Recent comments

  • Campaign   5 years 32 weeks ago

    If anyone is interested I may want to start up a game in the future. I am currently reading the HarnMaster rules (iow I am a newbie) so it may be a while before I get up to speed.

    Cheers,
    Robin Forster

  • Campaign   5 years 32 weeks ago

    If anyone is interested I may want to start up a game in the future. I am currently reading the HarnMaster rules (iow I am a newbie) so it may be a while before I get up to speed.

    Cheers,
    Robin Forster

  • Campaign   5 years 32 weeks ago

    Hello Platinum Dragon

    Not by Kelestia. We have been too busy developing products!

    Cheers

    Jeremy
    ---------------------
    Fástred na Beréma,
    Rowánti na Sávè-k’nôr

  • Campaign   5 years 32 weeks ago

    Hello Platinum Dragon

    Not by Kelestia. We have been too busy developing products!

    Cheers

    Jeremy
    ---------------------
    Fástred na Beréma,
    Rowánti na Sávè-k’nôr

  • Campaign   5 years 33 weeks ago

    Have there been any recent attempts to start on online Harn Campaign?

  • Campaign   5 years 33 weeks ago

    Have there been any recent attempts to start on online Harn Campaign?

  • Charts of Salónen Ekàtriása   5 years 35 weeks ago

    There's no indicated distance on the arrow between Ljârl Øyen and Skîvaal Øyen

  • Ridow question for Jeremy   5 years 35 weeks ago

    ...with how I imagine Ridow to be based upon the description.

    I've been writing up a location module for Ridow and for the longest time have had the dome at '100 high. The dome was not a perfect half-sphere, but instead a 100' foot high cap of a sphere. I did this based upon the "totally submerged in 20 fathoms of water", but this only allowed for structures within to be about 100' tall and only near the center of the city. As I walked around and saw 100' foot structures in daily life this didn't give the feeling of incredible heights regardless of how the structures were shaped.

    Jeremy, thanks for your response. Based upon this discussion I'll be rethinking the heights of the dome and likely changing it to be much taller.

  • Ridow question for Jeremy   5 years 35 weeks ago

    ...with how I imagine Ridow to be based upon the description.

    I've been writing up a location module for Ridow and for the longest time have had the dome at '100 high. The dome was not a perfect half-sphere, but instead a 100' foot high cap of a sphere. I did this based upon the "totally submerged in 20 fathoms of water", but this only allowed for structures within to be about 100' tall and only near the center of the city. As I walked around and saw 100' foot structures in daily life this didn't give the feeling of incredible heights regardless of how the structures were shaped.

    Jeremy, thanks for your response. Based upon this discussion I'll be rethinking the heights of the dome and likely changing it to be much taller.

  • Journey to Ábrelyn - Part V   5 years 36 weeks ago

    Thank you again, Fástred,

    I'm looking forward to the Venârivè publication.

    Richard

  • Journey to Ábrelyn - Part V   5 years 36 weeks ago

    I really liked this story! Thanks a lot for sharing it. Posting it in pieces made following the story more interesting.

    On the other hand, I would have liked a few more HarnWorld references, like a prayer to Peoni, Larani or the like. Right now, the story seems completely divorced from the rest of the setting!

  • Question about Counterstrike   5 years 36 weeks ago

    Ah, I had almost forgot. The weapon comparison chart is missing the _zero_ column because there is no weapon that has that particular rating. Or, if there is, it is actively avoiding my memory... which means it's being naughty and really doesn't deserve a value anyway. ;-)

  • Question about Counterstrike   5 years 36 weeks ago

    Ah, I had almost forgot. The weapon comparison chart is missing the _zero_ column because there is no weapon that has that particular rating. Or, if there is, it is actively avoiding my memory... which means it's being naughty and really doesn't deserve a value anyway. ;-)

  • Journey to Ábrelyn - Part IV   5 years 36 weeks ago

    Thank you again for sharing this. I'm really looking forward to the next installment.

    Richard

  • Question about Counterstrike   5 years 36 weeks ago

    Thank you. Both of your comments helped me a lot.

  • Question about Counterstrike   5 years 36 weeks ago

    Thank you. Both of your comments helped me a lot.

  • Journey to Ábrelyn - Part IV   5 years 36 weeks ago

    There is one more "Part" of this story to come...

    Regards

    Jeremy

    ---------------------
    Fástred na Beréma,
    Rowánti na Sávè-k’nôr

  • Journey to Ábrelyn - Part IV   5 years 36 weeks ago

    for sharing. Nice story

  • Question about Counterstrike   5 years 36 weeks ago

    Or (taking the other interpretation of your question) is the issue "why doesn't the counterstriker use his ~attack~ value since he is actively striking at the original 'attacker'?"

    I'll try to address this the best I can w/o blathering for an hour (as I am want to do from time to time!). ;-)

    There are two obvious options:
    Using Ken's nomenclature of Character A (original attacker) and Character D (original defender)...
    1) D uses his attack aspect when counterstriking.
    2) D uses his defense aspect when counterstriking.

    The rationale for 2) is pretty straight-forward, and I think is what precipitated the question in the first place. Since D is actively *attacking* A, he should use his weapon's attack value. I'd say there is enough sense in this that if you wanted a house-rule to make this change, no one would say you were crazy. :-D

    The rationale for 1) is equally realistic, if not more so, although not as obvious. The attack value of a weapon is based partially on its ability to reach an opponent who does NOT want to be reached (dodge, etc). Alternatively, it is based partially on its ability to get around something that is designed *not* to be got around (shield, blocking weapon, etc). The defense aspect is partially based on a weapons ability to quickly be brought to bear in *reaction* to an incoming attack. This is the reason in my game I used the weapon's *defense* rating. That monstrously large battlesword might be very good at cleaving armor, but not so adept at snap-decisions. I think it could be adequately argued that a **counterstrike** is a snap-decision - one doesn't plan on those, after all. :-D

    Granted, this does mean that several otherwise fantastic weapons do not counterstrike as well as they would attack outright. But that is the nature of counterstrike - it is a desperate measure. Or at the minimum a fool-hearty measure. Okay, for several knights I know it is simply an over-confident measure. But you have to agree that it is ~NOT~ a rational measure. One is supposed to BLOCK an incoming strike, or at least get OUT OF THE WAY! Historically, if counterstriking was as effective as attacking, we wouldn't have invented shields for use in melee combat. It is, however, NOT as effective, thus the mountain of evidence that melee combatants chose overwhelmingly to block or dodge.

    ~sigh~
    I did say I wouldn't ramble, didn't I?
    In short, I believe that the canon rule of using a weapon's defense aspect for counterstrike is the most "logical" one.

  • Question about Counterstrike   5 years 36 weeks ago

    Or (taking the other interpretation of your question) is the issue "why doesn't the counterstriker use his ~attack~ value since he is actively striking at the original 'attacker'?"

    I'll try to address this the best I can w/o blathering for an hour (as I am want to do from time to time!). ;-)

    There are two obvious options:
    Using Ken's nomenclature of Character A (original attacker) and Character D (original defender)...
    1) D uses his attack aspect when counterstriking.
    2) D uses his defense aspect when counterstriking.

    The rationale for 2) is pretty straight-forward, and I think is what precipitated the question in the first place. Since D is actively *attacking* A, he should use his weapon's attack value. I'd say there is enough sense in this that if you wanted a house-rule to make this change, no one would say you were crazy. :-D

    The rationale for 1) is equally realistic, if not more so, although not as obvious. The attack value of a weapon is based partially on its ability to reach an opponent who does NOT want to be reached (dodge, etc). Alternatively, it is based partially on its ability to get around something that is designed *not* to be got around (shield, blocking weapon, etc). The defense aspect is partially based on a weapons ability to quickly be brought to bear in *reaction* to an incoming attack. This is the reason in my game I used the weapon's *defense* rating. That monstrously large battlesword might be very good at cleaving armor, but not so adept at snap-decisions. I think it could be adequately argued that a **counterstrike** is a snap-decision - one doesn't plan on those, after all. :-D

    Granted, this does mean that several otherwise fantastic weapons do not counterstrike as well as they would attack outright. But that is the nature of counterstrike - it is a desperate measure. Or at the minimum a fool-hearty measure. Okay, for several knights I know it is simply an over-confident measure. But you have to agree that it is ~NOT~ a rational measure. One is supposed to BLOCK an incoming strike, or at least get OUT OF THE WAY! Historically, if counterstriking was as effective as attacking, we wouldn't have invented shields for use in melee combat. It is, however, NOT as effective, thus the mountain of evidence that melee combatants chose overwhelmingly to block or dodge.

    ~sigh~
    I did say I wouldn't ramble, didn't I?
    In short, I believe that the canon rule of using a weapon's defense aspect for counterstrike is the most "logical" one.

  • Question about Counterstrike   5 years 36 weeks ago

    Hi Asik,

    To determine the EML of the combatants during a counterstike you use the "defender's" D value as it relates to the "attacker's" EML. And then the other way around for the "defender's" EML.

    In Example:

    Character A attacks Character D, Character D chooses the counterstrike defense.

    Character A modifies his attacking ML as described on page Combat 8 in the HMG Player's Addition, using Character A's weapon attack class vs Character D's weapon defense class as shown on the Weapon Comparison Chart

    Character D modifies his attacking ML using his own weapon's attack class, vs his opponent's weapon defense class.

    The resulting EMLs are rolled against and the results are determined by referencing the appropriate Counterstrike Table.

    Hope that was clear.

  • Question about Counterstrike   5 years 36 weeks ago

    Hi Asik,

    To determine the EML of the combatants during a counterstike you use the "defender's" D value as it relates to the "attacker's" EML. And then the other way around for the "defender's" EML.

    In Example:

    Character A attacks Character D, Character D chooses the counterstrike defense.

    Character A modifies his attacking ML as described on page Combat 8 in the HMG Player's Addition, using Character A's weapon attack class vs Character D's weapon defense class as shown on the Weapon Comparison Chart

    Character D modifies his attacking ML using his own weapon's attack class, vs his opponent's weapon defense class.

    The resulting EMLs are rolled against and the results are determined by referencing the appropriate Counterstrike Table.

    Hope that was clear.

  • Journey to Ábrelyn - Part III   5 years 36 weeks ago

    Richard

    Thanks for the comments, once again. I hope this story is helping people get a feel for both Emélrenè, and some of the deeper, darker aspects of Kèthîra...

    ---------------------
    Fástred na Beréma,
    Rowánti na Sávè-k’nôr

  • Journey to Ábrelyn - Part III   5 years 36 weeks ago

    Hello Fástred,

    Thank you again for putting the time and effort into this. It is excellent.

    Richard

  • House Rule: Utility Karma   5 years 36 weeks ago

    Personally, i prefer leaving the decision of when to use the Utility Karma solely in the player’s hands – less book keeping for me. However, it is an unrealistic rule to begin with and then allowing the player to choose when their Utility Kama comes into play makes it even more unrealistic.

    I like your idea of the Aura test a lot. That is for sure the appropriate stat to test.


User login










Recent comments




Keléstia Connect





Who's online?

There are currently 0 users and 8 guests online.



© 2014 Keléstia Productions Ltd. and N. Robin Crossby (1954-2008).
The opinions expressed on this website are those of their respective owners and do not necessarily reflect the views of Keléstia Productions Ltd.
Trademarks are the property of their respective owners.