Questions on Combat

Dear Robin,

I have some questions regarding HârnMaster combat. I have also included some of my own solutions so that you may critique them. What I would appreciate in the form of a response is a reference to an official rule and/or an explanation from yourself plus your opinion on the validity of my proposed solutions even though they may not be "official". My solutions to problems follow the question started by a "My Solution:". While I realize some of these questions may have been answered elsewhere, I have been unable to find the answers anywhere. You will find that my players and I prefer a most realistic and detailed (albeit lots of bookkeeping) type of system which HârnMaster offers. So please, do not give responses like "It is too much trouble...", please try and answer the questions anyway. Please do not consider these questions an attack on you, Columbia Games, HârnMaster or anything else. I am very impressed with all Hârn products, especially HârnMaster. Thus, it is not necessary to feel you have to defend the published rules, just perhaps explain and/or justify some. I will accept whatever you have to say.

Answer One: It's all in the way you think of an injury. The HârnMaster system wants you to think in terms of graphic injury: Serious Cuts, Crushing Blows; Minor Bites this is a unique HârnMaster mindset. But, for purely mechanical reasons, you sometimes have to break an injury down more than this: "ok, so I have a Serious stab wound how serious?" IPs give you a range of serious wounds: ie. from 11 to 20 points. This mechanical requirement is made necessary by considerations like loss of bodypart function, skill reduction and and healing times. The idea is to think in terms of the graphic injuries and to use injury points to calculate purely mechanical effects (even the most realistic system seems to involve some numbers...) All of this still may not give you a clear idea of what Injury Points actually are; in essence an IP is an abstraction (like degrees of burn).

Question Two: Bleeding results only from Grievous wounds. Could not a multitude of Serious and/or Minor wounds result in bloodloss and thus eventually death?

My Solution: I propose that a B1 bloodloss injury result for every 15 IP's in addition to the regular bloodloss injuries. I think bleeding ought to be more prevalent in the game.

Answer Two: All wounds which break the skin cause bleeding, but it is a matter of degree. Because of the mechanical demands of the rule system, only significant bleeding is considered. This is purely a streamlining effect. It would be possible to consider the minute bloodloss from every single cut (and scrape) but, considering the amount of bookkeeping it would require, it is simply not worth it. If you were to start adding on B1 effects for cumulative injuries, you would have to consider the aspect of each injury an edge wound tends to bleed more, etc.... it's still not worth it...

Question Three: Any single injury in excess of fifteen injury points to a limb, renders the entire limb unusable. Can a limb become unusable due to repeated blows (less than fifteen injury points) to the same limb location? For example, one of my players was hit in the same elbow twice (unlucky!) in one combat for injury points of 8 and 14 respectively. Should he have been able to use that arm after the second blow?

My Solution: I suggest that a total of 20 or more IP's to the same limb location also renders the limb unusable.

Answer Three: Yes you can do it that way. The reason we did not is that (a) it requires the GM/players to keep closer track of what's going on; (b) It can be argued that the effect you speak of would be neither automatic nor universal and; (c) It comes up so rarely: In this context, you have to remember the main difficulty in writing rules systems is that, unless you are very careful, you end up with a system wherein 90% of the rules deal with 10% of the situations. This is disproportionate.

Question Four: How and to what extent does armour suffer damage? Please include your system for armour damage if you have one.

My Solution: I propose the following:

      ASPECT    IMPACT              ARMOUR DAMAGE 

      All       < Armor Prot.       No Damage 
      Edge      = Armor Prot.       -1 from all aspects 
      Other     = Armor Prot.       No Damage 
      Edge      > Armor Prot.       -1 from all aspects 
      Other     > Armor Prot.       -1 from all aspects 
      Edge      > 2x Armor Prot.    -1/2 from all aspects 
      Other     > 2x Armor Prot.    -1 from all aspects 

Answer Four: My preference is to wing armour damage within the guidelines set out on page Combat-25. These guidelines tell us when damage occurs, but the exact nature of the damage and the precise effect is a problem of a different order of magnitude.

I tend to see armour damage in terms of encumbrance penalties and specific locations. The effect of a grievious cut to- /through armour would be to damage the armour so that it flaps anoyingly. This encumbrance effect is usually far more signif- icant than the chance that the victim will again be struck in exactly the same place. Mail, for example, is held in place by leather straps and if these are cut, the warrior may have a hard time standing up...

Question Five: Does weapon quality degrade with use? For example, does a successful weapon damage check mean the weapon has suffered a loss of quality? If so, how much?

My Solution: My proposal assumes that weapons made in medieval times where generally not inclined to endure too many battles. I propose that any weapon making a successful weapon damage check within two die pips, lose one point of weapon quality. Same applies for shields.

Answer Five: One of the optional rules we have proposed is that if a weapon fails a Damage Check it's WQ is reduced by the amount by which it fails. WQ=0 weapon crumpled. We have also published one or two proposals (like yours) in Hârnlore. More realistic- ally, one should probably reduce the edge and point impact. Unfortunately, this requires that Original and current impact values be kept for all weapons. Frankly, since medieval weapons did have a tendency to fall apart easily we believe that these "refinements" are not worth the bookkeeping.

Question Six: I want your opinion on my method of calculating initiative.

Sum of Endurance, Dexterity, Agility, Speed, Will.
Add skill index of weapon if attacking.
Add 10% Mobility (Mobility Index) if moving.
Add 1d10 for a random element.
Highest initiative goes first, next highest second, etc.

Answer Six: You probably realize that there are thousands of reasonable ways to calculate initiative. Your approach looks too time consuming to me. Initiative is, when it comes right down to it, not a critically important factor all it does is determine who acts next, and since it is possible to do as much damage on other-characters' turns as on your own, there is no point in sweating over initiative. I would, therefore, adopt the simplest possible Initiative Rating.

Question Seven: The combat movement rules are clear but not necessarily justified. For example, A and B are engaged and have equal movement (say 10 hexes). A has higher initiative and disengages from B moving at a run (50% effective mobility). A makes it 10 hexes away from B. B is now unengaged and makes a free move (100% effective mobility) to chase or intercept A. B runs and makes it 20 hexes effectively outdistancing A by 100%. Should B be able to go twice as far as A. Furthermore, why can't a free moving individual come within 3 hexes of an unengaged enemy who is say, administering aid to a fallen comrade.

My Solution: On the first concept of disengaging I am truly stumped. With regards to the three hex rule, if the unengaged enemy would like to intercept a person free-moving within three hexes of him/her (one hex is still considered engagement) the effect- ive mobilities of the enemy and the free-moving person are compared, the higher gets a Tactical advantage (if the enemy wins he is considered to have engaged the running character. This allows for characters running through enemy areas (ie the football runner evading tackles) and still allows for the enemy to engage and strike the moving character.

Answer Seven: Mmmm... once the parties are effectively disengaged (in the GM's opinion) the "escape" should become a speed/mobility comparison. The three hex limit is the "zone of intimidation" and the adjacant hex is the zone of ultimate intimidation. Bearing in mind that combat is a fluid affiar, it is even reasonable to assume that characters actually move about within their "intimidation zones" they certainly have enough time each turn to "visit" any hex within three and return. There is also the fact that many/most weapons can reach into adjacant hexes... Ultimately, this is an intimidation effect and neces- sarily represents a compromise. The only significant problem I see is that we may not have explained how to retreat fully and this causes some confusion. Realistically, the faster character is the only one who can escape unilaterally.

Question Eight: Individuals are penalized their fatigue rate for every minute of combat, yet running results in a fatigue rate penalty every ten seconds. How can you justify running being six times more fatiguing than active fighting (with up to 6 opponents)?

My Solution: I would be inclined to penalize active fighters their fatigue rate every combat round rather than every minute. Since combat seldom lasts more than three minutes I think combat fatigue should be more significant. Of course, my reasoning here is only lukewarm; I hope you can provide some insight on fatigue.

Answer Eight: Yes the rule is somewhat disproportionate and is the result of a compromise designed to make combat possible in something like realtime. In playtest, GMs/players did not like accumulating fatigue every turn (although it might be more realistic).

In most cases this is a minor consideration. It is assumed that ALL characters are accumulating fatigue almost constantly the FP we are usually interested in are those that a character has IN EXCESS of that accumulated by opponents. Joe accumulates fatigue by fighting, but so does everyone else so concentrate on things that Joe is doing that Fred is not...

Question Nine: With regards to missile attacks: Can an individual pos- sibly block an arrow with a dagger? Even if this is remotely possible, at some point, as the range between bowman and defender decreases, it must become impossible. Similarly, there must be some range at which it becomes extremely difficult (if not impossible) to dodge an arrow (or other high velocity missile). I think the rules in Hârnmaster are suitable only for low velocity, hand-hurled missiles. For example, the average agile person (AGL=12) who is dodging an arrow for the first time has a 40% chance (other things equal) of evading the missile at 10 feet or less!

My Solution: Perhaps if high velocity weapons were given an attack class of five, it would more accurately represent the disadvan- tage of blocking or dodging a high velocity missile. However, missile weapons were not given attack classes... I would also be inclined to automatically attach a Marginal Failure result to any moving or actively fighting victim of a missile attack who was unaware of the attack. This would be instead of the official rule which states that any unaware moving individual automatically takes the dodge defense (I assume with a chance of success). This is a compromise between completely ignoring the attack and actively trying to dodge the missile.

Answer Nine: Well there is a range modifier in the missile combat rules that makes it harder to block or dodge weapons at short range. (By the way, you could argue that if the range is too short, the target could "block" the missile even before it is fired.)

The comparison of high and low-velocity weapons has been made before, and HârnMaster givess high-v weapons an advantage, especially at close range. This is a matter of taste. It might not be likely that a character will catch an arrow (and it isn't according to HârnMaster) but hardly anyone wants to rule it out entirely... I wonder how often arrows could actually be caught after all this is not an experiment that too many people have actually tried. Your idea would probably work. However, being missed by a missile one is unaware of is largely a matter of luck and general activity. If one is moving about actively, one is more likely to be missed. So how do we guess how "active" a target is? Well, surely this would be determined by his ability if he CAN move around a lot he probably DOES move around a lot.. If the target is unaware and stationary, he obviously uses the IGNORE option. Compare the results on the table.

Question Ten: According to the rules, a character throwing a broadsword uses his broadsword ML for the attack. Should a skilled swordsman be just as effective at throwing the sword as in swinging it?

My Solution: I think it would be more realistic if there was a totally different skill for throwing each weapon group. Thus a person skilled in Daggers (Thrown) could hurl a Dagger, Knife, Taburi, or Keltan. The base attributes for all throwing skills should be strength, dexterity, and eyesight. The OML for such skills should be the same as the melee counterpart. Further- more, I feel weapons not designed for throwing (ie. the broadsword) should be penalized 10-20% for throwing purposes, although I suspect this was considered in the missile range table (albeit not enough).

Answer Ten: The reasoning behind the rule is that someone familiar with a specific weapon would be best able to throw it. In the case of weapons designed specificlly for throwing, such as a Shorkana, Taburi or Spear, learning the weapon includes learn- ing to throw it. In one pre-publication version, I had charac- ters using the average of the applicable weapon skill and Throwing Skill but this creates what seems to be an unnecessary complication.

If you take another look at the Missile Combat Table (Combat 12) you will notice that Melee weapons are penalized by ten to seventy-five percent when thrown.

Question Eleven: Hârnmaster indicates that attacking a prone enemy increases ML by 20. Should a dodge defense be impossible, or is this concept covered by the 20% advantage to the attacker? The rule also assess a 20% advantage to the defender of a prone enemies attack. I agree that it should be easier to defend such an attack, although shouldn't the attack also be harder to execute while prone?

My Solution: I would be inclined to disallow the dodge defensive option for prone defenders. I would also penalize a prone attacker 20% (in addition to the 20% advantage already assessed to the defender). It is also my view that once an individual is down, he probably shouldn't get back up very easily while engaged. To satisfy my needs here, I require a 3d6 + EI roll to rise while engaged in almost every case (4d6 + EI if one arm useless; impossible to rise if both arms or one leg useless).

Answer Eleven: A dodge while prone is usually a roll to one side or the other. I think a lot of people seem to underestimate the effectiveness of a 20% modifier in a basically percentile system.

A basic principle here is that you make as few modifications as possible. It is also nearly always better to ADD a modifier than to subtract one in the HârnMaster Combat system.

As for making it more difficult to rise from prone position when engaged. It seems enough (to me) to oblige the prone character to expend one action option. This means that he can only rise when he has the initiative and he must give up the initiative in order to take the option. The rule is elegant enough to allow a smooth transition.

Question Twelve: Is a grope action required to draw a weapon? If so, is it realistic that it should take 10 seconds to draw a sword from its scabbard? ... a dagger?

My Solution: I would like to rule that any accessible (on the belt, sticking in the ground, etc.) fist gripped weapon/tool/item/ be usable without penalty even if another similar, already held item must be discarded first. I would rule that donning any item such as a shield or glove, or stooping to pick up an item would require a grope action, and doing so while engaged would give all attackers a tactical advantage and require a 3d6 + EI roll against dexterity or agility to be successful. As an aside, I have often thought of devising a combat system where the upper and lower body had different independent "mobilities" (to use your term) such that the actions of the two body sections were limited by their respective mobilities. Of course, such a system would imply that a common adventurer could chew bubblegum and walk at the same time, perhaps too much to ask considering that this is beyond most players...

Answer Twelve: It is a mistake to think of a "Turn" as being always ten seconds. Turns are flexible. One might really take fifteen seconds, the next only half a second. Actions are not neces- sarily confined to one turn.

It may not take 10 seconds to draw a sword, but it does cost the swordsman his initiative for the balance of the "turn" which might be anything from two to twenty seconds... This may seem like a compromise, and it is. Combat is, in real life, both simultaneous AND reactive. You should think of HM combat in the same terms. The order in which action is resolved is not necessarily the order in which it has occured... It simply does not pay to break action down to the tiny time units you would need to get a perfectly accurate system.

Sincerely,
Chris McCormack
(Coquitlam, B.C.)