Barak Shathur

April 7th hath come, O Caesar, but it hath not yet gone. 

Maybe they’re waiting until it’s April 7th everywhere on the planet! Which would be fair I guess. 🙂

4 hours ago, MOB said:

 

 

 

 

 

So relieved the date wasn’t April 1st!

7 minutes ago, TheShadow said:

Loving the cover design. A great updated take on the familiar.

Agree, it looks fantastic!

This is most excellent news! Will definitely get it.
 

I vote for the RQ3 weapon table. 

On 2/23/2023 at 4:17 PM, Bill the barbarian said:

This is why I use the Encumberance system.

I don't quite see how this helps with the problem of ping pong fights. The point of a fatigue system is that the combatants' combat skill gradually deteriorates the longer the fight goes on. Presumably one of them is more susceptible to fatigue than the other, possibly leading to quicker resolution of an otherwise endless combat between two highly skilled opponents. RQG's ENC system doesn't function like this.

11 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

15 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

When both sides have good armor  and a lot of magical protection up, then yes I saw a lot of indecisive rounds while we waited for that critical  roll.

This is where a good fatigue system comes in handy. IMO one of the better solutions to BRP ping pong. Either a linear one as in RQIII, which however is a little cumbersome, or an interval based one as in RQIV (roll CON ever 6 rounds, reduced by ENC, or suffer a penalty).

I've been wanting to do this with Classic Fantasy but haven't found a willing group yet. Please let me know how it goes.

I think I prefer the RQ3 rules, that simply make knockback an issue of competing on the resistance table, instead of requiring a successful attack roll first. When you're that close to an opponent who suddenly throws himself at you, it's quite difficult to step aside. And the way I read it, having DEX included in the defender's chance to avoid knockback in itself represents evading or dodging. The rules for bracing against knockback can also be interpreted as being permitted against intentional knockback, in which case STR would be substituted for DEX for the defender, which would be useful if you have high STR. But I totally agree with 

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

It's harder to evade a large creature than smaller ones.

IMO it totally makes sense for a huge troll to simply swat away pesky adventurers who are silly enough to go toe to toe with it. That's the way it should be. Like going up against an oversized grizzly. Shoot it, spear it, stay out of reach.

Very nice interview. RQ2 was my first RPG experience back in 1983, and RQG has been my latest, 40 years later. The guys who are maintaining Stafford's legacy have done an amazing job. Thanks.

This is some of the most exciting news I’ve heard in a while. 

18 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

Good point. The potential of incapacitating is probably enough for slashing as a special.

Especially since slashing weapons on the whole already have higher damage dice than others. 

51 minutes ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

Except that if you start close to the archer, he may not get his second shot off under RQiG rules.  But in the sequence just proposed above, he will get all his shots off even if you start right next to him.  With a high DEX, that is three arrows at point blank range before you can spear him.   I have a harder time accepting that that I have counting strike ranks.

Fair enough. Scratch that. I guess ideally then, to be consistent, one ought to add SR for moving to both the mover and the movee, so that all that needs to take place before contact can happen. So, Larry Longspear (MSR 6) charges 12m at Stevie Short sword (MSR 7). Archie Archer fires at Larry on his DEX SR 3, and again at 8. If Larry survives, he reaches Stevie and melees him on SR 10, while Stevie melees at SR 11. If Larry starts only 3m away from Steve, Archie doesn't get his second shot in before contact. A little crunchy, but kind of fun!

20 minutes ago, radmonger said:

The RQ 2 rules have basically the same text, but headings 'primary considerations' and 'secondary considerations', with movement being under the latter heading. RQ:G lacks those headings, so says 'figured out normally', where RQ2 says 'figured out using primary considerations only'. But noth clearly were intended to mean the same; 'figured out as if they had not moved'.

To put it another way, unengaged movement happens before SR0. SR is not an absolute atomic clock synchronized to Solar Time. Instead it it a turn-based system, that starts when engagement starts. Movement limits by SR only apply to movement after engagement starts. Before that there is nothing to count, only an overall limit of movement per round.

Note that in a change from RQ2, engagement does not have to be in melee; charging an archer counts.

 

 

 

So ideally, one might say, the order of the four M's should be Magic, Missile, Movement, Melee. That way, what can be achieved at range is taken care of before charges have been completed.

All of the above is why I feel it is better to have movement last, after all actions. RQIV does this, MERP does this. Everyone unengaged gets to act before anyone reaches them, if you're engaged at the start of the round you get to melee, otherwise not. There's no confusion, as far as I can see.

If you want to get extra gritty, you could argue that the chargee has the strike ranks it 'takes' for the charger to reach him to do some other action, like cast a spell, prepare a weapon or other, although since it's max 4 SR (12m/3) it's doesn't go that far. Maybe chargee draws weapon (+5 SR) and gets to strike at melee SR +1.

EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION: with this system, both parties would get the SR penalty added due to the charger arriving later in the round. But again, it’s a bit extra granular and not really necessary. 

17 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

By the way, I'd be happy to allow a character to rush in with their full MOV as a charge, increasing their damage modifier by one step but having to succeed at half skill.

Or full skill but no parry.

18 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

 

I will disagree with David Scott here. I believe the intent of the MOV SR is to determine when one can join (or act in relation to) an engaged party. In your example, if I understand correctly, neither are intitially engaged and are about to engage one another. At the moment of engagement, how much they had to travel to engage is irrelevant (aka do not worry about MOV SR). What is relevant at the moment of engagement is reach (SIZ SR and Weapon SR) and quickness (DEX SR). Larry, with his longspear (and MSR6) would strike before Stevie (MSR 7).

In the next round, if Quack the Quick (MSR 5) wants to act in relation to Larry and Stevie, whether he moves or not will matter. If he rushes in (for 12m) to engage, he would then act after both Larry (MSR 5) and Stevie (MSR 6) at MSR 9 (5+4): he arrived late in the round.

The third round, the three of them are engaged. Quack acts on 5, Larry on 6 and Stevie on 7.

Right?! This has got to be how it is intended to work. 

18 minutes ago, Beoferret said:

Ah, but here's the point where one can differentiate between rider and mount. It's the mount that's moving (the rider too, obviously, but they're not engaging in any effort to do so.) Because the mount is putting effort into moving, it's the one (assuming that it's properly trained) that can't attack after moving more than half it's Movement ((aside from a slam/knockback attempt, if I'm remembering correctly) ). The horse, for instance, can't charge and kick in the same round. Makes sense. But its rider should still be able to strike.

All in all, I think we can interpret the Strike Rank rules in a way that's consistent with RQ mechanics as written and which makes a fair degree of sense (i.e., maintains verisimilitude).  

This is exactly the point I'm trying to make! But David Scott disagrees:

On 1/19/2023 at 11:33 AM, David Scott said:

However, you can charge in 18m, but you won't get the mount damage bonus. But you could go for a hefty knock back if your bison is war trained.

I would suggest in the first melee round you state you are preparing to change, so that's move to position, wheel and start the run. Second melee round, you strike at the rider plus weapon SR. I use the rider SR as there's some manoeuvring and riding to be done, however it's usually only SR 3 or 4, and the damage bonus is the mount's.

(You can ask over at the Q&A but @Scotty will give the same answer)

 

Just now, soltakss said:

I'm not sure where the half movement comes from. Why are you saying you can only charge for half your mount's movement in a round?

In RQG you can only move up to half your move and attack in the same round. 

33 minutes ago, soltakss said:

So, to charge into combat so the rider can use a Lance means moving 20m, or using up 7 SRs, leaving a good 5 SRS with which to skewer one opponent and trample him beneath the Bison's hooves.

Again, 20 is more than half of 36, and according to Scotty above, this makes it impossible to strike in the round you arrive at the target. In e.g. RQ3 however, it says that the mount does the moving for rider, so the rider can attack on his unmodified SR.

34 minutes ago, soltakss said:

RQG p54 says that a human can move 8 m per round walking, or 24 running. The human effectively moves 2m per SR.

Since it's +1 SR per 3m moved, I always assumed a human moved 3m per SR. Since you start on DSR, you usually have less than 12 SR to move, and maybe a SR or two are lost in taking in the situation, making decisions etc. But at base, I realise I'm coming from RQ3, where humans explicitly are said to move 3m per SR. Wow, that makes RQG:s movement/SR relationship even more awkward and confusing. 

34 minutes ago, soltakss said:

That means a Bidon, with Move 12, can move 12m per round walking, or 36m per round running. Now, 36m per round means that the bison moves at 3m per SR.

How does this help anything? Half of 36m is still 18m, less than the 20 you need to complete a mounted charge. So unless the mount's movement is separate from the rider's, you still can't charge and attack in the same round.

31 minutes ago, soltakss said:

I absolutely hated the way it did movement, with quarter-turns, half-turns and so on. It made me feel like a little robot, turning and then moving, not flexible at all.

Where do you get this from? All I can see is that after completing a move, you can 'freely adjust facing'. The main difference in the movement system is that the move stat is calculated based on DEX and SIZ, so it is differentiated between individuals, and completely untethered from strike ranks, which operate purely as an initiative system. In a round, you can move your base move and then act in the melee phase on your SR for whatever you're doing (DEX SR for magic or missiles, DEX + SIZ + WSR for melee, +3 for multiple arrows etc). If you don't act in the melee phase, you can move again up to twice your move score. As far as I can tell, from my GM:ing it, it works perfectly. Much clearer and cleaner than RQ3 or RQG. Not unexciting at all. But less brain damage than after spending 2 hours getting through 3 rounds of combat (which often happens to our RQG group).

5 minutes ago, Kloster said:

One of the few tweaks I do on RQ3 combat is adding the various specials from RQG, but not multiple parry.

Do you do double damage on slash specials? Because this destroys the perfect balance between weapons that RQ3 (and RQG, if not for this rule) achieved.

1 hour ago, Kloster said:

Yes, I'm a big fan of RQ3, although I think RQG is better ... except for combat. This SR ambiguity is one of the reason.

20 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

The things I would tweak with RQ3 combat is more interesting special effects for slashing and crushing weapons, and multiple parries. I usually just lift these from BGB. In other respects, it's kind of perfect.

21 minutes ago, radmonger said:

I just looked it up and on p16, under 'minor criteria', it say pretty much exactly what I've been saying here. I guess when I last read it many years ago, I internalized it well enough that that's what a 'common sense' interpretation of the RQ:G rules looks like to me...

This text is repeated verbatim in RQG, and in both places it implies that "no matter how long" two fighters have traveled before they enter melee, strike rank is figured out 'normally' for them. The problem is how this statement interacts with the movement SR penalty rule. It seems obvious to me that neither of them are impacted by it, since in RQ2 it goes on to clearly differentiate between that situation and one where you charge someone firing an arrow or casting a spell at you, where it is necessary to know when the arrow or spell is loosed visavi how long it takes for the attacker to move. While when two unengaged fighters join battle, all you need to know is who has the longer weapon, longer arms and quickest reactions. It's irrelevant for the static person how long it took for the charging person to get there, he can only attack him once he's within range. So this, IMO, directly refutes 

On 1/19/2023 at 11:33 AM, David Scott said:

Firstly, remember Strike Rank is about determining who goes first.

Stevie goes first on SR7, Larry goes second (6+4=) SR10

 

I mean, why would Stevie go on 7 and Larry on 10? This only makes sense if Stevie was attacking from afar (telekinetically?), before Larry reaches melee range. If the movement penalty is added to Larry's SR, it's because he arrives later in the round, not because he becomes slower, smaller or his spear shrinks from having moved. So if Larry gets SR's added to to arriving late, then so should Stevie, since he only gets to strike at that late point in the round that Larry arrives.