Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by deleriad

  1. Speaking of just the rules elements of MRQ1 for now. I had been out of role-playing for a fair while when I stumbled across the existence of MRQ1. The last two RQ3 campaigns I had run finished in 1997 when I moved to Canada. All I had done since then was the occasional CoC 1 shot for mostly non-gaming friends. Prior to that I had run a lot of RQ3, contributed to the RQ Digest and so on. Opening up the book, about which I literally knew nothing, my first impression was "god, this is cheap and nasty." So I started to go through the rules and created some PCs to see how it worked. My reactions were along the lines of: "No General Hit points!? Did I miss them in the rules somewhere? Surely not. Actually, you know, thinking about it, this is a genius idea." "Hero Points! woo hoo. I've been using hero points in RQ since 1985. Hero points buying heroic abilities?! Oh, bad idea. Actually, heroic abilities are a bad idea." (About 9 months later I watched how motivated my players were to gain them. I hate being wrong.) "Skills as two characteristics added together. Neat." "No resistance table! Excellent!" "shortened skill list. I like it." "Opposed rolls. I do like me some opposed rolls. Lots of really neat ideas in here and at least the production standards are better than Daughters of Darkness." "What's going on with 'rune magic'? Are their some pages missing? This is awful." "Ok so Strike Ranks are an initiative system with the word Strike Ranks attached. I'll try it out then see if my players prefer RQ3's Strike Ranks. (Reader: they didn't.)" "One skill for attack and parry, works for me. This is going to be so easy to teach." "Combat. Belay that previous comment. Has someone torn out some pages and eaten them? This just doesn't make sense. Let me re-read that a few times. Nope this is simply inconsistent. Let's look online to see what's going on. Bloody hell, this is a mess. Right then, lets adapt some of my old RQ3 house rules about opposed rolls and combat. Successful parry but lose the roll? double the AP of the defending weapon, job's a good un. This actually works out ok." "Runes?!? Come on, really. I mean I know it's called RuneQuest but it's not called 'Dig the runes out of your freshly slain victims and use them Quest'. (About a year later, running Blood of Orlanth I started to find really interesting things to do with tangible runes and became moderately in favour of the idea apart from the whole stabbystabbytakeyourruney thing.) By the time I had finally grokked the book I felt like there were all sort of neat ideas in there and it felt the first really fresh take on BRP since Nephilim. Admittedly I would have to spend a fair time hacking it into something I could actually run but when I did run a 1-short for a bunch of people I had never met at an Edinburgh meet up we had a great time. It would go on to form the start of a campaign that would last 3 years and revitalise my enjoyment of Glorantha. Ultimately, MRQ1 showed all that was good and bad about Mongoose. Good, they actually published material. Bad, the utter lack of professionalism. You never knew what the brown stuff in your sandwich was going to be when you bought a Mongoose book.
  2. It always comes down to what happens when a character is only within melee range of another character for one SR but the enemy's SR is higher. Now remember that in RQ3 SoI's are much looser and can be adjusted/changed by adding your DEX SR. Given the usual issues around movement and engagement if one person wants to run past the other you pretty much work through a flowchart. Does the "defender" know what's going on? Is the defender able to do anything about it? what does the runner plan to do if the defender attacks and so on. After all that it turns into Quantum movement for a while. if the runner gets past then the runner will end up at point A, a certain distance away from the defender. If the defender can plausibly attack the runner then the defender resolves the attack at the SR when the runner turns up. depending on how much of a grid you are using and the length of the defender's weapon the runner could be in a variety of places. This may be significantly earlier than normal but remember your Melee SR is an abstraction based on a whole melee round of jockeying for position whereas this is (sort of) a non-melee attack. The attack happens, someone loses a leg, the wave state collapses and the SR sequence resumes. Mostly my RQ3 days consisted of me saying "you want to get to the balcony, that's about 8m away so you'll get there on your DEX SR+2. The trollkin with the loaded sling will fire at you while you're running. The other one is getting another stone so won't be able to fire until SR 6." Unless other people were involved, I would often batch a series of actions around one person or area rather than counting all the SRs. We would generally play with some figures, various dice for markers and a sketch map to one side showing the area so distances were always somewhat approximate. A round often consisted of a bunch of discussion about what players planned to do and my feedback on what I thought that might entail, at which point they might adjust.
  3. That's actually not the case. In RQ3, SRs were explicitly made into a hybrid impulse/initiative system. In RQ2 they were explicitly an initiative system and RQG rolls back to RQ2. To be precise, RQ2 consisted of three different timing system. Melee SRs - used for determining who goes first in melee combat.[1] DEX SRs, used to indicate order of actions in non-melee combat. (i.e. missile or magic attacks) Movement: used for dealing with movement and actions that don't interact with combat. In general, if two combatants are not engaged in melee the idea is that they close with each other on one melee round then attack and parry on the next. Where it gets complicated is when one person joins a pre-existing melee. If you add an offset to the third person's melee SR for movement then it starts to turn into an impulse system. And then things start to get really hairy. In RQ3, the authors embraced the impulse side of SRs and the game started to bog down. I mean I played RQ3 for more than 10 years in multiple campaigns and it works OK providing you handwave most of the interactions into yes you can/no you can't/add X SRs to your attack. It seems to me that if you took all the most immersion breaking failures of an initiative system and married them up with all the most cumbersome elements of an impulse system, what you end up with is SRs. If you look at all the ground-breaking elements of RQ1/2 that were copied and influenced RPG game designs for the next 40 years, the one thing you don't see is the SR system. There's a reason for that. Probably in RQG you should take one of two options. Handwaving. If someone wants to try and move past an armed and ready enemy, make up something e.g. Attack vs dodge out of the normal SR sequence or Dex vs Dex, with the enemy getting a free attack if they win. If they're X far away then maybe someone can cast a Befuddle first. Or, if consistent application of rules is your preference, use RQ3 style impulse counting in order to integrate movement and action. Providing you know what you want to do and everyone's on the same page then it won't matter. Either way there will be (as @EpicureanDM has posted while I write this) there will be "some awkward bits hanging out" so choose what is least awkward for you. [1]There was an option in RQ2 to use DEX SRs for combatants who were already engaged before the melee round started but that was largely forgotten about. Even back in 1979, the authors felt that pikes being "faster" than daggers for people in close combat made no real sense.
  4. Indeed. You see some of the same ideas in Mythras applied to damage: e.g. magic tends to increase the chance of you doing maximum damage not increase the amount of damage you do. Likewise modifiers tend not to stack, characteristics tend not to increase. Some variants have hard caps on skill values, Mythras by default tends to have a soft cap. It's fairly hard to increase your access to Magic Points. Lots of ways in which Mythras tends to have deliberately created narrower bounds to the game than standard BRP. I actually really like it. I find if the game stays within certain boundaries that success is measured more through the things you have successfully achieved than by, say, having skills over 200% or the ability to routinely inflict 20-30 points of damage on a normal hit once you're all magicked up.
  5. Back in the early 80s when I joined Edinburgh University's RPG society, it was split in half. Half played AD&D and half-played everything else except AD&D. (No one played D&D.) A small number of people crossed over. The society was even called "The AD&D and Roleplaying Society." I was of course in the non-D&D half and we all had an immense sense of our superiority. After all, AD&D was just roll-playing and 10th level fighter could survive a fall from orbit. How stupid was that!!?! I like to think (or at least I hope that) I have grown up since then. Admittedly I've only ever got round to playing any version of D&D twice (both times were poor experiences but that was more down to the people than anything else) but would happily play in a game of D&D if it happened that way. I also think that we're going through a golden age in game design for all manner of games, including RPGs, where there is a real focus on what makes a game a good game. What I have seen of D&D 5e is that it tries really hard to be the best possible game of D&D that it can be and it seems to do really well at that.
  6. I think this is an excellent approach and I really like it. Rather than having to manage your powers through book-keeping and efficient spending of resources (which I realise is a thing that some players enjoy) you focus on actually using them. Instead of making "stunts" something you have to succeed at with a negative modifier you can use your resources to achieve them. In that respect it follows the same logic as special effects which I think is an under-appreciated and fundamental innovation that the Mythras line has brought to BRP games.
  7. The DEX rank approach in Big Gold Book etc is much closer to a standard initiative system than the SR system in RQG. To generalise: With an initiative system, each character performs its action(s) on its initiative number. (There may be sub-phases in which all movement, all ranged attacks etc happen.) With an impulse system, a character performs its first action on impulse X, then each subsequent action happens y impulses later. Y is variable and depends on "how long" the action takes. Roughly speaking, an impulse system is action-based while initiative is character-based. DEX ranks are a bit more complex because sometimes you end up performing additional actions with 5 DEX ranks between each one. So they have some impulse-like elements. RQ SRs are much closer to an impulse system in that you perform your first action on a certain SR then any subsequent actions after a variable number of SRs based on how long it takes. Unlike a pure impulse system, your impulse count resets at 12 (unless you're casting spells). The authors have tried to make SRs act more like an initiative system but it is still, in my eyes, a hybrid that is further down the impulse line than DEX ranks. Historically speaking, Ringworld was a pure impulse system that was virtually un-managable. The earliest BRP book and CoC was basically a pure initiative system. Mythras is an unusual kind of initiative system where you act once on your initiative and if you have any actions left you act again when your initiative cycles back round. Because I had a spare hour and I'm a bit of a game mechanic geek, I did have a look at whether it was possible to make SRs into a pure initiative system. Didn't look like it was going to work and you end up with a lot of numbers and overhead simply to figure out who goes first.
  8. In pure game mechanics terms that is precisely the issue. If you can attack and parry with a shield in the same melee round while still being able to attack with your main weapon then you always will providing you have the SRs. Failing that you will attack with shield and weapon then parry with your weapon, remembering that your chance to attack with a shield is the same as parrying. If you can attack with a cestus while wielding a 1-h weapon you will. It won't take long for the experience rolls to stack up. (I realise that there is a risk to so-doing which is a failed attack vs a successful parry.)
  9. That is only in reference to a knockback attempt in Jason's post not a normal shield attack. (My bad because I think I managed to confuse the two rules.) Though it does of course depend on what is meant by dual wielding. If I have a cestus on my left hand I can attack with weapon and cestus but what about punching someone if (for argument's sake) my cestus fell off? Or sword plus chair-leg etc.? What this reminds me of is MRQ1 where a late change in the combat system wasn't properly reflected in the rulebook leading to all sorts of confusion. I suspect there has been some crossed wires somewhere.
  10. Historically the answer to that is "yes." If you invest in a lot of off-hand training, your off-hand skill will eventually be better than simply using half your normal hand skill. (Technically you also need 1.5 times the normal DEX requirement but that is only DEX 10 (after multiplication) for Broadsword so not really a big deal.
  11. This is the biggest change to RQ2/RQ3 SRs since, well 1977. As a summary, providing you are wielding two weapons and have the SRs to use them you can attack with both them while still being able to parry/dodge. Shields are now considered to be a "weapon" for this purpose. The sentence in the rulebook page 219: "It is possible to attack with a shield, giving up the chance of parrying that round" is no longer true? At the risk of being philosophical - what else counts as a weapon? Something like a cestus? Presumably yes. A natural weapon something like a scorpion folk stinger or Broo headbutt? (In past RQ these were counted as additional attacks that could be made so would conform to the ruling.) Another natural weapon like fist, kick or headbutt. The result of this ruling is that any character with a Melee SR of 3 or less (i.e. DEX SR 1, SIZ SR 2) will always be able to attack twice each round with different "weapons" without needing to split attacks while parrying/dodging normally. I don't know if that's how RQG was played during playtesting but it is massively different to how RQ2/RQ3 worked. In the example of combat on page 206, Vasana drops her sword in order to make a shield attack.
  12. So just to be clear on this: If I am wielding two weapons then I can attack twice in a round without needing to split my attacks and can still parry? OR If I am wielding two weapons then I can attack twice in a round without needing to split my attacks but I cannot parry (or dodge) if I do this. I presume the latter. I also presume that this refers to attacking with two different weapons. i.e. I cannot wield sword and parrying dagger then attack twice with a sword (unless splitting.) Overriding the text in the rulebook, this is allowed with weapon and shield. Does this also apply to using natural weapons (e.g. kick and sword)? According to the rulebook a shield attack occurs on SR12 and prevents you from parrying (either at all or with the shield, it is unclear but presumably the latter.) Does your email override that?
  13. Literally, and again I don't know if this is *meant* to be the case, attacking with a shield prevents you from parrying at all during that round. I presume it is meant to mean that you can't parry with the shield you're using for the attack but presumably can still parry with something else (and/or replace the parry with a dodge.)
  14. Thanks for the clarification. The problem is this bullet point on page 224 Any adventurer using a weapon in each hand may use them for two attacks, two parries, or one attack and one parry. The "two parries" bit is really confusing. Bearing in mind this doesn't apply to weapon+shield. Say I am fighting with shortsword and parrying dagger. If parry with one of them does that prevent me from using it to attack? If for example I parry one enemy with my shortsword then another with a dagger at -20% does that mean I have performed "two parries" and cannot now attack? That would be strange because, for example, using just a shortsword I can attack and parry with it as frequently as I wish but if I use a 2-weapon style I can't. The other thing that is opaque (to me at least) is the relationship between parry and dodge. In a standard melee situation in which I wish to attack and defend, if I state that I will parry does that prevent me from dodging and vice-versa? Or can I just switch between parrying and dodging as I see fit during a melee round? I think it's the latter though the former is more common in BRP. If parry and dodge can be interchanged freely does the dodge restriction that prevents you from dodging multiple attacks on the same SR also apply to combining dodging and parrying. E.g. if I parry someone at SR 7 then their big brother attacks also on SR 7 can I dodge that person (at -20)? What about in reverse - can I dodge then parry on the same SR? These are pedantic questions but one of the oldest tricks in the book in RQ3 was to delay an attack so that you and a friend could attack the same enemy on the same SR, so that only one could be parried.
  15. Indeed it does say that. Reading the rules as written: If you are using two weapons and parrying with both of them then it is possible that you can parry the same attack with both of them. I highly doubt it because 40 years of precedence say that "no you can't" but I'm trying to the read the book as written. If you can parry the same attack with multiple weapons (it is quite cinematic to parry a blow with two swords for example) then ipso facto you can replace one of the parries with a dodge.* Again, I really doubt this is meant to be the case but I don't actually know. The example of play shows someone planning to parry an attack against a friend and then parrying an attack against himself. The subsequent parry rule indicates that he could do both on the same SR if needed. This means for example you and your friend can parry attacks against each other and yourself using the subsequent parry/dodge rule. Again this is purely reading the rules as written. As a GM I would regard players actually doing this to be gaming the system and not allow it. *Only one because dodge specifies no subsequent dodges on the same SR. I would actually interpret the rules to say that you can't dodge on the same SR you parried but the rules only refer to not dodging twice on the same SR and are silent on, for example, whether you can dodge on the same SR that you have already parried on.
  16. That is really unlikely. In all the years of RQ where this option has existed it has never been allowed. You have also never previously been able to parry and dodge the same attack. Note that I *think* in RQG you are not allowed to parry and dodge in the same melee round: the text on dodge refers to using it instead of parrying. I do think the designers need to explain in informal English how this is all meant to work because i suspect that various bits of copy and paste when merging RQ3 dodge with RQ2 has caused some breakages. For the record, taking the rules as written, it seems to me that the following is what happens. Statement of intent. does not have to specify targets or actions or, basically, anything. e.g. from the rulebook "(“I’ll wait here for them to do something,and have my shield and sword at the ready if someone gets close” is enough detail). So a generic statement of intent would be: "I'll attack someone on my SR and parry the most dangerous looking opponent to attack me." It *looks* like you can substitute dodge for any given parry but, per statement of intent, you don't need to be that specific until it happens. So you could replace "parry the most dangerous..." with "defend against the most dangerous...." if you want to be pedantic. Note one important difference. Under subsequent dodges it refers to only being able to do subsequent dodges on subsequent SRs. This does not appear under parries. So you could parry multiple opponents on the same SR but not dodge them. (E.g. if two trollkin wait until SR12 to do headshots you can try to parry them both but only dodge one of them.) Because dodge replaces a parry you cannot parry and dodge the same attack. Really then statement of intent is for specifying things like aimed blows or casting a spell while in melee etc. Two weapons. Per the rulebook two weapons does not refer to sword and shield and *probably* does not refer to sword and natural weapons (e.g. no sword and kick.) If using two weapons you can attack with both (giving up any defence), parry with both (giving up any attack) or attack with one and parry with the other. From the looks of it, you cannot attack and parry with the same weapon if you are using two weapons. (Technically that is the same with weapon and shield because if you attack with a shield you cannot parry with it.) Now the rulebook never explicitly rules out (or in) using two weapons to parry the same attack. (Or even two different people parrying the same attack, see below.) So it is possible that @Paid a bod yn dwp is correct and this is an innovation in RQG. Likewise, if dodge replaces a parry and you can parry the same attack with different weapons then you can, theoretically, parry and dodge the same attack. (Can't do multiple dodges on the same SR though.) I think it's most likely that this isn't ruled out (or in) simply because the authors have been playing RQ for 35 years and this is the way it has always worked. Other notable things It looks like you can perform an unlimited number of subsequent parries each MR. "An adventurer may make a subsequent parry ...If the chance is reduced to 0% or below, the chance of success becomes the default 5% minimum chance of success." (This is different to traditional BRP where you can't make a subsequent parry if your chance is reduced to 0% or below.) Look at the example of combat on page 206. Joshfar, ... announces that he’s going to parry any attacks that come [Vasana's] way. The broo recognizes Joshfar as the greater threat, and decides to attack him first. Joshfar rolls a dismal 00 on his Medium Shield parry roll: a fumble! Technically he does something not in his statement of intent but it doesn't seem to matter. i.e. statement of intents in RQG don't really need to specify targets etc. It's for this reason that I *think* the idea is that statement of intent is really only about what weapons you are using and if you are doing anything that might change your SR (like casting Bladesharp.) So a statement might be "i'll be attacking with my sword and defending with my shield" or "I'll be attacking with both my sword and my axe." Bear in mind that you can always substitute a dodge for a parry but not on the same SR you have already dodged or (presumably) parried. This reading may or may not be what the designers intended. It seems to be a hybrid of RQ2, RQ3 and BRP (multiple dodges/parries).
  17. Except that the rulebook explicitly states that "The adventurer must then make an attack with the weapon, shield, or part of their body they are intending use for the knockback attempt.... the knockback attempt always happens on strike rank 12. The attacker may not attack in any other way, but may parry or Dodge normally during this round." To be less pedantic, it looks like legacy rules and wordings have slipped through in different places so until RAW is clarified it's going to be a case of using your favourite interpretation. Personally I would just use the RQ3 formulation where a person dodging can do so instead of an attack or a parry. If you decided to forgo the attack in order to parry and dodge then the first parry and the first dodge would be at full value. I would also treat shields (and natural weapons) just like any other weapon - again as is done in RQ3.
  18. I managed to skip right over that. That's pretty ludicrous. So no bashing one enemy with your shield while kicking another in unmentionables I guess. I presume giving up parry under shield attacks refers to just parrying with the shield. But maybe not. The implication seems to be that you can't parry at all if you're attacking with a shield because two-weapon rules don't apply to weapon and shield. So, according to the rules you can parry with a shield while doing a knockback attack with a shield but not while doing a normal attack with a shield.
  19. Based on how I used to play it in RQ2 and bearing in mind that the RQG rulebook seems very opaque. Each round, if you are in melee you can make: 1 attack and 1 parry - this can be with the same weapon 1 attack and 1 dodge (clearly the dodge option didn't exist in RQ2.) 2 attacks - but this must be with two different melee weapons 2 parries - with different weapons 1 parry and 1 dodge I interpret the subsequent parry rule as pertaining to the weapon being used. So if using two weapons to parry I could parry once with a shield at full value, then use the subsequent parry rule again at -20%, then parry with a different weapon (e.g. a sword) at full value and so on. Again, back in RQ2 days there was nothing stopping you using a natural weapon (head butt, kick etc) as your second attack but you often wouldn't have enough SRs for it. I don't see any reason why you can't do this in RQG. The rulebook does seem to forget that fighting with two weapons is pretty much the default in RQ: weapon and shield.
  20. Yes, that's correct. If you have an unprepared weapon then it would be: DEX SR 0: SR 5, 10 DEX SR 1: SR 6, 12 DEX SR 2: SR 7, prep. Next round: SR 2, 9 DEX SR 3: SR 8. DEX SR 4: SR 9 DEX SR 5: SR 10 Clearly in some cases you would be better off preparing a shot but not actually firing in order to get into a better rhythm. As I say I don't know if this is what is intended but it seems to be the literal reading of the rules that treats SRs as initiative rather than time intervals.
  21. I think though I'm not sure that the intent is slightly different. If you look at the SR table there are two kinds of figures: SRs with absolute values and SR modifiers that add a certain amount to a SR (e.g. attack with an unprepared weapon). So for example DEX 19+ is SR 0. To fire a prepared weapon (assuming it fires at S/MR) takes 0 SRs. To fire an unprepared weapon takes DEX SR +5 = 5 SRs. Bear in mind that nothing happens before SR 1. If you have a DEX SR of 0, you will attack on SR 1, 6 and 11. If you have a DEX SR of 1 you will attack on 1 and 7. If you have DEX SR of 2 you will attack on 2 and 9 Dex SR 3 - attack on 3 and 11 DEX SR 4 - attack on 4, prep an arrow DEX SR 5 - attack on 5, prep an arrow I'm not convinced that this is either correct (or meant to be correct) but there is an attempt in RQG to word it as an initiative system rather than an impulse one. Taking that literally would give the break down above.
  22. Fair point. Slightly easier way to think about it: You can also slightly improve your chances by making your first attack the smaller one (50 vs 80) then having 60 vs 60 for the second one. The numbers are closer than I expected. In fact the situation is the other way round to what I thought: the greater the difference the more damaging to your chances of success splitting is. E.g. 140 attack vs 80 parry works out at 100 vs 40 or if splitting (70 vs 80 then 70 vs 60). Unsplit, your chance of a successful unparried attack is 57% while your chance of a successful unparried attack when splitting is 14% followed by 28%.
  23. I'm pretty sure there is no situation beyond something really weird and wacky in which it is better to split attacks against the same opponent. This is due to the interaction of the very high skills rule and subsequent parries rule. In fact, it may well be the case that it is generally never a good idea to split attacks against multiple opponents. E.g. say it is 110% attack vs 80% parry. This decomposes to 100 vs 70 which is massively better than 60 vs 80 followed by 50 vs 60. Furthermore, given 5 SRs between attacks unless you're using a turbo-spear (in RQ the longer the weapon the faster it moves) your second attack will come after your enemy's attack. The only way I can see it making sense is if you have a massively superior augment to your skill compared to your enemy. E.g. say you have +50% from passions and terrain advantage and you can attack twice before your enemy can then it becomes 60+50 = 110 vs 80 (100 vs 70) followed by 100 vs 60. That is compared to 110+50 vs 80 = 100 vs 20. Someone with better stats than me can figure out which is most likely to defeat the enemy. Frankly I would choose the most likely to a sure thing and stick with 100 vs 20. Same with fighting multiple mooks. There's not much point giving up a near guaranteed unblockable attack for two more easily defended attacks unless you have massive terrain advantage and you can attack twice before they can. In which case you have to wonder why you're even rolling dice in the first place. E.g. your skill is 200% and you have +40% to rolls. The trollkin are 40% and don't attack until SR11 with their hand-held cabbages. Your split skill becomes 100+40 vs 40 (100 vs 0) which means you should be able to kill 2 trollkin before they can hit you with a cabbage.
  24. Agreed. And further, the example statement of intent given in the rulebook is "These intentions do not need to be precise (“I’ll wait here for them to do something, and have my shield and sword at the ready if someone gets close” is enough detail). i.e. all Jon needs to say is "I'll guard the door with my sword and shield ready." A lot of this will come down to ad-hoc rulings though and as a GM I would let Vivian's player know the options before hand during statements.
  25. I think you can make sense of this if you bear in mind that SRs are an abstract initiative system that only matter when ordering a sequence of attacks. Despite looking really, really, really like an impulse system (and becoming a hybrid in RQ3) it is not. What I mean by that is this: if someone is due to attack on SR7 it doesn't mean that they attack on SR 7 it means that they are spending all melee round in combat and resolve their attack on SR 7, after all the attacks on SR 1-6 and before all the attacks on SR 8-12. No more, no less. Someone who is not involved in melee ignores SRs unless they do something which interacts with a melee (e.g. casting a demoralize at someone in melee.) So if you are moving past an aware and armed opponent and that opponent can feasibly attack you and is not otherwise involved in a melee then that opponent can attack you. End of. For argument's sake you would resolve it on that opponent's normal SR simply to keep things straight. Say a friend plans to demoralise the enemy on SR 4 then great. You could also state that "I will wait until Trish casts her spell then run past the enemy." This will reduce how far you can move by 12m this melee round because you waited a short while. Again this looks like an impulse system but you just need to keep pretending it's abstract and it all sort of works out. Mostly though this is about rulings in a context. If both parties wish to engage then engagement happens. If both parties don't want to then no engagement happens. If one party wants it and one doesn't then you're into either a ruling based on context or some sort of opposed roll. In this case the enemy may be guarding an entrance and move to block the way while you are trying to run past. In this case I would give the enemy their attack then probably go for DEX vs DEX. You win, you get past, enemy wins, you are blocked and stuck in an engagement. Still and all, this is my interpretation and may be completely at odds with the authors' intent. I like to think of it as Schrödinger's SRs: no one knows what they are unless they get caught in a melee. The rest of the time it tends to read as "you can do one or two things per round and/or move a certain distance."
  • Create New...