Strike Rank Dex and Siz

[Rodney Dangerduck]

An interesting twist to RQG, which I don't remember from RQ2, is that if a character takes damage, spell casting is aborted.  It makes SR matter, and adds tactics.  E.g. Bad guy is pumping up their Befuddle to get through your Shield, do you cast Bladesharp and delay your attack, or do you swing early and try to interrupt their spell casting?

Whether these tactics are worth the added detail and complexity may vary from group to group.

Edited May 20, 2020 by Rodney Dangerduck

[Aprewett]

On 5/17/2020 at 2:08 PM, Vile said:

I have moved to initiative order simply based on DEX in all games I run these days. I don't even bother rolling-off for ties, characters with the same DEX just act simultaneously.

You can also add to that the Intelligence stat. How quick you can think under stress, analyse your opponents tactics, weak spots. So many gamers think it’s all about speed, but it’s only part of the equation.

[Al.]

16 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

”You strike the first blow, but I will strike the last.”

'Don't thtart thomething that I'll have to finith'

[Squaredeal Sten]

On 5/16/2020 at 11:38 PM, Vile said:

I have moved to initiative order simply based on DEX in all games I run these days. I don't even bother rolling-off for ties, characters with the same DEX just act simultaneously.

I do really like the idea that in order to use your sword to attack the guy with a pike,  you first have to get past that pointy thing on the end of the pike.

Which I note is used by one of my favorite non-FRP games, Blood and Plunder.  So it's not an exotic thing to have in the rules.

 

 

Edited June 26, 2020 by Squaredeal Sten
spelling!

[Rodney Dangerduck]

On 5/21/2020 at 4:16 AM, Aprewett said:

You can also add to that the Intelligence stat. How quick you can think under stress, analyse your opponents tactics, weak spots. So many gamers think it’s all about speed, but it’s only part of the equation.

Once you are engaged in combat swinging your weapon it's too late to think.  However, planning ahead "if those two guys attack me, I will do XXX..." applies.

Arguably, one could penalize high INT characters in combat.

[Rodney Dangerduck]

3 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

I do really like the ides that in order to use your sword to attack the guy with a pike,  you first have to get past that pointy thing on the end of the pike.

Which i note is used by one pf my favorite non-FRP games, Blood and Plunder.  So it's not an exotic thing to have in the rules.

 

 

A good compromise is to use the full SIZ + DEX + size of weapon for the first round of combat, then fall back on just DEX for all subsequent rounds.

[g33k]

2 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

I do really like the ides that in order to use your sword to attack the guy with a pike,  you first have to get past that pointy thing on the end of the pike.

Which i note is used by one pf my favorite non-FRP games, Blood and Plunder.  So it's not an exotic thing to have in the rules.

I've been running with this idea since my earliest RQ days (late '80 or early '81) .   To close the range, the sword-y guy (or whoever, wielding the substantively-shorter weapon (generally, any two weapons more than 2 SR's different)) needs to:

• roll a successful attack (this is just to close range, they don't get to roll damage (except to the foe's weapon, which is the actual target of their attack))
• that is NOT parried by the spear-y gal (or whoever, wielding the substantively-longer weapon) -- a successful "parry" keeps the range open (or else hits the person trying to close range)

...and then sword-y guy can attack normally the following round.

Once the range is CLOSED, the spear-y-gal/whoever has SR mods  as if unarmed:  they're shoving with the haft in their fists (shades of the bridge fight, Robin Hood Men In Tights (less the breakage to silly-short)), vs sword-y-guy/whoever (who now has reach on them).  Then, the situation is mostly-but-not-entirely reversed:  the spear-y gal (or whoever, wielding the substantively-longer weapon) wants some space, and needs to:

• roll a successful attack (to re-open the range; but sometimes I allow that they DO get to roll damage, as per hitting-with-haft (generally, this is 1d3+DB))
• that is NOT parried by the sword-y guy (or whoever, wielding the substantively-shorter weapon but inside the reach of longer-weapon-person)

Then it's spear-y-gal/whoever who attacks normally on the round AFTER they open range.

If I want extra-fiddly, I might allow a Special/Crit on the ranging-attack to allow a followup "genuine" attack the same round as closing/opening said range.

 

This has been so much a part of my RQ, I hadn't realized until a few years back that it might have been a House Rule...  😂

[Guest Vile Traveller]

6 hours ago, Squaredeal Sten said:

I do really like the ides that in order to use your sword to attack the guy with a pike,  you first have to get past that pointy thing on the end of the pike.

That would mean the sword wielder using their initiative (assuming they have the initiative) to get close to the pike guy. The pike guy then has the option of moving back out of reach or staying put and trying something else before getting whacked by the sword. Just like in real combat, it's more of a movement contest than a hitting contest - the goal for the sword wielder is to manoeuvre the pike guy to a place where he has no place to back off to. It's really difficult to close with people if they are not stuck in a formation and have space to manoeuvre. I'm probably belabouring this point, but that's because it's an example of trying to create detailed rules to cover every situation - you can certainly do it, but usually you'll soon find another situation that isn't covered. In other words, I prefer to have the rules as a framework within which to play according to the group's understanding of game world physics.

Turn-based combat is a compromise, with simultaneous movement and combat at the other end of the scale. We did use a very similar house rule to g33k, above. We also tried SR-by-SR movement and actions. In earlier times I went through the obligatory decade (or two) of making things more and more crunchy and "realistic" before relatively recently coming back to the conclusion that it really only adds time to combat resolution and limits the options available to the imaginative player. Time is more precious to me now than in my teens, especially when experience (on the table and in the field) allows us to make reasonable and realistic assumptions without a detailed rule for everything. I realise that realistic combat rules remain a holy grail in RPGs (so far unattained), and "rulings not rules" only works for consenting gamers. It works for me, though, just like it worked for those Prussian army guys back in the 19th Century.

Edited May 26, 2020 by Vile

[Thaz]

Whereas getting past the point and so on is totally a thing, as is shortening grip and stabbing the cheeky git trying it on you this gets to tweaking the rules of combat well past what any version of RQ attempts. This has been a debate forever and I recall rules for this back in White Dwarf back in the RQ2&3 days :- Do you really want that level of complexity in your game?

I'm currently playing/Gming in two rather different gritty bloody lethal RPG's. RQG and The Witcher TTRPG.

Last Sunday I had the pleasure of playing in the two back to back and as chance would have it we had two major fights in both games (previous Witcher session was combat free as was RQG iirc, anyways...). The Witcher TTRPG is based on the same core rules as Cyberpunk. It's not Rolemaster but there was a lot of detailed combat description, feints, parrys and special moves, fair few perks and combat traits. My grubby vile mannered dwarf laid waste taking out three bandits while the rest of the party got two. The fight took all afternoon to run. Left the healer priest twiddling her thumbs a bit as she has post combat healing and doctoring rather than instant heals. It was very detailed and cinematic and speaking as a sometime HEMA/Re-enactment type and instructor pretty accurate (unlike the armour and weapon descriptions in the game which set my teeth on edge). There was always the chance of one of us going down with crippling injuries. 

 The evenings RQG game had a similar fight (one big scary ass monster, a Walktapus, hitting our camp during the night while most of the party were asleep). The fight was smooth, slick and easy. Once a group gets the hang of what options there are and to roll their hits, have their damage and hit location dice to hand RQG (like it's ancestors) is pretty smooth and yet realistic enough not upset the HEMA type in me. It was fast, nasty and we almost lost two established player characters except for the swift application of Rune Magic and other healing from our earth healer type. If my Stormbull hadn't made his scan roll on watch and made good use of Impede Chaos the party could easily have been toast.

The two experiences were night and day and yet both GM's are excellent and have good command of the rules. Both groups had a similar mix of new and verteran players.  yes we can make the game more crunchy but there will be a price to pay for that. I like the current balance. Mess with it to suit your table 🙂

[DreadDomain]

On 5/26/2020 at 9:38 AM, g33k said:

This has been so much a part of my RQ, I hadn't realized until a few years back that it might have been a House Rule...  😂

Man that is scary because in the 90's we had almost the exact same rule in our RQ3 game and I too ended misremembering it as RAW. One difference is that once closed we were flipping the Weapon SR. The shorter weapon fighter was then using the longer weapon SR and conversely for the longer weapon fighter who was closed. I think on a special defense or better we allowed the defended to change range (close, unclose or disengage).

It's actually pretty easy to bring back in RQG.

Edited June 19, 2020 by DreadDomain

[Guest Vile Traveller]

18 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

One difference is that once closed we were flipping the Weapon SR. The shorter weapon fighter was then using the longer weapon SR and conversely for the longer weapon fighter who was closed.

We did the same in the '80s when we were more energetic. 

[Akhôrahil]

Deleted

Edited June 19, 2020 by Akhôrahil

[DreadDomain]

On 6/19/2020 at 3:53 PM, Vile Traveller said:

We did the same in the '80s when we were more energetic. 

Flipping the SRs was really the only added complexity of this house rule. Sure, I had preferred a house rule with no added complexity but it wasn't so hard to do. 

The rest was merely attack and parry rolls.

[Mugen]

On 5/26/2020 at 1:38 AM, g33k said:

I've been running with this idea since my earliest RQ days (late '80 or early '81) .   To close the range, the sword-y guy (or whoever, wielding the substantively-shorter weapon (generally, any two weapons more than 2 SR's different)) needs to:

• roll a successful attack (this is just to close range, they don't get to roll damage (except to the foe's weapon, which is the actual target of their attack))
• that is NOT parried by the spear-y gal (or whoever, wielding the substantively-longer weapon) -- a successful "parry" keeps the range open (or else hits the person trying to close range)

...and then sword-y guy can attack normally the following round.

Once the range is CLOSED, the spear-y-gal/whoever has SR mods  as if unarmed:  they're shoving with the haft in their fists (shades of the bridge fight, Robin Hood Men In Tights (less the breakage to silly-short)), vs sword-y-guy/whoever (who now has reach on them).  Then, the situation is mostly-but-not-entirely reversed:  the spear-y gal (or whoever, wielding the substantively-longer weapon) wants some space, and needs to:

• roll a successful attack (to re-open the range; but sometimes I allow that they DO get to roll damage, as per hitting-with-haft (generally, this is 1d3+DB))
• that is NOT parried by the sword-y guy (or whoever, wielding the substantively-shorter weapon but inside the reach of longer-weapon-person)

Then it's spear-y-gal/whoever who attacks normally on the round AFTER they open range.

If I want extra-fiddly, I might allow a Special/Crit on the ranging-attack to allow a followup "genuine" attack the same round as closing/opening said range.

 

This has been so much a part of my RQ, I hadn't realized until a few years back that it might have been a House Rule...  😂

It's not very different from using Combat Maneuvers to change range in Mythras.

[DreadDomain]

19 hours ago, Mugen said:

It's not very different from using Combat Maneuvers to change range in Mythras.

Good observation. Going back to how we were doing it back then pretty much aligns with how Mythras does it:

1) (RQ3) Spend a SR to move in vs (Mythras) spend an AP to move in. This is similar to the basic RQ3 approach if the attempt is unopposed.

2) (RQ3 house rule) Spend the MR defending to move in (if the opponent attacks) vs (Mythras) Evade against Evade or Evade against Attack.

3) (RQ3 house rule) Use a Special or Critical result to change the range instead of the normal effect vs (Mythras) use a special effect.

The real challenge in RQG is not how to figure out rules to close range. The second approach above is pretty much to same as per the Retreating rule so the game already supports a "change of range" maneuver. The third approach is easy to implement and the first does not really apply within the context of how movement works in melee.  

The challenge is how to implement the effect in a meaningful but easy way. Mythras makes a distinction between reach and initiative, RQG blends both together. In Mythras, the initiative doesn't influence how often you act. In RQG, at least when it comes to skills above 100%, it does. Effects of being inside the guard of an enemy logically would be:

• Act before opponent (or at least act quicker than you normally would; you are already inside his guard). In RQG, it means a lower SR.
• Act more often (the logical extension of the above). In RQG it means a lower SR but the character still need to have a skill above 100%.
• Limitations of the opponent's options.

A potential option that is not really complex.

1) Shorter weapon fighter only takes DEX SR into account (making him faster)

2) Longer weapon fighter takes a penalty on all actions based on his Weapon SR (similar to the disarm rule buy the other way around); SR 3 = -10%, SR 2 = -20%, SR 1 = -30%, SR 0 = -40%.

2a) For extra crunch, damage for Hand-to-Hand and Cut and Thrust weapons would be unchanged, Slashing and Crushing weapons damage would exclude the damage modifier (not enough room for a good swing) and Impaling weapons would be limited to attacking with the shaft at 1d6+DMod crushing.

 

Edited June 23, 2020 by DreadDomain

[PhilHibbs]

On 5/17/2020 at 10:28 PM, g33k said:

Specifically, AFAIK:  a  spell  that takes 13+ SR's.  Other actions don't carry over AFAIK (i.e. shorter actions begun late in the round, etc).

...

I generalize to "it's a large, single action" that carries over into the next round...  As a spot-rule, I probably would allow non-spell actions to operate the same...  but they must be large single actions.  Hauling a companion by rope up a sheer cliff, for example, when there's no way to block or tie-off the rope -- if you let go, s/he falls.

  That's not really a combat action though in the same way that "fighting a monster" isn't a single action, there's no "Climb" in the Weapon SR table. It's a series of actions, but we abstract it as a single die roll. Charging into combat is something I've done like this, though, someone arrives slightly later than someone else to a fight and I impose a 5 SR delay on their actions, but I didn't really tally the SRs in detail. Maybe I did when I was younger, and RQ3 was a little more impulsy.