Jump to content

Paid a bod yn dwp

Member
  • Posts

    926
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Paid a bod yn dwp

  1. 2 hours ago, theotherrhialto said:

    A parry can be done at any time as it doesn't count for any SR

    Its also been clarified by Jason Durall that you now have to use an SR for a parry, and you can't both attack and parry with a single weapon on the same SR.

    This would lead me to believe that using two weapons, one in each hand, would give you the advantage over single weapon use of being able to both attack and parry on the same SR. 

  2. 35 minutes ago, styopa said:

    EDIT2: to answer your comments about the offhand attack penalty, in RQ2 the offhand weapon starts at a base of 5% and is trained/advanced as a separate skill from the main hand attack.

    In the QS, the off hand now starts at half the % attack chance. The second attack is now made after the first weapons SR plus the SR of the second weapon.

    • If your character doesn't have over 100% in attack skill ( think splitting attacks), then having 2 weapons gives you an option of having a second attack which wouldn't ordinarily be there.
    • The rules for parry have now changed with the QS and refined in RQG. Unlike RQ2 you can now have multiple parries at cumulative - 20%, without the need for having over 100% to split parries. Thats a big change in the new combat rules. Not sure if there is an advantage with regards to the cumulative penalty with 2 weapons? Do you count the cumulative penalty separately for each weapon? If yes that would give a good parrying advantage.

    Edit: Jason Durall has indicted that dodge is also effective in the same way as the new parry, and is inter-changeable with parry in a melee round. But the cumulative -20% penalty is counted towards any use  or combinations of parry and dodge in a melee round, so I suspect that is the same with 2 weapon parries. 

    • Like 1
  3. 20 minutes ago, styopa said:

    I find that particular one seems to hit my gut as manipulating mechanics a little too much

    Yes you may be right there, its very specific and calculated, and thats why i was wondering whether its outside the scope of the SR interpretation, particularly as combat (in RQ2) is thought to include the feints and sides steps within the attack action. Perhaps a more reasonable rule would be to allow delayed attacks to occur after a trigger, not simultaneously (unless by accident)? 

    27 minutes ago, styopa said:

    IMO I'd only penalize the player their DEX SR as a 'reaction' delay instead of their full melee attack SR.  IMO after you've passed the melee SR you're basically 'ready' in my view.

    That seems like a fair ruling for a delayed attack, I'm starting to get the feeling that having the complete freedom to choose the exact SR for a delayed attack, without any SR penalty is going a bit too far, adding the DEX SR to the triggers SR is very reasonable.

    Be interesting to hear the designers thoughts on this?

  4. 9 minutes ago, styopa said:

    That would be my RAW take, but imo it's not MGF either

    Yes you have a good point. Although I now feel clearer on the RAW rules, I think your interpretation would be more fun, and fitting having both characters roll.

    Would it be an over complication to use the the resistance table to gauge both attackers chance of winning an arm wrestle, and get them both to roll on that result as an opposed roll, or are we in danger of disappearing up our own RuneQuest behinds? :) 

    • Like 1
  5. On 28 June 2017 at 6:04 PM, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

    The arm wrestle example seems like the perfect example of an opposed roll to me ( two active opposing forces both rolling dice).

    What say you @Jeff?

    Reading through the quick-start again it does indicate that opposed rolls are used specifically for ability rolls. Flicking back to p2 titled "Ability Use", it describes abilities as either a Skill, Rune, or Passion roll. so that excludes characteristic rolls.

    Further more under the Resistance Table title p6 it states that:

    " Resistance rolls are not used for skill, Rune, or passion rolls. They are used when pitting one characteristic against another, such as STR against the size of an object to be lifted..."

    After a reread it is more clearly laid out then i first thought. An arm wrestle contest would still use the Resistance table, as its one characteristic pitted against another. 

  6. On 29 June 2017 at 0:54 AM, styopa said:

    Not sure what you mean by 'outside the context of'....?

    I meant that other than the example of the "aimed shot", which specifically mentions delaying an attacks SR, there are no other examples in the rules (i have come across) that demonstrate the flexibility to be able to precisely control the timing of a delayed attack.  

    For example - Working on the assumption that a single weapon user can't both parry and attack on the same SR - if my character wishes to tactically delay his/her attack to occur later in the melee round, so that it occurs on the exact same SR as his/her opponent is to attack, with the intention of forcing the opponent to either loose their parry, or loose the attack. 

    On 29 June 2017 at 11:50 AM, Psullie said:

    For me I see SR as the earliest that you can act. If you declare during your statement of intent that you wish delay an  attack to SR 7, 9 or whatever then fine. However when players wish to hold off an attack pending another SR based action, like if waiting for a spell to trigger then this is applied to their DEX & SIZ SR. They must add their Weapon SR to the triggered event. So if my fighter with a base SR of 5 with +2 for the weapon could declare an attack anywhere from 7 - 12. If he says after X happens and X happens on 7 then the soonest he can act is 9

    but this is just my interpretation 

    So in this example we have have an ability to delay an attack but importantly with restriction. The resurrection being adding the weapons SR to occur after a verbalised trigger. Which does makes sense. 

    So going back to my example, in the new RQG, could a character delay an attack to occur simultaneously on the same SR as his/her opponents attack, or is that outside the scope of the strike rank rules? Is that considered too specific with consideration to the idea of the abstract nature of strike ranks being:

    "Strike ranks determine which attacks are resolved first in the melee round, and do not represent each second of that melee round" From RQ Quick-Start rules.

     

    So @Jason Durall to clarify my original question, In RQG If a character can delay an attack:

    1. Can it occur simultaneously (allowing for the fact the player knows what SR the opponent is attacking on), or must it occur after a trigger?

    2. Can he/she choose which specfic SR to delay the attack to, or is there some kind of SR penalty for delaying an attack?

    3.If a combatant looses their attack through using parry on the same SR that their attack was due, can he/she still perform the attack at a later SR, or is the attack lost for that melee round?

  7. 1 hour ago, styopa said:

    I see your point about the statistical spread.  More dice in play means more of a bell-curvy result vs a straight roll vs resist (which is a direct-probability).  Good point.

    So which would you use for an armwrestling contest?  Is there a context in which you'd ever use the other?

    The arm wrestle example seems like the perfect example of an opposed roll to me ( two active opposing forces both rolling dice).

    What say you @Jeff?

  8. 7 hours ago, jajagappa said:

    Yes, you've always been able to do that in RQ.

    I don't think I've ever explicitly seen that written in past rules? Though I presumed it. 

    I was wondering as balance of SR seems quite fine. Particularly when an aimed shot in the QS requires the attacker to wait until SR 12 to perform.

  9. 8 minutes ago, styopa said:

    And just to add the last logical point:

    3. If there's an active opponent using a contrary skill (ie Scan vs Hide, or Orate vs Orate to sway an audience), it would be an Opposed Roll for resolution.

    Nicely fitted in :) 

    So having an arm wrestle ( like you do) would be two active opposing forces requiring an opposed roll instead of resistance table? 

  10. Curious about the deciding factor in choosing between a characteristic roll or the resistance table. Reading through the Quick- Start example for Strenght check (STRx5) it says "intense muscular efforts like bashing a door open or carrying someone, etc" p3

    likewise when reading about the resistance table, it gives the example of "They are used when pitting one characteristic against another, such as STR against the SIZ of an object to be lifted..." P6

    So from those 2 examples it could be inferred that carrying a person of a certain size could be applicable to both methods. Is this ambiguity intended (GM call), or have I missed something? 

     

     

     

  11. Makes sense not to overload new players with large amounts of spells straight away. I think also for new or inexperienced Gm's, having  large amounts of spells to keep track of can be quite daunting with regards to NPC's. Its important to ease new players and Gm's into the game first. Hopefully we'll see a number of introductory adventures launched soon after the core rules to ease new players into the game system. I think once new players and Gm's become more familiar with the RuneQuest spells and how they work, it soon becomes less of an issue. 

  12. 21 hours ago, Dominic said:

    I fear that 2-3 attacks a round without splitting the attack roll makes missiles too deadly. 

    Sure, a very skilled archer can do it.  But:

    1. We can reflect that through the attack splitting rules.  The 5 round reload just serves to determine when the 2nd/3rd arrows strike.

    2. It is unbalanced to make a skilled swordsman (who could also theoretically make several sword strokes in 12 seconds) split his percentage, but not the archer.

     

    How does multiple arrows work with the new dodge & combat rules?  Can the target parry twice and still close with the archer?  Or is the 2nd arrow "unparyable", unless the target is >100% skill.

     

    Unlike attacks, parry no longer follows the previous rule of needing over 100% for multiple parries. You can parry as many attacks as you can fit into strike ranks, but at a cumulative -20% penalty for every parry after the first. The same goes for Dodge. Bearing in mind you can't attack and parry with a single weapon/shield on the same SR.

    Please note - I'm referring to the current iteration of the unreleased RQG rules that Jason Durall has talked about here: 

    There are some small differences with the QuickStart rules.

  13. So thinking about the refinements to RGQ over the Quack-start rules, this is what jumps out at me:

    • Toughness of parry weapon/attack weapon is now a factor (unless a critical is rolled) - I like this, it makes sense to have only damage effective above the AP of the weapon/shield . But there is also still the devastating critical which bypasses the AP altogether and is applied directly to the Weapon/shield AP points.
    • Dodge is brought in line with parry. More flexible, effective against multiple opponents ( not just single opponent), and like parry suffers -20% cumulative penalty on every dodge after the first. - Nice that dodge and parry are more flexible defensive options now, and interchangeable.
    • Critical Damage has been simplified to being a special that ignores armour - Streamlined simple change *why didn't i think of that?*. less for newbies to have to remember, but still significant damage.
    • You can only perform one action with a single weapon on a single Strike Rank - So no parry and attack on on the same SR with a single weapon. Makes a second weapon/shield tactically significant as you can still parry on the same strike rank with the second weapon/shield.

    @Jason Durall With strike ranks is it possible to delay a melee attack for tactical advantage? For instance delaying an attack to occur on an opponents SR so that they have to make a choice between using their parry or attack?

     

  14. On 23 June 2017 at 4:19 AM, styopa said:

    Do subsequent dodges vs multiple attacks from the single attacker suffer -20% after the first?  (I don't think it does, just confirming)

    Are there Parry fumbles, or is their effect the same as Dodge Fumbles? (That's what I have in the table above)  Drop Parrying weapon or something?

    From what I can see then in short:

    DODGE - good vs one attacker, many dodges without penalty.  All or nothing.  

    PARRY: allows multiple parries against multiple attacks regardless of source, but suffers -20% per subsequent after first.  Finite protection that degrades. Partial mitigation with merely ANY success.  

    Regrading Dodge - @Jason Durallhas confirmed that it is under the same ruling as parry, in that any subsequent dodges/and/or parries in a single melee round suffer -20% cumulative penalties, whether against attacks from a single opponent, or attacks from multiple sources. As a result dodge is now effective against attacks from multiple sources not just a single source as in the Quick start rules

     

    • Like 1
  15. 3 hours ago, Jason Durall said:

    We'd rather limit combat actions using the splitting attacks rule we've got in place. Combat is already deadly and crunchy enough without giving high %

    Yes I see the logic now- Thanks for explaining.

    Its really interesting to read the reasons for design choices. So much work is obviously going on behind the scenes with the play testing, its impressive.  The most difficult aspect for me now will be waiting for the release of the core rules.

    Looking through the QS i'm amazed that you packed so much into relatively few pages, its a great primer.

  16. 3 hours ago, Jason Durall said:

    Ultimately, combat in any RPG is an abstraction, and we're aiming for a sort of mid-crunch that gives a bit of flavor, but doesn't attempt to mimic each footstep, feint, and angle of every blow.

    Yes, I like the balance you are striking. Although with some differences in QS rules to the latest iteration, this is how the level of crunchiness came across in our FreeRPG game - Comparable to a nicely brewed cup of tea, but with potential for limb loss :) 

    3 hours ago, Jason Durall said:

    You parry with a hafted weapon by guiding a blow away from yourself, such as into the ground or air.

    Yes this whole explanation makes sense to me. I'm glad the rules aren't being pushed into too much complication. For me the crunchiness as presented is striking the right balance

  17. 1 hour ago, Jason Durall said:

     

    In answer to your questions: 

     

    @Jason Durall this is shaping up rather well. Really like how parry and dodge has been opened up in play. Makes sense that they both follow those rulings - it stops it getting unnecessarily complicated - half makes me wonder whether extra/cumulative attacks could be handled in the same way? But im sure there would be implications to that which i haven't thought of.

    i also infer from your answer that dodge is now opened up to attacks from any source not just one source.

    I like this a lot.

    Thanks again! 

     

×
×
  • Create New...