 reduction, so if your DEX + STR is, say, 10 points over the minimum for the first increment, you get a second reduction to the Rapid Attack penalties.

 

You could add some further tactical choices by adding a rule that STR can either be used to add to DEX for this purpose, OR be used to meet the STR minimum and add damage, forcing a choice between more strikes and higher damage (and curtailing the enhanced impact of STR somewhat).

 

Interesting idea. So of everyone was base SPD 3, then someone meeting the DEX and STR minima could attack 6 times a round rather than just 3 times as they'd be able to use the rapid attack each phase.

 

I might use that in a more limited form - allowing one, two or three 'free' rapid attacks depending on characteristics etc.

 

Thanks

 

Doc

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Another SPD thread

 

Seems to me that Sean really hit on something here. To hearken back to my 1st Ed. D&D roots, there were two factors in determining initiative; what you rolled, and the speed of your weapon (based on weight & manueverability). It didn't have a hard & fast mechanic, but the concept was a knife fighter would be able to attack faster than a gent with a 2H Greatsword. Simple nuff.

 

I think if you base everyone's speed on three you're doing an injustice to the system and the people who've bought that stat up; mind you, I don't have the full breadth of the experience these other folk do in terms of when to HR something, but the first question is always "Will this enhance the gameplay?"

 

There's already STR minima rules on weapons for swinging purposes and the ability to stack damage. I think if you also apply DEX caps/requirements on them you're over using the DEX stat a bit, and it's already heavily involved in everything in the game as is. You'll also lean towards everyone building up their stats more than usual to take full advantage of a possible 'free attack.'

 

Insofar as getting the feel of weapon speeds down. *chews lip a moment*

 

I was thinking that I could give each weapon STR and DEX minimums. For each minimum that you don't have the combat speed of the weapon decreases. If you have enough extra DEX then you can increase the combat speed of the weapon (removing any need to mess around with the price of DEX).

 

I was also thinking that armour would need a STR minimum else your base combat speed would be reduced as well.

 

I guess I just don't see DEX as being a definitive factor here, but that's also because I've been vested in d20 for so long that there's an ongoing struggle at times to unlock certain assumptions in my head of how things should work. If anything, I would possibly consider slowing people down based on STR - we know it reduces damage, you could also roll it in to reduce speed (not only can you not heft that blade, now you're having trouble actually moving it.)

 

Some thoughts.

[Utech]

Re: Another SPD thread

 

I was running a fantasy game at Hero Central. I've attached the combat rules I used for the game.

 

These are hardly perfect, but they led to some very interesting combat situations.

 

The most important change here is that fighting at different "hand-to-hand ranges" adds to or subtracts from DEX. This often changed SPD in combat. And was a lot of fun.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Another SPD thread

 

I think if you base everyone's speed on three you're doing an injustice to the system and the people who've bought that stat up; [/Quote]

 

I'd essentially be removing the stat from play. No-one would have to consider the SPD stat - they'd all be the same (or the PCs would) but would get more or less attacks in combat depending on DEX and STR and the weapon they'd be using.

 

There's already STR minima rules on weapons for swinging purposes and the ability to stack damage. I think if you also apply DEX caps/requirements on them you're over using the DEX stat a bit' date=' and it's already heavily involved in everything in the game as is. You'll also lean towards everyone building up their stats more than usual to take full advantage of a possible 'free attack.'[/Quote']

 

Well - the 3pts paid for DEX would no longer be applied to increasing a SPD stat but instead to a combat speed - so swings and roundabouts - nothing extra for the three points; probably a bit less.

 

 

I guess I just don't see DEX as being a definitive factor here' date=' but that's also because I've been vested in d20 for so long that there's an ongoing struggle at times to unlock certain assumptions in my head of how things should work. If anything, I would possibly consider slowing people down based on STR - we know it reduces damage, you could also roll it in to reduce speed (not only can you [i']not [/i]heft that blade, now you're having trouble actually moving it.)[/Quote]

 

You were worried about giving extra facility to DEX - I think people would be more worried about giving extra facility to STR!

 

Some thoughts.

 

And most welcome. Thank you.

 

 

 

Doc

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Another SPD thread

 

Initiative just doesn't cut it - but thank you for the first attempt to stop me doing the work!

Ah well. I gave it a shot.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Another SPD thread

 

Well - the 3pts paid for DEX would no longer be applied to increasing a SPD stat but instead to a combat speed - so swings and roundabouts - nothing extra for the three points; probably a bit less.

 

You were worried about giving extra facility to DEX - I think people would be more worried about giving extra facility to STR!

 

Actually, I wonder whether the formula ultimately should give more weight to DEX and less to STR, for those reasons.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Another SPD thread

 

I was running a fantasy game at Hero Central. I've attached the combat rules I used for the game.

 

These are hardly perfect, but they led to some very interesting combat situations.

 

The most important change here is that fighting at different "hand-to-hand ranges" adds to or subtracts from DEX. This often changed SPD in combat. And was a lot of fun.

 

So, if someone with a long weapon wanted to gain some distance or someone with a short weapon wanted to close, how did you adjudicate that?

 

I was thinking of introducing a close/separate manoeuvre. This would be a manoeuvre that allowed you to control the distance at which you fight. The manoeuvre would be in lieu of attacking but the successful combatant would dictate the fight distance until someone else changed it.

 

I might do this with changes in SPD rather than DEX but good idea.

 

 

Doc

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Another SPD thread

 

The problem with this approach (and it is a long while since I have played a StormBull Duck...) is that weapon speeds are not really accurate reflections of how often you can attack with something.[/Quote]

 

No. But in a simulationist world they are a decent replacement.

 

As Markdoc points out a fist is potentially the 'fastest' weapon' date=' capable of striking in the least time and hitting several times in quick succession BUT a bare-hand fighter against a sword wielder will give apparently counter-intuitive results - in fact the 'slow' sword wielder will get in more attacks because the fist fighter just can't get into a position to launch his blistering assault.[/Quote']

 

Well, I had been thinking of things like combat position before now but Utech's ideas might be a good basis for doing this as well - at a mid distance the fist fighter against a sword wielder might only get one hit a round unless he was _really_ good.

 

Moreover I don't see speed in combat as (necessarily) a simple measure of the frequency that you can launch an attack' date=' but rather an indication of the frequency with which you can launch an attack that has any reasonable chance of having an in-game effect. Even a SPD 1 character would swing the sword more than once in a turn, it is just that only one of those swings has a chance to hurt an opponent, or parry a blow - the rest is just sfx.[/Quote']

 

I'm cool with that - Hero is all about sfx at the end of the day...

 

The way you describe things in the initial post' date=' it seems to me that what you might be (or possibly are) doing is giving weapons stats much like vehicles. A vehicle has a speed and a dex, which is the maximum performance that a character can get out of it, but a character may not be able to use it to full efficiency if their own speed and dex are not up to it. That sort of approach could work well...you could then trade off strength over the minimum to enable you to increase the 'maximum' for the weapon (maybe 5 STR = +3 DEX or +1 SPD ?) effectively cutting down on your damage potential to weild the weapon more quickly and accurately?[/quote']

 

Not how I thought of it but its a possible route...

 

 

Doc

[Utech]

Re: Another SPD thread

 

So' date=' if someone with a long weapon wanted to gain some distance or someone with a short weapon wanted to close, how did you adjudicate that?[/quote']

You might want to have another look at the Combat Maneuvers portion of the document I attached earlier.

 

In short, combatants would generally do one of these when they want to close (or gain) distance on their opponent:

• Use a successul Dodge to change one range level,

• Use a successful Strike to instantly move into the proper length for their weapon.

It is often hard to do manage a straight up successful Strike when at the wrong range, so this is often proceded by

• Use a successful Block to gain +5 to their DEX

The concept here is that when you want to close (or gain) distance, combatants usually try to either

1) evade an attack and step in (or out),

or

2) control the opponent's weapon with a prise de fer before stepping in (or out).

 

I was thinking of introducing a close/separate manoeuvre. This would be a manoeuvre that allowed you to control the distance at which you fight. The manoeuvre would be in lieu of attacking but the successful combatant would dictate the fight distance until someone else changed it.

That's where the Dodge, Block and Strike maneuvers come in for me.

 

I might do this with changes in SPD rather than DEX but good idea.

Changes in DEX allowed me to both change SPD and lower OCV/DCV. It was a lot of fun. Players found it quite challenging at first but quickly warmed to the central premise. Then they started doing a lot of thinking about what weapon they wanted to walk into combat with -- and how they could help each other.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Another SPD thread

 

Changes in DEX allowed me to both change SPD and lower OCV/DCV. It was a lot of fun. Players found it quite challenging at first but quickly warmed to the central premise. Then they started doing a lot of thinking about what weapon they wanted to walk into combat with -- and how they could help each other.

 

Anything that makes combat more fun has to be a good thing!