100+ in a combat skill

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

1 minute ago, lordabdul said:

I understood Jason's comment more as "each parry gets the penalty of its respective attack"

Yeah at first I thought that, but rereading his statement I don't think he means that. We'll see what he says. 

[PhilHibbs]

On 1/8/2020 at 5:31 PM, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

For me it makes sense that it would affect your ability to parry with the same weapon. After all you’re trying to do an awful lot in one round. Sure we already have the culminate parry penalty, but the starting parry shouldn’t be so much higher then the attack chance IMO. 

Well in previous editions you couldn't attack and parry with the same 1h weapon, so I guess it's ok to have some kind of penalty. There's nothing in the rule for it, though, and I think it's a shame that Jason has "clarified" a new rule into existence.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

7 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Well in previous editions you couldn't attack and parry with the same 1h weapon,

You could attack and parry with the same one handed weapon in RQ2 and RQ3, but parry followed the same rules as attacks, and was subject to the same split attack rule - only one parry allowed unless you had 100% + and split your parry. 
 

Rq3 wasn’t 100% clear but later had an errata that clarified this. 

Guess we’ll be seeing an errata for RQG at some point. 
 

 

edit: think the boxed set of RQ2 had a supplementary “basic roleplaying” booklet which had the rule that you couldn’t both attack & parry with a one handed weapon, but that was contradicted in the main RQ2 rule book. 

Edited January 12, 2020 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[Mugen]

On 1/9/2020 at 6:44 PM, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

 

Pretty sure this is what Jason has said the rules are supposed to be. It solves the issue of having a ludicrously high parry relative to your split attack. Whether you use the higher or lower value of the split attacks as the parry starting point ( still waiting for Jason to confirm his thinking here in the Q&A) , it remains a simply penalty that changes relative to the split attack %.

That would also make fighting with a shield much more effective than it is now, actually.

Say I have 120% with my main hand sword and 90% with my shield, I'd be happy to parry with my shield if I split my skill with my main hand into a number between 50 and 70...

But it also means my parry chance will depend on how I split my skill. If I chose 70 and 50, which one am I going to use ? 70 or 50 ?

Also, is there a declaration phase before resolution phase in RQG ? If not, it means I'll have to decide if I split my attack when I'm attacked if my opponent has a lower SR.

Anyway, attacking with your off-hand weapon is a better option than splitting, if you have enough SR to do it. Even with no proper off-hand skill, you'll attack first with full skill and one with half.

Edited January 12, 2020 by Mugen

[Kloster]

6 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

You could attack and parry with the same one handed weapon in RQ2 and RQ3, but parry followed the same rules as attacks, and was subject to the same split attack rule - only one parry allowed unless you had 100% + and split your parry. 
 

Rq3 wasn’t 100% clear but later had an errata that clarified this. 

Guess we’ll be seeing an errata for RQG at some point. 
 

 

edit: think the boxed set of RQ2 had a supplementary “basic roleplaying” booklet which had the rule that you couldn’t both attack & parry with a one handed weapon, but that was contradicted in the main RQ2 rule book. 

RQIII was very clear (Player book p48): "... he may not attack with a weapon with which he parries. Two handed weapons however, can be used to attack once and parry once."

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

5 minutes ago, Kloster said:

RQIII was very clear (Player book p48): "... he may not attack with a weapon with which he parries. Two handed weapons however, can be used to attack once and parry once."

That was removed/corrected  with the errata. 
 

That sentence must have been from an earlier draft of the rules that was left in by mistake. It was corrected in the later errata.  It always sat oddly for me as it wasn’t referenced in any other parts of the text. 

Edited January 12, 2020 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[Kloster]

5 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

That was removed/corrected  with the errata. 
 

That sentence must have been from an earlier draft of the rules that was left in by mistake. It was corrected in the later errata.  It always sat oddly for me as it wasn’t referenced in any other parts of the text. 

I haven't checked the errata, but this is a good point.

[SDLeary]

1 hour ago, Kloster said:

I haven't checked the errata, but this is a good point.

Yes, this was clarified. After errata, it was that you couldn’t parry on the same SR, which makes sense.

SDLeary

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

1 hour ago, SDLeary said:

Yes, this was clarified. After errata, it was that you couldn’t parry on the same SR, which makes sense.

 

Yes RQ 3 felt a bit stricter mechanically with how SR’s played out and what you could do in each SR. It gave the impression that each SR represented a single moment in time. RQG/RQ2 emphasis is a bit different, emphasising SR more as a looser way to sort out the order of actions, not so much an account of the time in a melee round. 
have to say I prefer the freeer approach of RQG/RQ2. Though suppose they both played out similarly 

[Kloster]

46 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Yes RQ 3 felt a bit stricter mechanically with how SR’s played out and what you could do in each SR. It gave the impression that each SR represented a single moment in time.

Completely true.

47 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

RQG/RQ2 emphasis is a bit different, emphasising SR more as a looser way to sort out the order of actions, not so much an account of the time in a melee round. 

Yes, RQG's SR are more an initiative order than a measurement of the passing of time.

47 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

have to say I prefer the freeer approach of RQG/RQ2.

Not my tastes.

48 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Though suppose they both played out similarly 

I think the result is quite different.

2 hours ago, SDLeary said:

Yes, this was clarified. After errata, it was that you couldn’t parry on the same SR, which makes sense.

Completely agreed here.

[French Desperate WindChild]

I would also prefer a system based on SR without round limit. That seems more logical.

For example fire missile:

. S/MR: As many missiles as can be fired as strike rank permits, assuming 5 strike ranks to reload

In fact I m not very sure of the right rule here (if you add you're dex ra for each missile or just the first one) but same principle for comparing the both system

3 characters : A (dex SR: 3 ) B (dex SR : 2 ) C (dex SR : 5 ) for 3 rounds

if the rule is "add +5 ra between each missile in the round"

1. A : 3 / 8 / 13 / 18 / 23 / 28 / 33 in SRsystem, 3 / 8 / 15 / 20 / 27 / 32 in Round system (- 1 missile)
2. B : 2 / 7 / 12 / 17 / 22 / 27 / 32 in SR system, 2 / 7 / 12 / 14 / 19 / 24 / 26 / 31 / 36  in Round system (+ 2 missiles)
3. C : 5 / 10 / 15 / 20 / 25 / 30 / 35 in SR system, 5 / 10 / 17 / 22 / 29 / 36 in Round system (-1 missile)

if the rule is "add dex+5 ra between each missile in the round"

1. A : 3 / 11 / 19 / 27 / 35 in SR system, 3 / 11 / 15 / 23 / 27 / 35 in Round system (+1 missile)
2. B : 2 / 9 / 16 / 23 / 30 in SR system, 2 / 9 / 14 / 21 / 26 / 33 in Round system (+1 missile)
3. C : 5 / 15 / 25 / 35 in SR system, 5 / 17 / 29 in Round system (-1 missile)

 

RA is more simulationist, but also more complex and should need a lot of other rules changes (multiple attack / parad rules have to be changed)

So it is understandable that chaosium chose the round option : easy to add "double attack" etc..  that fluidify a lot the fight

 

if someone can tell me what is the real rule behind the " + 5 SR" (add or not the Dex SR for each missile) that would be great !

 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

1 hour ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

 

if someone can tell me what is the real rule behind the " + 5 SR" (add or not the Dex SR for each missile) that would be great !

Regarding missile fire:

For each missile you fire you factor in the DEX SR. So if you fire twice in a melee round (presuming you are ready and loaded): 

1st attack on Dex SR... Then  reload +5sr ....Then 2nd Attack + Dex SR 

[Bill the barbarian]

4 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

if someone can tell me what is the real rule behind the " + 5 SR" (add or not the Dex SR for each missile) that would be great !

 

Jason Durall

• Posted July 10, 2019 (edited)

   On 3/17/2019 at 3:45 PM,  Bill the barbarian said: 

I am bit unsure how to count the missile strike ranks. If PC's DEX SR is 2, do I count it like:

2 (shoot) + 5 (loading a new missile) + 2 (shoot), which would give strike ranks 2 / 9 (third shot not allowed)

If they are ready to shoot on SR2 with an arrow in hand, then yes. 

  Quote

or

2 (shoot) + 5 (loading a new missile + shoot) +  5 (loading a new missile + shoot), which would give strike ranks 2 / 7 / 12

or

a a PC DEX SR  of 0 (DEX 19+), so you could potentially go on

1 (shoot) 6 (shoot) 11(shoot)  depending on how you interpret DEX SR 0.
This question and which solution is correct especially as regards SR 0 has bothered my since pre-internet BBS only days!

Nope.

From Jason, so 

2 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Regarding missile fire:

For each missile you fire you factor in the DEX SR. So if you fire twice in a melee round (presuming you are ready and loaded): 

1st attack on Dex SR... Then  reload +5sr ....Then 2nd Attack + Dex SR 

You have a little bit of habit of being right good sir! Keep it up!

[French Desperate WindChild]

and and and why it is the same SR to load a new missile ? hu ? hu ?

My friend, Robin, is able to load faster than me, when he explores the Wood !

but thanks for the answer

[Bill the barbarian]

15 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

and and and why it is the same SR to load a new missile ? hu ? hu ?

My friend, Robin, is able to load faster than me, when he explores the Wood !

but thanks for the answer

Let me give you one more answer, In RQ 3 they spelled it out as simplicity, you can make all the complexity you wish, but it is not germane to the system. This is also why 5 is the golden number, for readying a spell or any weapon, getting up, surprise penalty... again in RQ 3 the authors did say make charts if you wish but they would not be.

[French Desperate WindChild]

yes that was one of my previous answer too i would prefer more realistic but with the same simplicity, 

it seems impossible (at least with paper rpg).  It was just a taunt here

[g33k]

1 hour ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

and and and why it is the same SR to load a new missile ? hu ? hu ?

My friend, Robin, is able to load faster than me, when he explores the Wood !

but thanks for the answer

Your friend Robin has a better DEX SR.

The system doesn't give DEX bonus (or penalty, as may be) to every step of the process.

Yes, maximum realism would call for a DEX advantage to reach for the arrow, another DEX advantage to draw it from the quiver, another DEX advantage to knock it to the bow, another DEX advantage to draw and aim...

But we just include "DEX SR" as one modifier, at one place in the process.

 

One popular House Rule that I often see people institute, is the idea of trading skill for speed -- such as taking a penalty of -25% (or something -- it's a House Rule, it varies!) to your skill-roll to go 1 SR earlier.  Someone who is very skilled, though not generally quick, can often do things even faster than someone who is natively quick, but less skilled with the task at hand.

[PhilHibbs]

On 1/12/2020 at 3:17 PM, Kloster said:

RQIII was very clear (Player book p48): "... he may not attack with a weapon with which he parries. Two handed weapons however, can be used to attack once and parry once."

On 1/12/2020 at 3:22 PM, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

That was removed/corrected  with the errata.

Wow. We must have missed that one, cos that's the way we always played it! Odd, since we often used the GW editions which had the errata edited in.

[Lordabdul]

 

4 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

My friend, Robin, is able to load faster than me

Since the time between shooting arrows is "5 + DEX SR", in effect, your friend Robin will be able to shoot arrows faster than you. So that works out I think.

What isn't modeled in RQ is, for example, your friend Robin being in fact generally slower than you at most things (lower DEX), except reloading because she practiced drawing from her special-designed quiver a lot, and so that makes up for the difference. If you want to be crazy you could for instance model this by adding a new "Fast Reload" skill where, if you succeed, you get a couple SRs back (and you fail, you waste SRs... on a fumble you drop your quiver or something).

3 hours ago, g33k said:

One popular House Rule that I often see people institute, is the idea of trading skill for speed

Nice house rule, thanks for sharing!

[Akhôrahil]

1 hour ago, lordabdul said:

Since the time between shooting arrows is "5 + DEX SR", in effect, your friend Robin will be able to shoot arrows faster than you. So that works out I think.

Yep. Note that this is something of a kludge - first it turns out that high-Dex characters are not just faster, but several times faster, which is highly unbalanced. Then that in turn gets fixed by adding a static modifier.

Edited January 13, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

2 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Wow. We must have missed that one, cos that's the way we always played it! Odd, since we often used the GW editions which had the errata edited in.

Yeah that’s what I used. But the GW editions didn’t have the errata in.

I got the errata in the later Avalon Hill combined softback ( early 90’s)it was at the back, and gave me an ah! moment. 
 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[French Desperate WindChild]

15 hours ago, lordabdul said:

 

Since the time between shooting arrows is "5 + DEX SR", in effect, your friend Robin will be able to shoot arrows faster than you. So that works out I think.

Yes it works well because we are in a "round" rule (reinit each 12 SR)

In a SR rule it would works but less well.

the impact is less important than I believed because the "5+DEX SR" (i used to just +5, my mistake) make you able to hit once or twice a round. Even if it is not strictly simulationist gain or lose 1 missile in 3 rounds is not very important, because the bison in front of you is already touching your noose.

 

but again it was a "taunt". I will not change +5 in all case by 1.8*PI * DEX SR / ( TAI SR * 0.6)

Yes Sir if you are big, the way to catch the arrow is longer so you will consume more SR !

 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

16 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Yeah that’s what I used. But the GW editions didn’t have the errata in.

I got the errata in the later Avalon Hill combined softback ( early 90’s)it was at the back, and gave me an ah! moment. 
 

@PhilHibbs Heres the link to the RQ3 errata. Its basically clarified that you can attack & parry with the same weapon, but not on the same SR. 

 

 

[Mugen]

As for myself, I was satisfied with non-errata RQ3, as in my idea 1 hand-fighting was a non-professional fighting style, and it promotted using two handed weapons, two weapons or one weapon + a shield, which IMHO is consistent with a game centered on European pre-industrial worlds.

[Shiningbrow]

The good old days also had separate skills for Att & Parry...