RQ2, RQ3, and RQG, comparatively which is deadlier?

[SDLeary]

Quote

 

@radmonger

it's the same table, but RQ2 has human SIZ as 3d6.. RQ:G uses the rq3 values of siz; 2d6+6. This is exactly what i mean by an edition mismatch; rules get copied verbatim from earlier editions, but not adjusted to take account of other rules changes made.

Also, RQ:G also has stat modifiers for elemental runes. Most Orlanthi will be getting the air rune bonus, which includes STR.

As a result, all but one of the starter set pregenerated characters have a damage bonus. 

This means the pacifist healer or the tattoo artist could literally punch someones head off. 1d3 + 1d4 + 4 can easily meet the 3 x hp threshold for a severing blow. 

I don't see where you are getting the +4 in the damage (a crit?). You get +2 STR for Air being primary, or +1 STR for being secondary. Potentially SIZ could be in there too, for a total of +3 to the calculations for damage bonus. This might take you up from no bonus to +1d4, or from +1d4 to +1d6. So it appears on a normal hit on a target with between 7 and 9 HP, not there. A special, yes if dice roll well. A crit (if that is what your calculation shows) then possible with a decent die roll. On a character with between 10-12 HP, you would be one point short if you rolled perfectly.

I wouldn't rule it severed, but maimed, and people do die (rarely) from being punched in the nose.

Note that this could also have happened under RQ2 or RQ3 (though slightly less likely).

SDLeary

Edited August 3, 2023 by SDLeary

[radmonger]

+4 is for a crushing blow, which is a 1 in 5 chance. You need a crit if they are wearing a helmet, which few people do for a fist-fight. d3 + d4 =4 is average 8.5, so 50% chance of an instant death with no healing possible.

In rq2, instant death would have required 2*3 +  6 = 12 hp damage, which requires exceptional strength and size to do in a single punch. Even many criticals with an arrow would be survivable with healing. 2d8 + 2 has an average roll of 10. So 33% chance of death under RQ2, 55% under RQ:G.

RQ2 was intentionally a deadly system. I think the degree to which RQ:Q is more so is a clear mistake. Which does make it easily fixable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2023 by radmonger

[Godlearner]

4 hours ago, radmonger said:

2d8 + 2 has an average roll of 10. So 33% chance of death under RQ2, 55% under RQ:G.

RQ3 impail => 1D8+1 + 9 avg of 14

[JRE]

In my opinion RQ:G is less deadly for PCs or any high skilled combatant. You only need one skill when earlier you needed two, attack and parry. Conflating attack and parry is what IMO is killing shields, as they require double the skill investment. And it is much better to have a very high skill than several high ones. You can make multiple dodges or parries while decreasing your enemies to hit chances, and that is the best way to minimize risk. 

In the other versions barring very powerful magic, three skilled opponents would always beat a weapon master with the same equipment, because you could not reasonably defend against three foes. Now you can, and they will have a penalty to their to hit number and to their parry, so combat will be also much shorter.

RQ has always had very deadly brawling. Crush is the big difference in RQ:G, although in RQ3 you had martial arts that doubled your damage, so your maximum damage was 6+DB. You forgot the potential parry, however. If you parry your arm, and any armor, will block first the damamge, so you may end up KO with a disabled arm, but that is better than dead. Many referees would allow a bracer, vambrace or gloves that do not count as armor to add some AP too.

[radmonger]

45 minutes ago, JRE said:

In the other versions barring very powerful magic, three skilled opponents would always beat a weapon master with the same equipment, because you could not reasonably defend against three foes. Now you can, and they will have a penalty to their to hit number and to their parry, so combat will be also much shorter.

The question of who wins is different from how deadly things are. What i am talking about is the chance that combat is ongoing, one side rolls well and the other gets cut in half. Fighting more opponents only makes that more likely, even if most of the time you would win.

fighting 3 opponents, even with no flanking the third  parry is at -40%, so has a sizeable chance of failing. With heavy armour and normal opponents, death will come solely from criticals. Assuming a beefy pc with 5 hp in the abdomen/head, that requires 15 damage in a single attack.

RQ;G's+1D4 damage that the average human has (due to the use of the RQ3 SIZ stat range) does makes that far more likely. Albeit not as likely as with the RQ3 impale rules.

Personally i find that case fine; combat against the odds should have a risk.

The core issue is one of those things that i suspect 99% of RQ gm's know to ignore. HP are taken directly from CON with only minor adjustments for other characteristics. And, rules as written, CON is rolled in a 3d6. Not 4d6 drop one, not roll 6 sets of dice and allocate scores, not create several characters and pick one you like.

So a sizable percentage of RAW PCs will have 8 or less total hp, and 3 hp in critical locations.  Which means they are basically statistically guaranteed  to die in one of the first few fights they get into. 

 

 

 

[davecake]

2 hours ago, JRE said:

In my opinion RQ:G is less deadly for PCs or any high skilled combatant.

In my opinion, RQG is more deadly for a high skilled opponent. In RQ3, a combat between two opponents of 95+% skill would tend to be long and often relatively bloodshed free, especially if they also have good magic (especially Shield) - 95% of the time there would be a successful parry, usually a parry would block all incoming damage, even a dangerous blow with a special might not get through parry plus armour plus protective magic. Most of the time, an unparried blow is still going to be mostly absorbed by armour plus magic protection. Even a really nasty critical would be mostly absorbed by parry armour, so would be nasty, even decisive, but not fatal. A location destroying blow (which may not be fatal, but is likely decisive) most of the only happened with a critical or  special that was unparried.
Contrast RQG. Highest skill subtracts the difference from 100 to get the lowest skill effective chance, so small differences count more, and often one is at a real disadvantage. It’s usually the attacker that has the advantage over the defender, as there are more ways to boost attack rather than parry (weapon enhancing magic, Berserk/Morale, etc). So failing a parry is substantially more common. 

[JRE]

I made the clarification, for PCs, as that is usually my main interest as GM, and because in most combat encounters the combat specialists will be outnumberered, though in a few "boss" encounters it will be the PCs who outnumber the opposition. What I meant is high skilled against less skilled, or the advantage of numbers. In similar skill levels what the rules do is increase the advantage of the more skilled.

In my example, 3 75% skill fighters against a weapon master with 120% skill. Even with heavy armor, 6AP, 1d8+1+1d4 means a 20% potential disable with any unparried hit. In RQ3, the master can do 1 parry at 120 or two parries at 60%. In RQ: G he can parry at 100 (against 55), 100 (against 75) and 80 (against 75) He could attack twice but unless they have a big bladesharp it is not interesting, so one attack at 100 vs a parry at 55, compared to RQ3 one attack at 120 against a parry at 75. We assume parries are good enough to parry the whole damage of a special and most of a critical, though that may not be true with spears. The difference for the single fighter is huge, specially as with a parry without big damage boosting, a special will not take you out of the fight.

So the key thing, and I agree with Dave, is those unparried attacks. In RQ3 the master had one parry, or two mid level parries. RQ2 was worse as most people did not go over 100%. Now a master has 2-3+ good parries per round. Numbers are no longer the big menace they used to be. And PCs are less at risk because they can parry or dodge more. Our Humakti started at 100 sword because character creation did not allow a higher skill, but reached quickly 120%. Even the historian with his 80% rapier usually manages two succesful parries per round, when normally he had just one.

If the master has 140 skill, then in RQ:G the three should be thinking of running away, while it would have been a small difference compared to the afvantage of numbers in RQ3.

Of course, if in your game the players usually outnumber their enemies, or they frequently face off against weapon masters then it will be different. But I play with two PCs (and one "only" has 80% rapier) and usually one hired guard, and the Humakti has been so far the most skilled combatant on both sides, except in fights they could avoid. 

I am not against it, it allows more heroic play and smaller parties, taking several enemies at the same time which used to be suicidal in previous editions. But it is not realistic, as killing someone with CON 8 (roughly one third of the population) when punching them in the face 6% of the time (skill 50%, so special or critical 10% of the time, and all criticals and half the specials kill). You still need 12 damage to kill outright someone with 10-12 HP, which is not possible with unenhanced fists. It was 10 in RQ3, and that was possible with Martial Arts, but without it, even the CON 8 weakling was safe.

Which goes back to the importance of parries, as if the punched guy is allowed to parry, the RQ:G death rate is cut in half. 

[soltakss]

RQ3 has bigger, more stackable spells, such as Slash, Crush, Bladesharp, Bludgeon, and so on, so is deadlier than RQ2.

RQ3 also has various enchantments that give better armour, general hit points and hit points per location, which makes Adventurers tougher and harder to kill, which makes RQ3 less deadly than RQ2.

RQ2 has stackable Divine Intervention that makes it easier for Priests to come back, but that is probably a minor consideration.

RQ2 had Shield as Common Magic, so everyone had access to Shield. This is not the case for RQ3 and RQG, so RQ3 and RQG are deadlier than RQ2.

RQG has the same spells as RQ3, by and large, and does not restrict them to 4 points like RQ2 did, so RQG is probably deadlier than RQ2, it also allows Adventurers to learn a single Runespell and cast it in larger doses, so is deadlier than RQ2 or RQ3. As there are more offensive spells than defensive ones, and not everyone has access to Shield, RQG is deadlier than RQ2 or RQ3.

For starting characters, RQ2 starts with much lower skills and magic than RQ3, but even RQ3 starts with much lower skills and magic than RQG, so RQG Adventurers are more powerful. However, RQG NPCS are also more powerful so that might cancel out.