Bring back edges

[Mandrake]

OK. This is really beginning to bug me now.

If you take 2 warriors, identically skilled, but give one a sword and leather, the other say halberd and plate, the one in armour gets an effective 6 point skill advantage over the other.

This takes no account of the greater mobility of the lighter armoured fighter, the fact that if he closes, the halberd is near useless and various other factors.

If you make that an iron halberd and iron armour, you're looking at an 18 point advantage.

I'm very tempted to at least go back to edges for armour - whilst the new system may be simpler and cleaner it's just not sitting right with me.

[Der_Renegat]

You can give situation modifiers for weapons all the time any way you want, for instance a guy with a polearm and one with a dagger fighting in a tiny room.

Another solution is treating armor as an ability, that gives you the chance to come back into a contest when brought to zero AP.

[Vaxalon]

Mandrake, are you expecting the players to be able to judge the tactical pros and cons of various weapon and armor combinations realistically around the table, as they play?  Because if you are, you're inviting all kinds of arguments.   The old "Daggers can strike three times to a greatsword's one" canard is just one of many discussions that will go around the table endlessly in this kind of situation... I'm just not interested.

How about this:  Given any particular weapon vs. weapon situation, assume that there is a tactical advantage to be gained, if either wants to claim it.  Have a conflict over it between them, and whoever wins gets that advantage according to Brand's alternate rule.

[Mike Holmes]

Yeah, in play I simply get rid of all stock equipment bonuses, and give bonuses or penalties based on situation. Mostly I don't bother, in fact...but if it seems appropriate, then this is how I handle it.

Edges have the problem that they don't come into play in Simple Contests (which implies an assumption that every fight will be an extended contest).

Mike

[nichughes]

If you take 2 warriors, identically skilled, but give one a sword and leather, the other say halberd and plate, the one in armour gets an effective 6 point skill advantage over the other.

This takes no account of the greater mobility of the lighter armoured fighter, the fact that if he closes, the halberd is near useless and various other factors.

If you make that an iron halberd and iron armour, you're looking at an 18 point advantage.

I'm very tempted to at least go back to edges for armour - whilst the new system may be simpler and cleaner it's just not sitting right with me.

All of this and more can be handled in an extended combat with situational modifiers.  I think the trick in Heroquest is to narrate the change of scene as you go - if the scene changes to the extent that one participant's skill is no longer possible then they will have to pick another one. What is reasonable is that unless the combatants start eyeball to eyeball the halberd wielder does start with a genuine advantage.

Not that I agree about polearms being useless close up. If you are ever hit by the blunt end of a polearm you are as likely as not to find yourself on your backside at the perfect chopping distance from your opponent. A properly wielded polearm moves fast and both ends hurt, albeit one end more than the other.

---
Nic

[Vaxalon]

Not that I agree about polearms being useless close up. If you are ever hit by the blunt end of a polearm you are as likely as not to find yourself on your backside at the perfect chopping distance from your opponent. A properly wielded polearm moves fast and both ends hurt, albeit one end more than the other.

This is exactly the kind of discussion you want to avoid happening in play.

[Jane]

I'm not sure that edges would help - they rather assume that losing action points is the same as losing hit points. And as we all know, it isn't. And of course they only work on extended contests.

I'm more likely to put the equipment bonuses in on a "per round" basis, same as any other augment - if the lead skill is "hit him very hard" then armour will help defend. If the lead skill is "wear him out", then it'll be a negative bonus. And so on.

[Der_Renegat]

It also depends on what your setting and focus is:

For a wuxia hero with swordfighting 15M4, armor is nothing more than a costume.

In a setting focussing on other aspects than fighting, weapons and amor give you the usual bonus.

In a sci-fi setting with powerarmour, where the equiment is a major part of the flavour, its an ability or even a keyword/follower-like keyword.

[Mandrake]

Use of polearms in close quarters depends on the close quarters. I'd agree that you can use the blunt end, (or as many ax bladed polearms have suplementary stabbing points, the pointy end) but that would assume you have room to use a spear for instance. In very confined quarters, you wouldn't neccessarily. But as stated in earlier reply, you can argue all kinds of situational modifiers that would just slow things down.

Giving situational modifiers rather than a standard always applicable bonus would work (assuming cooperative players), it's not so much about the loss of edges as the way they were removed, I especially don't like armour giving a skill bonus.

I guess I'll have to give this some more thought before I run again, come up with something it isn't too simulationist

[Web_Weaver]

I'm more likely to put the equipment bonuses in on a "per round" basis, same as any other augment - if the lead skill is "hit him very hard" then armour will help defend. If the lead skill is "wear him out", then it'll be a negative bonus. And so on.

I am 100% with Jane here, I feel that everything is based on situation in HQ and that changes from moment to moment. If you have players that enjoy debating relative weapon advantages then that can be worked into the situation, but the situation, and more specifically the goal expressed to change the situation, determines abilities used, bonuses, penalties and resistances.

i.e. If a goal is to close on the opponent to lessen his weapon's effectiveness then bonuses or penalties can be applied based upon the success level and narrated outcome.

I am happy with the stock resistances, as long as they are used in the context of the situation. I think there is sometimes a tendency for players to automatically add these "standard" augments without any heed to situation, and such players may be shocked if this style of play is enforced without addressing any concerns they may have. But, I think it is worth addressing IF one wants to emphasise situation over standard augments.

I really don't like the "give everything a skill level" solution at a gut level, but I am not sure how it would change play style.

I was so happy to see the back of edges, if only because I could see no need for the added complication in extended contests for no real gain. The net result of edges can be achieved by narration, bonuses and penalties. If you don't want the meta-game discussion over such issues, or your group has intractable positions over relative merits of weapons or armour then edges are available in HQ so I don't see a problem in using them, permission is right there on page 186, but of course the edges themselves are only found in the HW rulebook (conversion seems to be a simple exercise).

[Mandrake]

As best I can tell, the skill bonuses now are a more or less direct conversion of the old edges.

As mentioned elsewhere, I run a "RQ style" game which is combat heavy. I think I'd be happiest keeping edges and applying situational modifiers or directly applying equipment bonuses against each then applying the net result as a bonus/penalty combined with situational modifiers.

Basically, I can't get my head round armour providing a skill bonus. In many circumstances, it will be a hinderance not a help.

Getting our group out of the "automatically apply these augments/bonuses" mindset is going to be fun though :)

[soviet]

One effective way to represent armour is to let players take it as a free ability - lets say, either Leather 14, or Chain 17, or Plate 5m. The augments from these abilities map against the mods you get from the normal armour rules, but you can also make them the principal ability if the contest is all about getting cut down or not, for example.

The advantage of doing it this way is you can also treat the ability as a flaw in the right circumstances. So you might decide that if Sir Galahad is running across the drawbridge he gets a -3 negative augment from his platemail, or if he falls off and starts swimming through the moat he is opposed directly by the Platemail 5m itself, perhaps with other mods or negative augments from the moat as well.

Having said that, I also don't bother with that level of detail for armour and weapons anymore. These days I tend to just fade it out, representing it via narration or circumstance mods (if appropriate) unless someone actually decides to buy a particular item as an ability.

Mark

[Mike Holmes]

What Mark said. Better yet, let's say somebody tries to destroy the armor itself. Then it's really a good idea to have a rating for the armor. Basically this gets rid of one extra system, and consolidates everything into one.

You don't like the idea of swords being abilities? Not even exceptional ones? Stormbringer is not Elric's sidekick (or even an NPC controling him half the time)?

But Dragon Pass Geography is OK?

Mike

[Mandrake]

Actually, I'm currently in the process of making some of the more powerful weapons the party has into effective sidekicks, albeit still with the edge/bonus.

So, using Jamie's characters spear as an example and removing the basic bonus/edge would leave something like this:

Jared Lar's Spear <base ability rating>
    Fight well with Jared Lar's Spear <15 - converted from a bonus to hit in HW>
    Project flame <5W - A flame thrower lke ability>
    Curse of Jared Lar <5W4>

Some of the abilities of the spear don't translate to well right off the bat, but that would be the basic gist of it. If I've understood what was discussed above, the Fight well ability would augment attacks with the spear, but the actual ability of the spear would be a situational augment.

[Mike Holmes]

Which abilities don't translate well? The above ones look great to me. Are there ones you left untranslated?

Mike