Atgxtg

But what if he runs up to you and hits you? Wouldn't that mean you were engaged again? Grid or no grid it is a logical thing for an opponent do if he was winning a fight and the other guy tries to get away. And I don't see what's to prevent him.

I think it isn't a house rule and your kinda of stuck with it. What happens if someone is fighting two opponents and has some sort of advantage, like height, but only against one opponent? Then the height modifier would have to apply after the split for that one opponent, right?

Me too. I see it as a case of somebody being good good enough with a weapon to be able to do it as opposed to success chance. But, I wouldn't mind doing it the way Pendragon does, it's much simpler.

Wan't really written for Stormbringer, but for Elric (the character). I don't even know of BOC or Hawkwind were even aware of the RPG.

It is. LOL! It's from the one I'm working on. I took the bonus dice idea from CoC and figured I could accomplish pretty much the same thing and save a die roll by switching. Then I forgot I came up with it. olskool's going to have a good laugh when he sees this.

Die switching to adjust for difficulty. At least I think it's from CoC7. What is means is that when a task is of easy difficulty you use the better of the D100 as the tens die and the other as the ones die. When a task is difficult, you use the worse of the D100 as the tens die and the other as the ones die. So if you rolled a 48, and the task were difficult you'd end up with an 84. If you rolled a 72, but the task were easy you'd have a 27. What nice about this approach is that while it does lower your chances of success and success levels, it's a bit kinder to those with high skills. Someone with a skill over 100% is still going to get a success (baring 96-00), since their roll will be under 100, but crticals and specials will be much less likely. So in this sort of situation they'd still parry, but it probably would only be a normal success.

I just realized what this rule does for Berserk and Fanaticism. In the old rules if two characters were at 100% and one went Berserk, he had a 200% attack, but couldn't defend. In RQG, his attack stays the same and neither character can defend (okay, the second guy gets the default 5%).

Thanks. I can't believe I remembered that after all these years.

Hey, it doesn't have to be RQ3 if it's a Campaign Pack. The RQ2 boxed sets were superior to the RQ3 ones. But it the whole campaign setting plus multiple adventures and plot threads that I want-not one offs.

Yeah, campaign packs are the big draw for me too. If they did something along those lines (not necessarily a reprint, I prefer new stuff), I'd have pre-ordered it. Something like the Great Pendragon Campaign set to the Hero Wars would be nice too.

Forget Excalibur anyway. One of, if not the best Arthurian Films. I was thinking of using the die switching mechanic from CoC7. That way the lower skilled character is still worse off (that 36 just because a 63), but can still succeed at his rolls, if his skill is high. That way the 70% Great Troll still succeeds half of the time. And 2d8+2D6 half of the time is bad all the time.

That skill goes up when, at a later date, you end up with the same observation or complaint that you had previously dismissed.

Then I think you might have went a little too far in your example. At 900% I be more surprised in the game didn't break down in some way. For what it's worth, I've got misgivings about the rule too. Not so much mechanically-I think it works and makes sense logically, and even helps with the long sequences of "Parry, Parry" that can crop up at Rune Level, but I just don't see my players liking and accepting it. The first time a PC with a 150% blows a parry and gets killed or maimed because his skill got reduced is going to be the death knell of this rule amongst my players. I'll never hear the end of it. And, on their behalf, they will have a point, because there isn't anything they can do about it. Once they realize they are in that situation, it's too late. Fortunately, I have time to reflect on this stuff before I start my next campaign, and decide what to houserule and what to at the least warn people about.

Wasn't there a spell in RQ2, Sanctify, or Sacred Ground or something (it's been a long time) that turned where you were at into a temple for purposes of regaining Rune Magic?

Oh, and Pentallion, I have to back Jeff on this one. You're playing beyond the skill range that the game was intended for. I think Steve Perrin used additional tiers of success beyond critical to address ultra high skills (i.e 1/10 critical chance). That would probably be the way to go if I ever ran a group that got up to that level. Not that I can imagine that.

That's okay. It's just something way beyond anything I have ever seen. 'd have imagined that by that point the high frequency of criticals and automatic specials would have wiped out the group. Then there is the thought of such a character having, say 9 points of Multimissle to go with it... Just the though of a character starting, just starting in RQG with Bow at 90%, Arrow Trace as cult rune magic, and a few points of Multimisssile is entertaining.

Sorry had to post this again.

Wow! 900%

Yes, you do. I've done it. Most of the blows aren't planed to actually hit the guy. Some are designed to get him to move in one direction, others to get him to move his weapon to one out of your way. Some are designed just to keep him too busy to attack you while you think up what to try next. It's not just making a bunch of wild attacks hoping that one of them connects. The only times I didn't know exactly which of my strikes was the one that was going to be the hit was when my opponent "fumbled" and did a circular parry in the wrong direction and turned my feint into a head hit. Yes, but it is one "attack". It might mean multiple strikes. Yeah, you do. Go buy some Nerf swords and try it out. You might start off just swinging a lot and trying to overwhelm someone with a lot of attacks, but that doesn;t last long. After a bit you start to work out series of strikes and moves so that you can make one good strike that counts. But then, the other guy is trying to do the same thing to you, so it all gets messed up. Usually its' the other way around. That is you take risks that reduce your defenses to get the attack. Now I could see something like trading off skill for more damage, but think that flat trade off of skill for damage would reflect that better. I don;t think it does unbalance anything or is unfun, provided that it is kept reasonably simple. Someone making 120 attack at 1% each would be unfun and unbalancing, but thats the extreme. In years of Pendragon splitting skill worked fine. Of course there were drawbacks to doing it. I think that in RQG, as far as I can tell, a character is probably better off not doing it and instead reducing the opponent's chance to parry.

Okay. Are there any options for more or less experienced started characters, such as in RQ2 and RQ3? Don't get me wrong, as a GM I can obviously say, half the adds, or everyone get an extra 50% to break up or some such. Just wondering how it's set up.

Yeah the multiple parries makes difference. I liked the old riposte rule in Stormbringer, too It helped. I think the rule made sense, if you really think about it. I mean, "Well I could really make a good effort to get a successful attack, but no, I'll make two half hearted attacks and that will have a better chance of getting past this guy's defenses." Realistically, it doesn't make any sense. The only reason why you'd do it is because game rules would let you get another damage roll at full ability. It's like how, in most RPGs, knives and small caliber firearms aren't all that great because they don't do much damage, when is real life is less about how much damage you do but how well you place that damage. And realistically two 50% attacks should be easier to stop than one single attack at 100%.

Start with one Lore at 90%? I take it that RQG characters start off with a lot more experience that those from RQ2.

Yup, per RQ2 This technique cannot be used to attack or parry one foe twice in a round because any attack is a combination of blows (see Chapter II) and a character with 100% attack ability merely has a better chance of using the combination to hit his target. And even if you allowed splitting against a single foe, why stop at splitting once? Why can't someone with 100% make ten attack at 10%? If feasible. Statistically better too, I think, once you factor in crticals, specials and the perks of hitting someone multiple times.

Sure but... If an attack were just a single blow it was almost certainly get blocked, parried or dodged. It's remarkably easy to stop a simple attack. Almost as easy as it is to make one (90%+DEX is probably the starting chance to hit in real life-if the opponent isn't trying to avoid it, that is. ). In a real fight, people do compound attacks. That is they preced the real attack with lesser attacks, probing attack, feints, attacks to repostion the foe and so forth. If it were just single attacks people would be manking an attack every strike rank, or every other.

Okay, nobody mentioned the training bit.That does make a difference. I'd not so sure about increasing more quickly in secondary skills than in Pendragon though. At least in Pendragon 6. Rapid increase in secondary skill in Pendragon 6 was actually a problem in my last campaign. Once the PCs got successful at tournaments and had good incomes, they could afford to dump 10-20L a year to buy extra improvement rolls and checks in secondary skills. The advancement wasn't fast, but it was steady and could cover a dozen skills, and didn't take away from anything else they were doing. And, it often stacked with whatever else they were doing.