Movement and attacking

[French Desperate WindChild]

7 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

is for movement to not have an impact on strike ranks

hard for me :

SR 3 I am here, i hit her; SR5 she wants to hit me, hey I m not here, she can't

impossible to hit a bowman if you don't include a minimum the movement in the round, the bowman has just (the one with best SR) to move out of range just after firing. That's why, I think they tried to split  movement phase then combat phase in a previous version.

I prefer the rqg system (and some previous rq version too, it is not new) merging movement and combat  (well... I would prefer no round and action point, but it is another story) but yes that means some situations are not covered explicitly by the rules and GM with players have to decide how to answer them case by case.

[Richard S.]

For something like the charge example, I'd personally rule that both charger and charged would have to add the movement SR if they're attacking each other. That keeps the charged from attacking before the charger even gets close, and gives advantage to the longer weapon as per usual.

I mostly like SR, but it's very limited by being designed for duels or very small melees. It doesn't help that it operates differently depending on whether you're "engaged" (in which case it's initiative) or "unengaged" (in which case it's action points). It's taken me the better half of a decade to fully wrap my head around it, and I dread the next time I have to teach it.

[Beoferret]

A thought regarding the charge example (w/o looking at the rulebook)... two options as I see from the above discussion:

1) movement is calculated according to the movement of the mount, which should generally allow a charge and attack during the same round. What if the target opponent has a better strike rank though? Um...... house rule? Parry and attack charging opponent (at half skill for the counter attack - the charging opponent is moving quickly past, right?) or attack at full skill, but no parry (or just half skill parry).

2) The set up the charge and the charge itself end up taking two rounds. Does the target get to attack during the first round, when the charging combatant is mid-charge? No. They're too far away. Unless the target of the charge has a readied missile weapon. Otherwise, essentially, the first round is just getting up the proverbial head of steam, meaning the charger is out of range of the chargee.

 

[Barak Shathur]

6 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

SR 3 I am here, i hit her; SR5 she wants to hit me, hey I m not here, she can't

This is not how the rules work. Once you're engaged in melee, the only way to leave is to disengage, which takes a round of dodging and parrying. Or if you simply run away, the opponent gets a free swing at you. So no, this wouldn't happen.

6 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

impossible to hit a bowman if you don't include a minimum the movement in the round, the bowman has just (the one with best SR) to move out of range just after firing. That's why, I think they tried to split  movement phase then combat phase in a previous version.

Again, this is not how it works. Movement phase, bowman moves into range. Resolution phase, bowman fires. Once you've fired, you can't move anymore that round. If you're talking about a bowman repeatedly retreating after shooting, well if he wants to shoot again he can only move half move in the round he shoots, so you'll catch up eventually. But yes, it is possible to run into range, shoot once, and then run away forever. As is true in reality too.

5 hours ago, Richard S. said:

For something like the charge example, I'd personally rule that both charger and charged would have to add the movement SR if they're attacking each other. That keeps the charged from attacking before the charger even gets close, and gives advantage to the longer weapon as per usual.

Yes. Either SR should be purely initative order, or it should be timing within the round. According to Scotty, it's the first for the person standing still, and the second for the one moving towards him. Which is arbitrary and illogical. 

3 hours ago, Beoferret said:

1) movement is calculated according to the movement of the mount, which should generally allow a charge and attack during the same round. What if the target opponent has a better strike rank though? Um...... house rule? Parry and attack charging opponent (at half skill for the counter attack - the charging opponent is moving quickly past, right?) or attack at full skill, but no parry (or just half skill parry).

It really should be simple. Longest weapon/reach attacks first. If both combatants are covered by the same SR rule (either both act on higher SR because the charger arrives later in the round, which the +1 SR per 3m indicates) or movement only affects things within the movement phase, such as who get to point B when. In which case both attack on their normal SR in the resolution phase.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Barak Shathur

[Barak Shathur]

23 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

"Any time two fighters meet in melee, no matter how long they’ve traveled to get to that meeting, strike rank should be figured out normally for them. However, the gamemaster should consider the time taken to get from point A to point B when an adventurer joins an ongoing melee or charges across a distance at a foe using a
spell or missile against them.”

I just can't let go of this quote from Page 194 under Movement. It seems to be the one thing that rescues the entire SR system, in the way it differentiates between two unengaged fighters meeting in melee, and someone joining an already ongoing combat. Of course I want it to support my position, but can someone explain how it doesn't? It seems clear to me that it's intended to mean that when two fighters initiate combat, regardless of distance traveled, they go on their standard unmodified melee SR, but when someone moves to join after a fight has begun, you add the move SR penalty to that combatant's melee SR. 

[radmonger]

2 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

This is not how the rules work. Once you're engaged in melee, the only way to leave is to disengage, which takes a round of dodging and parrying. Or if you simply run away, the opponent gets a free swing at you. So no, this wouldn't happen.

 

I do think your proposed houserule makes 'kiting' a bit strong. Bowman starts 10m away, fires at sr3 and 10, moves 20m for free.  Swordsman could  maintain relative position for free, and have the same thing happen next round. Or do a full sprint with no dodging and still not attack till next round. Meaning they take three unparried attacks before they finally get to strike. Better hope they are wearing very heavy armor that doesn't have any rules about it affecting movement rate.

it's accepted wisdom among gun nuts that a knife beats a gun at ~10m range. I've not seen any videos of someone countering this by running backwards and firing. Whearas using SRs as intended (if perhaps not as written) gets you the gunner having 1 shot before the knifer starts stabbing, which seems about right.

SRs can answer two questions, and two questions only

1. who attacks first?
2. can you do something else (move, or cast spells), before and/or after attacking?

In the case of a SR3 archer and SR5 swordsman, the answers are;

1. the archer; they have the lower SR
2. the swordsman has 7SR spare (12 -5), so can close any distance up to 14m before attacking.

Using them for any other purpose than answering those two questions doesn't work, which is fair enough. What's somewhat unfortunate is that using rules intended for question 2 to answer question 1 also doesn't work. A bow already has a low SR because it is usable from range, and so will normally attack first. Using 'movement SRs' on top would be double dipping.

Which is why if i redrafted the rules, I would split SR and AP, just as RQ:G splits MP and POW.

 

 

 

 

 

[French Desperate WindChild]

  

 

2 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

This is not how the rules work.

that is true but...

14 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

Or, IMO, a simpler solution that doesn’t add another factor such as action points, is for movement to not have an impact on strike ranks. Either you can move up to half your move and carry out an action (or several if SR permits), or move more than half your move but not do anything else. 

this is not how the rules work too 🙂

and my answer was about your proposal, not about the rules. (Note that I m not saying your proposal is dumb or whatever, I just try, with my poor english, to challenge positively it, no offense then !)

2 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

Movement phase, bowman moves into range. Resolution phase, bowman fires. Once you've fired, you can't move anymore that round

that is what you disliked in the proposal 1)movement phase 2) fight phase. And it is not exactly what I understand with

14 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

for movement to not have an impact on strike ranks.

 

2 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

But yes, it is possible to run into range, shoot once, and then run away forever. As is true in reality too.

yes but in reality you can hit during its move, so that means you need to include move in the same "timeline" than hit (aka if we stay in rq round system, within SR model)

your solution, as those I can have, solves some points but creates new ones. What about one opponent with move 10 and another with move 3, what about one able to attack SR2 SR7 SR 12 ? etc...

so based on your initial question of charging :

- if there was no engagement, as I said previously

a round to let the charge movement. a round is not by RAW a constant time, so it is RAW

a round to fight (aka longspear attacks first) so it is RAW

- if there was already an engagement and a third party (longspear) charges one of them

use the movement SR to determine which SR the attack will occur. The already engaged target may

a) be surprised so unable to attack longspear (surprise is up to gm so it is RAW 😛 ) so no question of who is first, the only point is if the longspear's target attacks her engaged opponent before the charge's impact or not (so you need the SR of longspear's charge) as RAW

b) see longspear charging, then (is it RAW ? not sure but very near I think)

b.1 if longspear arrives before (SR) the target is able to attack, then longspear attacks first.

b.2 if longspear arrives after or in the same time (SR) the target and longspear attack at the same time

or if you want a simplier option (MGF rule so RAW 😛 ) for all b), decide that longspear will charge at SR0 of the next round and cannot be hit by any melee action before

 

note that in my opinion, if you are charging you don't need to add your melee weapon to the impact's SR:

you need more than one round to reach your target, so you have "the time" to prepare your weapon, the charge is an attack by itself.

Of course I call charge an attack with a spear or thing like that, when the weapon and the mount are "one", not with a sword a hammer, etc (in that case the charge would be the mount percussion = bonus damage = riding skill roll, then, adding SR, a "standard" melee attack, on a mount)

 

 

[Barak Shathur]

32 minutes ago, radmonger said:

I do think your proposed houserule makes 'kiting' a bit strong. Bowman starts 10m away, fires at sr3 and 10, moves 20m for free.  Swordsman could  maintain relative position for free, and have the same thing happen next round. Or do a full sprint with no dodging and still not attack till next round. Meaning they take three unparried attacks before they finally get to strike. Better hope they are wearing very heavy armor that doesn't have any rules about it affecting movement rate.

But wait, isn't it like this: MR 1, bowman is within 10 m and fires two shots. End of MR1. MR2 movement phase, bowman moves 12 m (half move) intending to fire, swordsman moves 22m, they are now in contact. MR3, they are engaged in melee. Where does the "20m for free" come from? You can't move outside the Movement phase, right?

(edited, I got the calculation wrong at first)

32 minutes ago, radmonger said:

the swordsman has 7SR spare (12 -5), so can close any distance up to 14m before attacking

I guess this system works as a method to determine if a combatant arrives in time to strike in the same round, as long as the initiative order between the individual combatants is not affected by having moved (or at least not just one combatant and not the other). Which is exactly what the quoted paragraph indicates.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Barak Shathur

[radmonger]

I haven't seen where you defined you house rules such that there exists a separate movement phase, or whether it is before or after combat. Either way will likely have problems, at least if you expect to follow it mechanically and produce plausible-seeming results where archery and melee are viable but different. 

I think what I am describing is the intent of the rules. Just as it was always the intent that 'spent' MPs come back daily, but 'sacrificed' POW was permanently lost. Even when the RQ2 rules confusingly used the same term for both POW and MP.

 

[Barak Shathur]

40 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

and my answer was about your proposal, not about the rules. (Note that I m not saying your proposal is dumb or whatever, I just try, with my poor english, to challenge positively it, no offense then !)

Ah, then I misunderstood. I thought you were responding to the way the rules would work if just my proposal was implemented. My respect to you for engaging in this not in your first language! And thanks for challenging my ideas 🙂

 

 

[Barak Shathur]

1 hour ago, radmonger said:

I haven't seen where you defined you house rules such that there exists a separate movement phase, or whether it is before or after combat. Either way will likely have problems, at least if you expect to follow it mechanically and produce plausible-seeming results where archery and melee are viable but different. 

My proposed rule change only concerned removing the +1 SR per 3m moved, at least for melee combat. Everything else would remain as written in the rules. 

Anyway, I don't really need any rule changes to make it work. I just need some clarifications so that charging an unengaged enemy, whether by foot or mount, isn't arbitrarily penalised. This can be accomplished in the following way:

1. Interpreting the paragraph on p. 194 to mean that when two unengaged combatants meet in combat, their SR is calculated 'normally', i.e. without additions for movement, while if someone approaches an already ongoing fight, SR for move are added.

2. When you are riding, it's the mount expending movement and amassing SR penalties, not the rider. So moving more than half of the mount's move does not preclude the rider from attacking at his 'normal' SR that same round.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Barak Shathur

[Kloster]

18 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

In my opinion, RQ3 handled SRs the best. It was not perfect nor did it mesh well with RQ2 but it held together long enough to hide the cracks and offer good strategies. (@Klosteris a huge fan of RQ 3)

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.

18 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

So, the Chaosium crew went with RQG to keep compatibility with RQ2. Lords and ladies, we, all know it aint perfect. It took some of the old ones from the 90s and the Noughties several screens worth of posts to sort, pre-pandemic... (2019?) and I think @Paid a bod yn dwpcollated a chart for it. But until a rewrite, what do we do... a heavy errata. It almost works now. Some folks have given us some great clues above.

Perfectly agree.

[radmonger]

RQ2 itself is fine; it has a 1 page explanation of melee round and strike rank that works both self-consistently and corresponds to common sense expectations in just about every case,

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...

Getting to that understanding via reading the RQ:G rules, or (especially) the FAQ is not a task i would choose.

[Barak Shathur]

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.

[Barak Shathur]

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.

[Kloster]

2 minutes ago, Barak Shathur 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.

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

[Barak Shathur]

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.

[soltakss]

23 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

I think you’re misunderstanding the question - how could you *ever* charge (for Lance bonus) with a bison under the rules? First off, in order to get the charge bonus, you would have to move more than half of your (or in this case, the bison’s) move, so you wouldn’t get to attack. Second, you would also spend so many strike ranks moving that you wouldn’t have enough left to make the attack.

 

Or overthinking it.

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

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.

 

RQG p219 says:

Quote

The Lance: A lance can be used in a charge, a straight run of 20 meters or more. If a target is hit during a charge, the damage bonus of the animal ridden is used, not that of the rider. If the adventurer using the lance has had no training in its use, they can use it at 1/2 their normal attack chance with a one-handed spear, unless their Ride skill is below that. It can also be used as a one-handed spear if the adventurer has the necessary STR and DEX to use a long spear one-handed

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.

Personally, I don't measure distances with a ruler in combat. If someone charges at their opponent on a Bison then I give them the charge bonus. But, as I often say, I am an extraordinarily benevolent and lenient GM.

 

[soltakss]

22 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

RQIV:AiG figured this out and separated movement and other actions entirely. There was a move phase, and a 'melee phase', where magic, missile and melee happened in SR order, and the one did not impact the other except in that if you moved more than your basic move stat (usually 4-6 m) you didn't get to do anything else apart from moving.'

But they canned this one.

Yes, I remember that.

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.

Personally, I like having movement and melee mixed in together, as it makes for more exciting combats.

[Barak Shathur]

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).

 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Barak Shathur

[Barak Shathur]

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.

Edited January 20, 2023 by Barak Shathur

[soltakss]

3 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

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.

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?

[soltakss]

3 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

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.

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?

[Barak Shathur]

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. 

[soltakss]

3 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

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

Ah, right, then I'd ignore that for charging.

Personally, I ignore a lot of rules. If it is overly complex, or doesn't add to the enjoyment of the game, I drop it.