Who is using simpler combat rules?

[smiorgan]

RQ combat rules are detailed. They are also pretty easy to house-rule, using options from the BRP family.  Some role-players might prefer a lighter approach and house rule combat accordingly.

Tell us of your combat house rules!  Or about how you don't need any house rule, because combat is fine RAW.

 

 

[g33k]

I'm still on the fence about RAW...

I expect to change weapon-size based SR's as follows:

On the 1st-round,  2+ points of weapon-size SR's prevent the shorter-weapon user from attacking at all; they have to (1) parry the longer-weapon-user's attack; & (2) roll a successful, un-parried "attack" -- which is ONLY vs. the long weapon, not the wielder -- to close range.

If they succeed in "closing range," the long-weapon-user can only parry or try for STR+DEX-vs-STR+DEX knockback, cannot attack w/ their long weapon against the foe who has gotten "inside" their reach.

Round-on-round, only the character who "has range" can attack their foe; the other must parry/dodge, and must make an attack-roll just to change the range.

===

Still looking at the very-high-skill rules.  Not sure I like some implications; not sure I see better rules, either.  All that I've seen propose make as many problems as they solve, IIRC.

Edited April 11, 2020 by g33k
typo's

[jajagappa]

I've always been comfortable with the basic RQ3/RQG combat.  I'm not overly strict on either statement of intent or SR's, but still use them.

[Rodney Dangerduck]

I'm finding the rules even more complex than RQ2, which was already too complex.  One reason we went to Fire and Sword.

Just look at all the super-long discussions of the subtleties of what happens on a crit (vs. normal parry), when the real answer is essentially "roll hit location and it's gone".
 

Here's what you are supposed to track

Attack:  There are 8 possibilities: miss, hit, special crush, special slash, special impale, crit crush, crit slash, crit impale

Parry: the exact same 8 possibilities

That's 8*8 = 64 different sets of rules you need to know!

 

That's a bit much, don't you think?  Then factor in Strike Ranks, Multiple Parries, Skills over 100%...

 

[smiorgan]

4 hours ago, g33k said:

I'm still on the fence about RAW...

I expect to change weapon-size based SR's as follows:

On the 1st-round,  2+ points of weapon-size SR's prevent the shorter-weapon user from attacking at all; they have to (1) parry the longer-weapon-user's attack; & (2) roll a successful, un-parried "attack" -- which is ONLY vs. the long weapon,, not the wileder -- to close range.

If they succeed in "closing range," the long-weapon-user can only parry or try for STR+DEX-vs-STR+DEX knockback, cannot attack w/ their long weapon against the foe who has gotten "inside" their reach.

Round-on-round, only the character who "has range" can attack their foe; the other must parry/dodge, and must make an attack-roll just to change the range.

===

Still looking at the very-high-skill rules.  Not sure I like some implications; not sure I see better rules, either.  All that I've seen propose make as many problems as they solve, IIRC.

Interesting.

Perhaps, I would do things slightly differently, keeping weapon SR as they are. And only using that for polearms vs dagger or similar.

1) Shorter weapon guy has to roll DEXx5 or Dodge, whichever is higher, to close in, if succesful he can attack in the same round at the normal SR for his weapon.

2) Longer weapon lass who has been closed in has first to back to keep distance and then she attacks at +5 SR in the same round. If there is no space to regain distance she cannot attack and needs to knockback or evade (dodge or Dex x 5).

 

 

[g33k]

9 hours ago, smiorgan said:

Interesting.

Perhaps, I would do things slightly differently, keeping weapon SR as they are. And only using that for polearms vs dagger or similar.

1) Shorter weapon guy has to roll DEXx5 or Dodge, whichever is higher, to close in, if succesful he can attack in the same round at the normal SR for his weapon.

2) Longer weapon lass who has been closed in has first to back to keep distance and then she attacks at +5 SR in the same round. If there is no space to regain distance she cannot attack and needs to knockback or evade (dodge or Dex x 5).

YGMV.  😁 

Polearm keeps EVERYONE else out of range, not just dagger-guy (everyone except another polearm user...).

Realistically, the guy with a 20" shortsword cannot attack the guy with the 55" greatsword, unless shortsword can slip "inside" the guard of greatsword (and then greatsword can't be used at the 20" range).

I see changing distance, controlling the range of engagement, as fundamentally a combat skill... An attack or a parry (or a Dodge, combat's red-headed stepchild), in RQ terms.

Someone trying to use no more than "I'm quick" to slip past the guard of a skilled fighter -- make a DEX-based roll instead of a combat roll -- is just asking to take a hit.  I'd give them DEX*2, likely.  No more than DEX*3 at VERY best.

Maybe Dodge, but likely at a penalty:  (a) the skill normally assumes you'll make whatever's the best-possible Dodge, not a specific charge-into-the-enemy Dodge (in this regard, it's a bit like a "called-shot" Dodge, wanting a specific advantage); and (b) Longer-weapon lass has equally sized up the situation, and is EXPECTING you to close-range, and is planning various ways to introduce you to the business end of her weapon as you come in.

Hmmm...  Another notion:  roll both a Parry AND a Dodge to close range.  "Parry" to engage the weapon & keep it from harming you, & "Dodge" to actually get past, get inside the range.  I kind of like that, actually!  I'll have to ponder it...  I'm not sure whether I want to change my corresponding "increase range" rules in a comparable way, or not...

Edited April 11, 2020 by g33k

[soltakss]

8 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

That's a bit much, don't you think?  Then factor in Strike Ranks, Multiple Parries, Skills over 100%...

In practise it works really well. We used to run extended RQ2 combats and never had any trouble with the success levels.

The RQG Combat Matrix makes it a bit more complex, but all you need to do is to refer to it each time, so have it on a printed sheet.

 

Quote

I actually use Mythras combat maneuvers, which I believe are simpler.

Simpler? No way, they are far more complex, with so many things to choose from. They make combat sexier, though.

 

[smiorgan]

3 hours ago, soltakss said:

 

The RQG Combat Matrix makes it a bit more complex, but all you need to do is to refer to it each time, so have it on a printed sheet.

 

You actually you have too look-up only the less frequent outcomes. Like, say, special parry on a critical attack. It's not tragic if you have a GM's screen and a spare matrix for players. It's not tragic.  But I wonder if  one could achieve something relatively similar with easier to memorize rules.

I'm tinkering with the following house rule:

Attack effects specified along levels of success. 

Attack is special success: Roll special damage by weapon type.

Attack is critical success:  Max special damage by weapon type. 

Failed parries: no effects on attacks.

Successful parries: compare level of success with attack:

Parry success level < attack success level: weapon/ shield takes rolled damage as damage on weapon HP, remaining goes to rolled location.

Parry success level = attack success level: weapon parries its HP,  any excess damage goes to rolled location.

Parry success level > attack success level: all damage is parried. Attacking weapon takes 1 HP of damage. 

You don't roll parries on failed attack.   

Edited April 11, 2020 by smiorgan

[Kloster]

When I'll GM RQG, I will probably use RQIII's combat rules: Separate skills for attack and parry, single parry per weapon, no attack matrix, moves and SR integrated, combat manoeuvers,... (keeping the 12 SR round to avoid having to refactor all the tables and equipment, and the different specials and criticals). The only other change will (not would) be to remove the above 100% reduction in opposed rolls (not only for combat). There are a few other points I don't like much, but the effort of changing is not worth it.

[smiorgan]

I've just realized that I have a doubt about criticals in RQG. In the Quickstart rules criticals ignore armor. In the rulebook, however, this is only mentioned in the attack vs. dodge  matrix. So, do they ignore armor or not?

 

 

[Rodney Dangerduck]

2 hours ago, smiorgan said:

You actually you have too look-up only the less frequent outcomes.  Like, say, special parry on a critical attack

If the characters are around 100%, they special or crit 20% of the time.  Your "less frequent" still happens 4% for each attack/parry roll.  Even in a normal human vs. normal human, there are two pairs of rolls, so an 8% chance of something weird.  Now, assume 5 participants on each side.  That's (with not-completely accurate math) a 40% chance of something "less frequent" happening.  You end up consulting the "special rules sheet" roughly every other round. 

Add in Scorpion men or other beasts with multiple attacks vs. humans making multiple parries...

Admittedly, our group is fairly new to RQG (after a very long time away from RQ2) so we are still stale on exactly how specials and crits work against even normal parries.  So we end up checking the "less frequent" rules most every round.

As for those proposing no parry rolls need be made against missed attacks, that really cuts down the effectiveness of characters with Two-handed weapons and a high Dodge or Parry.  A Humakti with a Greatsword and Sword Trance will be very unhappy.

[Kloster]

If a roll has 4% of occurring, 2 pairs of rolls mean 15.1% of occurring. In your example of 5 participants on each side, that means almost 66% of occurring each round. Your special (or critical) vs special (or critical) has 81% chance of occurring once in 2 rounds and 57% of occurring twice. That's a lot.

Edited April 11, 2020 by Kloster
typing mistake

[Kloster]

1 hour ago, smiorgan said:

I've just realized that I have a doubt about criticals in RQG. In the Quickstart rules criticals ignore armor. In the rulebook, however, this is only mentioned in the attack vs. dodge  matrix. So, do they ignore armor or not?

 

 

As far as I have understood, yes, criticals ignore all armor (as usual).

[smiorgan]

24 minutes ago, Kloster said:

As far as I have understood, yes, criticals ignore all armor (as usual).

Well, where does it say so in the rulebook? (Apart from the dodge table?).

 

[Akhôrahil]

I'm starting to lean towards "one action per round, spellcasting or attack, SR only for initiative".

[smiorgan]

6 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

I'm starting to lean towards "one action per round, spellcasting or attack, SR only for initiative".

Parries not counted as actions, right?

 

[Akhôrahil]

13 minutes ago, smiorgan said:

Parries not counted as actions, right?

Correct, and you're allowed to split attacks (or dual-weapon attack).

Edited April 11, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[jajagappa]

32 minutes ago, smiorgan said:

Well, where does it say so in the rulebook? (Apart from the dodge table?).

p.142: "The benefit of any critical success depends on the ability being used: weapons ignore armor"

p.200: "..A critical success ignores armor and does maximum special damage plus damage bonus."

This has always been the case. The only difference with the parry is that it might block the attack or partially block the attack.

[smiorgan]

2 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

p.142: "The benefit of any critical success depends on the ability being used: weapons ignore armor"

p.200: "..A critical success ignores armor and does maximum special damage plus damage bonus."

This has always been the case. The only difference with the parry is that it might block the attack or partially block the attack.

Thanks. So it's just missing from the attack-parry table.

 

[g33k]

20 minutes ago, jajagappa said:

p.142: "The benefit of any critical success depends on the ability being used: weapons ignore armor"

p.200: "..A critical success ignores armor and does maximum special damage plus damage bonus."

Also page 203 box-text "Summary of Special Damage Results," and p. 206, "Critical Hit" -- the core location in the rules defining what a crit is!

Edited April 11, 2020 by g33k

[g33k]

15 minutes ago, smiorgan said:

Thanks. So it's just missing from the attack-parry table.

 

No, it's not missing.

It's just not where we'd expect (on the Attack) -- it's listed as a Defender result, "... with no armor protection."

[jajagappa]

27 minutes ago, smiorgan said:

So it's just missing from the attack-parry table.

p.200: "Though the target’s armor does not subtract any damage from a critical hit, a successful parry from a weapon or shield blocks the amount of damage it normally would."

It's right there in the text (just doesn't explicitly use the word "ignore"). The difference is that the successful parry can block some of the potential damage.

And it's in the table too p.199: "Any excess damage goes to adjacent hit location, with no armor protection."

[Marc]

1 hour ago, smiorgan said:

Well, where does it say so in the rulebook? (Apart from the dodge table?).

 

In the Summary of Combat Results sidebar, page 200.

[Kloster]

1 hour ago, jajagappa said:

This has always been the case. The only difference with the parry is that it might block the attack or partially block the attack.

This has always be the case. The exact rules has varied, but a successful parry always has counted vs a critical attack.

[smiorgan]

2 hours ago, g33k said:

No, it's not missing.

It's just not where we'd expect (on the Attack) -- it's listed as a Defender result, "... with no armor protection."

Ok. I'm officially blind!