[Hackmaster] To anyone who's ever been slightly interested in trying this game out...

[griffonwing]

A typical English broadsword is balanced and weighs around 3 pounds. Anyone fit enough to be using one should be able to attack each second unless they are waiting, evaluating or otherwise delaying for some reason.

There are some heavier unbalanced weapons that might take a couple extra seconds between attacks for all but the strongest fighters.

Sure, you can attack a stationary target every second, and do some major damage with each attack, however, you won't be able to attack (and land a significant blow) on a constantly moving/counterattacking target every second. Oh, you might can get a swing in more often if you fight aggressively, but you will lose some of your defense bonuses.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Sure, you can attack a stationary target every second, and do some major damage with each attack, however, you won't be able to attack (and land a significant blow) on a constantly moving/counterattacking target every second. Oh, you might can get a swing in more often if you fight aggressively, but you will lose some of your defense bonuses.

Landing a significant blow depends on the defense (or lack thereof) of the target. Throwing one good shot per second while still minding defense is totally within reason.

What isn't modeled well by games that track time in such a granular fashion is the flurry/lull nature of engagements. An initial pass with both opponents attacking each second for 5-8 seconds or so followed by a 5-8 second lull with evaluation and maneuvering.

 

[TanisFrey]

Oh, I get how they work. But counting towards defense and as DR seems a tad much; either make it harder to hit, or to do damage, not both. The deciding factor in our game (and granted, it was a one-shot) came down to whether or not you had a shield equipped.

If the attacker bets the shield using defenders roll the shield DR does not get counted to see how wounded the defender.

When the attacker is equal or less that the defenders roll then a shield hit occurs. Special damage rules come into play at this point based on type of weapon. Piercing weapons do 1 pt plus modifiers, crushing weapons do half dice using the higher die and Hacking weapons do half damage using the lower die. (ie hand axe is hacking that normally does d4p + d6p, but a shield hit only roll the d4p.) The damages then is reduced by the shield DR then the armor DR. A human attacker usually results in no damage but against an Ogre you will take damage. If the damage is high enough a shield break check occurs.

 

[griffonwing]

Oh, I get how they work. But counting towards defense and as DR seems a tad much; either make it harder to hit, or to do damage, not both. The deciding factor in our game (and granted, it was a one-shot) came down to whether or not you had a shield equipped.

I was wrong in my review.

Plate Mail has DR of 7 and DEF -5. It actually makes you easier to hit (by 5), but less damage gets through.

 

[KJSEvans]

Landing a significant blow depends on the defense (or lack thereof) of the target. Throwing one good shot per second while still minding defense is totally within reason.

What isn't modeled well by games that track time in such a granular fashion is the flurry/lull nature of engagements. An initial pass with both opponents attacking each second for 5-8 seconds or so followed by a 5-8 second lull with evaluation and maneuvering.

Check the breakdowns - even the games where attacking occurs at heroic speeds starting from low levels do not allow for attacks to occur at the speed you're describing.

Which is actually something I'd recommend you do, if you have access to the rules. Compare things like attack speeds, initiative times, movement speeds, etc., between games like HackMaster and games like D&D 4e, Pathfinder/3.5, etc. You might notice a few things of interest.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Check the breakdowns - even the games where attacking occurs at heroic speeds starting from low levels do not allow for attacks to occur at the speed you're describing.

Which is actually something I'd recommend you do, if you have access to the rules. Compare things like attack speeds, initiative times, movement speeds, etc., between games like HackMaster and games like D&D 4e, Pathfinder/3.5, etc. You might notice a few things of interest.

Those games are based in the abstraction of combat rounds which are purposely fudgy in the time department for gamist reasons.

My yardstick for gritty blow by blow combat is GURPS. My only concern with the HM speeds is that it supposedly measures actual seconds but abstracts activity much as a system featuring gaming constructs such as rounds would. This has the effect of making the long delays between attacks even more painfully obvious by ticking off the seconds between them.

Basically, assuming movement,positioning,feints, and other activity in a non-abstracted timeframe just seems a bit out of place to me is all.

Heck, AD&D had a 1 minute round, essentially giving a swordsman a weapon speed of 59 if you were counting but the round format assumed that the fighter was constantly attacking, parrying, etc and the attack roll merely represented the fruits of one minutes worth of that effort.

GURPS features the 1 second combat turn. Every second counts, nothing is abstracted. Only those using a heavy unbalanced weapon have a delay in attack speed and even that can be overcome with enough strength.

 

[griffonwing]

Those games are based in the abstraction of combat rounds which are purposely fudgy in the time department for gamist reasons.

My yardstick for gritty blow by blow combat is GURPS. My only concern with the HM speeds is that it supposedly measures actual seconds but abstracts activity much as a system featuring gaming constructs such as rounds would. This has the effect of making the long delays between attacks even more painfully obvious by ticking off the seconds between them.

Basically, assuming movement,positioning,feints, and other activity in a non-abstracted timeframe just seems a bit out of place to me is all.

Heck, AD&D had a 1 minute round, essentially giving a swordsman a weapon speed of 59 if you were counting but the round format assumed that the fighter was constantly attacking, parrying, etc and the attack roll merely represented the fruits of one minutes worth of that effort.

GURPS features the 1 second combat turn. Every second counts, nothing is abstracted. Only those using a heavy unbalanced weapon have a delay in attack speed and even that can be overcome with enough strength.

I can see where you are coming from. And in essence, you are somewhat correct. However, also compare this... HM allows complete movement freedom every second. This allows you to literally dance across the battlefield, while STILL being fully engaged in combat while your opponent follows. dnd1e, as you said, gave you a basic weapon speed of 60. Yes, there were assumed hits and misses during that time, but you stayed right where you started (if you played on a grid). 3e was the same. You could only take a 5ft step every 6 seconds and still be engaged. If you went further, free Attack of Opportunity.

In HM, you can move 30ft in the 6 seconds, 5 ft per seconds, and constant movement. Your allies can move into pincher formation much easier than trying to break it down into 6-second blocks, and hoping you times it just perfectly.

I honesty cannot compare to GURPS as I do not have the system.

 

[KJSEvans]

I'm absolutely confident that one could strike a stationary, non-hostile target about once every second-or-so. In the words of HM designer Stee Johansson, I just stabbed my chair with a knife 46 times in 10 seconds. But a moving, fighting target is a different situation.

While I appreciate the armchair barbarians who have some hotly contested opinions, HM wasn't designed in a vacuum by some guys sitting around in a room (virtual or otherwise) saying things like "Gee, how often can you stab a monster. Hrm, I dunno, let's say once every seven seconds, that sounds realistic!"

I'm also a bit surprised by anyone who'd more easily accept a more abstract (and inhibiting) system while complaining that another isn't realistic enough. That said, no game is for everybody. I pity anyone who won't give a system - any system, especially one that has so carefully and lovingly been crafted - a chance, but what's really important is that we are supporting our hobby and playing games that we love!

 

[Treebore]

Even GURPS combat is pretty abstract. Like how do you determine who goes when within that second? Basic Speed. How do you break ties? GM decision or random die roll. Plus you can still only take one action within that second, aside from specific "Free Actions", none of which is terribly realistic, because it is still "abstract" to a high degree. In GURPS the combat second is still just a framework in which to manage the actions taken. Its not meant to be a real life simulation. On top of that, GURPS is a Universal RPG, where their rules have to account for swords as well as super heroic speeds. So the second, as a time frame, works for how they abstracted the actions they allow to be taken in their system. Which is further manipulated based on what genre your using the system for.