Strike Ranks in RQ2 and RQ3

[nDervish]

14 hours ago, TrippyHippy said:

I do think that the option to shift your SR, in order to gain more control over hit location is a good one though. I could even see it being used to add to the accuracy of the shot in 5% increments also. Eg Add +2 to your SR for a +10% accuracy on your attack roll.

This makes the fighting order less predictable, but also gives some tactical control to the players.

I can definitely see your thinking, but it seems like something which would be wide open to minmaxing abuse, with players doing all they can to get their characters as fast as possible so that they can maximize their "delaying" bonus.  (If you're on SR5, then I want to be SR2 when I duel you so that I can get a free +10% to hit by delaying until SR4 every round.  But, then, if you survive my attack, it ends up benefiting you even more, since you can get +25% by delaying until SR10...)

[Mankcam]

There is certainly something about having Strike Ranks in RQ that feels right for me. It was one of the many things that felt different about the system, and I would like to see a return to it in some format if possible. It may need to be tweaked a bit to be less clunky, but having them back could be a good thing.

Edited February 2, 2016 by Mankcam

[styopa]

I've run RQ3 campaigns since the 1980s, and the SR mechanic has always been something needing houserules.  MAINLY I didn't like the predictability of the original SR system; where the players could reliably tell what order events would happen in any given round.  In particular, I didn't like how having a crappy SR means called-shots 'cost' you less than other people; if a called-shot just bumps you to SR10, and you're already going on SR9 or 10, all you lose is half your to-hit.

 

We are simulationists, but ESSENTIALLY we use an init system that only determines who MOVES first; attacks are almost an incidental by-product of whoever is acting.

Here's what we've done:

 

Each round d10* is rolled for init, add your Dex SRM (* in fact, we use variable init dies depending on the circumstances; normally a d10, but it might be a d8 or even a d6 for a very tight/constricted space, where Dex should be REALLY important; d12 or even d20 in a wide-open space where an individual's dex isn't going to make that big a difference in who goes first)

Count down from the highest.

(These rules are predicated on the use of a hex map; not all combats will need to be played out on a hexmap.  If we don’t use the hex grid, it’s simply init+quickness goes first, with the principle that meeting-combats first-strike goes to the longer weapon.)

Starting on your init, you may move freely 1m/SR to a maximum of 2x your species Move Rate (subject to fatigue limits).

    (Moving backwards, 2x; Moving Prone 2x, Moving from enemy ZOC 3x; always can move at least 1/turn.)

If there’s a question about who should move “first” in a SR, NPCs move first.

You and all active, aware opponents (i.e. got to roll init this round) have ‘threat zones’ in the frontal ½ arc:  i.e. the area that can be hit with the equipped melee weapon – on a hex map this would be the 3 adjacent frontal hexes for an opponent with a medium-or-smaller weapon.  Larger weapons may reach more.

If you move into a ‘threatened’ zone but your arc doesn’t reach, that opponent MAY spend action for this round to interrupt & attack.  If you suffer a serious/major injury, you must immediately stop moving. 

If you move so that your ‘threat zone’ touches an enemy, you may attack.

If your and an opponent’s threat zones meet at roughly the same time, highest REACH gets the ‘opportunity’ attack first.  If weapons are same length, higher DEX goes first.  If DEX is also the same, attacks are resolved simultaneously.

If you move in a (more or less) straight line you gain your hexes moved this round/2 (until contact) as a +damage modifier for melee

Called shot means you strike at half-skill, that's all.

 

Edited February 9, 2016 by styopa

[Atgxtg]

I like SRs. I think the RQ2 SR system was a bit better than the one in RQ3. Having 12 SRs in a round allowed for a bit more variation between weapons, shortswords and broadswords didn't have the same SR. Plus I though the 12 SRs better meshed with 12 second melee rounds.  

 

Now if the new RQ went with 10 second or 6 second combat rounds there would be more advantages to the 10 SR combat rounds. 10 secound rounds would keep the loose 1 second per SR parity, and 6 second rounds would make it easier to convert long term actions into minutes, rounds and SRs. 

One of the things that I love about RQ is that a guy 10m away with a ready missile weapon will almost always get a shot off before an opponent with a melee weapon can close and attack. It's one of the things that is silly about most "initiative" based RPGs. 

One thing that I didn't like about SRs though is that it doesn't really handle the concept of reach weapons very well. For instance, someone with a greatspear will attack before someone with a shortsword, but realistically, the guy with the shortsword would probably have to spend a round or two closing just to be able to get within reach for an attack. THE RQ3 rules for closing almost address this, but there probably should be a more severe penalty for fighting someone who has a much greater weapon reach (say 2 or more SR advantage). Like maybe like making attacks Hard difficulty until the character can close. 

 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

On 8 February 2016 at 7:30 PM, styopa said:

MAINLY I didn't like the predictability of the original SR system; where the players could reliably tell what order events would happen in any given round

Yes this "predictability" is perhaps the one area of SR that feels a tad too restrictive. Though I do like the simulationist aspect of SR's taking into account speed/dex, weapon reach, and size/reach. Occasionally a bit of random luck could be worked into the games SR to shake things up. Granted there are penalties for surprise, but just occasionally a lesser determined fighter might get the jump on an experienced fighter in the normal run of combat. I'm not sure if the "predictability" of the RQ2/3 SR's models this well?  I guess that is where fumbles come in to modify the predictability of the combat SR melee round?

 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

Just continuing a discussion started on G+ (check it out here). 

How do you find that the original RQ2 strike rank rules hold up compared to that of RuneQuest 3? I'm curious not just conceptually, but how easy are they to apply in game? Do players have difficulty understanding them? Are there elements of them that don't make sense to you?

 

Jeff - Its my feeling that rereading both RQ2 & RQ3 with (somewhat) fresh eyes, I've found that there is a surprising amount of ambiguity in what actions are allowed in a melee round. Specifically the rule regarding number of attacks & parries with 1 handed weapons. RQ 2 Rurik examples are clear that there is the option of 1 attack & 1 parry  per melee round with any weapon, however the written rules (not the Rurik examples) in RQ2 are more ambiguous about what number of actions are allowed with a 1 handed weapon. In relation to this I've read on these forums a couple of instances where people have cited the RQ2 rules for 2 weapon use, as a reason to suppose there is only one action ( attack or parry) allowed with a 1 handed weapon, despite the Rurik examples.

RQ3 has more clarity on this issue, stating clearly that a character can perform two of the 3 actions ( attack, parry, Dodge) per melee round. However it goes on to confuse the reader about this ruling with a section on 2 weapon use( which was later corrected in an errata to bring it back inline with the RQ 2 ruling 1 attack, and 1 parry per melee round)

I mention this as it has a bearing on Strike ranks & actions. For me Strike ranks work well, but the RQ2 rules ( as they stand without the Rurik examples ) could be much clearer about what combat actions & number of actions characters are allowed. I think that is my one criticism about how the RQ2 rules were written. 

 

Edited January 26, 2017 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[styopa]

1 hour ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Yes this "predictability" is perhaps the one area of SR that feels a tad too restrictive. Though I do like the simulationist aspect of SR's taking into account speed/dex, weapon reach, and size/reach. Occasionally a bit of random luck could be worked into the games SR to shake things up. Granted there are penalties for surprise, but just occasionally a lesser determined fighter might get the jump on an experienced fighter in the normal run of combat. I'm not sure if the "predictability" of the RQ2/3 SR's models this well?  I guess that is where fumbles come in to modify the predictability of the combat SR melee round?

 

The thing that originally 'triggered' me on the predictability of the RAW SR system was called shots, honestly.  RAW is that called shots are at the end of the round at half %.

i) it made no sense to me that a Quincy Quicksword (normal melee SR 3) would be so much more penalized than Chloe Clodhopper (SR9).  (Likewise the half-skill penalty similarly overpenalizes better-skilled toons, but that's another story)

ii) knowing that she will ALWAYS strike second, there's a much lower disincentive for the slower toon to always do called shots.  Called shots aside, if a SR4 is slugging it out with an SR3, that counterintuitively *completely* frees the SR4 to do all sorts of SR-wasting things in a round...they KNOW that the 3 will (generally) go first, so no reason not to burn another SR screwing around swinging from chandeliers.  The slower toon gets more tactical freedom of action?  Huh?

It goes back to the darn predictability of it, PARTICULARLY if you're requiring 'statement of intent' before the round executes.

Edited January 26, 2017 by styopa

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

47 minutes ago, styopa said:

(Likewise the half-skill penalty similarly overpenalizes better-skilled toons, but that's another story)

Doesn't the fact that half skill is relative, makes it a penalty in proportion to a characters ability? in contrast a flat minus 30% penalty regardless of ability would be unfair proportionally?

 

47 minutes ago, styopa said:

i) it made no sense to me that a Quincy Quicksword (normal melee SR 3) would be so much more penalized than Chloe Clodhopper (SR9).  (Likewise the half-skill penalty similarly overpenalizes better-skilled toons, but that's another story)

Yes, I'm inclined to agree -  Perhaps a superfast character would have a chance of an aimed blow before the end of the round (last SR). Maybe a flat SR penalty, with the exception that slower characters who would full outside of the SR round due to the penalty, would still have the chance for an aimed shot at the last SR?  That way fast characters would still have the edge ( say plus 5 SR to strike aimed blow), but slow characters would still have a last chance at an aimed blow after everyone else has had a go? 

 

47 minutes ago, styopa said:

ii) knowing that she will ALWAYS strike second, there's a much lower disincentive for the slower toon to always do called shots.  Called shots aside, if a SR4 is slugging it out with an SR3, that counterintuitively *completely* frees the SR4 to do all sorts of SR-wasting things in a round...they KNOW that the 3 will (generally) go first, so no reason not to burn another SR screwing around swinging from chandeliers.  The slower toon gets more tactical freedom of action?  Huh?

Hmm...yes I see what you're saying. That does read like it may be problematic. I haven't played RQ in a while. Is that a recognised consensus? Are there ways around this issue? Does not statement of intent address this issue through penalty to SR, because of change to statement of intent? 

Edited January 26, 2017 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[styopa]

3 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Doesn't the fact that half skill is relative, makes it a penalty in proportion to a characters ability? in contrast a flat minus 30% penalty regardless of ability would be unfair proportionally?

 

Yes, I'm inclined to agree -  Perhaps a superfast character would have a chance of an aimed blow before the end of the round (last SR). Maybe a flat SR penalty, with the exception that slower characters who would full outside of the SR round due to the penalty, would still have the chance for an aimed shot at the last SR?  That way fast characters would still have the edge ( say plus 5 SR to strike aimed blow), but slow characters would still have a last chance at an aimed blow after everyone else has had a go? 

 

Hmm...yes I see what you're saying. That does read like it may be problematic. I haven't played RQ in a while. Is that a recognised consensus? Are there ways around this issue? Does not statement of intent address this issue through penalty to SR, because of change to statement of intent? 

1) I'd prefer a flat -%, because then you're logically consistent with the "hitting a small target" rule in RQ3, where it was a flat % IIRC per point smaller than SIZ5(?)  Take that flat %, double it for the innate difficulty of hitting it moving, etc and maybe not getting an opening, and that's the flat %.  Plus, should it really be harder to 'called shot head' on a massive creature whose head is SIZ6+ (assuming you can reach it)?

2) We count through SR, and when the character has a chance to hit, they can say "ok called shot X", then their strike happens d6+3 SR later...if it goes past the end of the round, they never got an opening. NOTE: we also allow PCs and significant NPCs to sacrifice quanta of 25% of to-hit for a 1SR bonus to strike.  146%+ to hit?  Generally (if you don't mind losing the spec/crit advantage) you'll go 2SR faster, without hurting your chance to hit.  Sort of the equivalent of 'hip shooting'.

3) we used to do SoI at the start of each round (stated in ascending-INT order), and then if someone changed their action midround, there was a change-of-action penalty of d6 SR.  Lately, we've just been using "go when your SR says, and do what you want to at that moment" because it seemed to so greatly speed up combat.

[Arnold-C]

On ‎30‎.‎01‎.‎2016 at 10:04 AM, Jeff said:

How do you find that the original RQ2 strike rank rules hold up compared to that of RuneQuest 3? I'm curious not just conceptually, but how easy are they to apply in game? Do players have difficulty understanding them? Are there elements of them that don't make sense to you?

To be honest, the RQ2/RQ3 strike rank and melee round rules don't make much sense in my eyes.

Could be just me, but that regular human beings can only act twice in a 12 (10) second timeframe isn't very convincing. What do combatants do the whole time before and after they are allowed to act? Gazing around, applauding to those which had already acted, talk shop...? My best guess would be: they twitter.

Next would be the favorization of a weapon's length alone. On a distance of 1 m to another I'd say that the guy with the 1.2 m swift Rapier (SR 2) would have a remarkably advantage over the guy with the 2.5 m Long Spear (SR 0). Just because a Long Spear is a bit more bulkier than a Rapier. And I'd bet that a Rapier guy will get a Long Spear guy Chop Suey'd 9 times out of 10 in a real-world competition.

A combatant with a weapon of a longer range would only have an advantage at his weapon's "effective range" (at a spear's head f.e.), when the hassle occurs up closer, he'd be at a disadvantage.

A possible resolution could be a shortened duration of a Melee Round, let's say maybe 2 seconds, further divided into 10 (or 12) "phases", and an additional SR modifier reflecting a weapon's bulk/weight (maybe by just adding the ENC value).

Just my 2 Cents.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Arnold-C

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

3 hours ago, styopa said:

1) I'd prefer a flat -%, because then you're logically consistent with the "hitting a small target" rule in RQ3, where it was a flat % IIRC per point smaller than SIZ5(?)  Take that flat %, double it for the innate difficulty of hitting it moving, etc and maybe not getting an opening, and that's the flat %.  Plus, should it really be harder to 'called shot head' on a massive creature whose head is SIZ6+ (assuming you can reach it)?

2) We count through SR, and when the character has a chance to hit, they can say "ok called shot X", then their strike happens d6+3 SR later...if it goes past the end of the round, they never got an opening. NOTE: we also allow PCs and significant NPCs to sacrifice quanta of 25% of to-hit for a 1SR bonus to strike.  146%+ to hit?  Generally (if you don't mind losing the spec/crit advantage) you'll go 2SR faster, without hurting your chance to hit.  Sort of the equivalent of 'hip shooting'.

3) we used to do SoI at the start of each round (stated in ascending-INT order), and then if someone changed their action midround, there was a change-of-action penalty of d6 SR.  Lately, we've just been using "go when your SR says, and do what you want to at that moment" because it seemed to so greatly speed up combat.

Yes - points well made.

Now I'm inclined to agree with the flat% penalty for called shots.

I quite like your thinking on SR tactics - gaining speed at a penalty. It opens up SR in a more dynamic way. Quite tacticle, but then again strike ranks were already. Perhaps this opens up more dynamic options within the framework of the strike rank? 

[MJ Sadique]

It's a bit the same discussion we had in page 3&+ of rq2rq3-2-weapons-2-attacks-in-the-same-round thread...to me :

• rq2 is global view of a fight as a big melee without need to take in account where you exactly are.
• rq3 is precise view of a fight as an arena melee with need to take in account where you are and where your enemy is !

-I Like the two systems, rq2 for it simplicity but I always prefer rq3 for it's surgical precision on position and movement. I have play some fight in the arena of Monster Coliseum and I use movement and have pushed RQ3 systems to it's fullest precision with each player and creature position know to half-meter precision. Such complex and almost realist fight could never be played with rq2 or any RPG.

In RQ3 SR is linked to movement, walking speed and time travel. In a fantasy world, it can make a big difference, not only in a fight ! An elve with twice movement as an dwarf could always outrun the short-leg. Glorantha is also a world of travel, a human could walk 30km per day (movement x10) but a dwarf with movement of 2 (20km /day) will have to use twice speed/fatigue to catch up an elve (mov 4, 40km / day). In fight and travel long-legs have a big tactical advantage !

I don't like variable SR per round because movement is linked to SR (in rq3). But like Styopa suggest, having a mecanism which help player change a bit the SR in exchange of skills modifiers is a good idea. We already have a bit magic to rise DEX and get better SR but no speed-fighting oriented magic nor fighting tactics. Frequently playing, oriental style fighting games, I modified a bit some spells ans skills to have.

I admit that in most fight you don't often need rq3 precision and detailed movement by SR but not having it will make a lot of battle more blurry n' opaque...

Post-Scriptum (a bit out of the thread)

• Another funny thing I read is that people prefer having 12SR in rq2 than 10SR in rq3 is sheer stupidity because in rq2 dex.sr.max(5) + siz.sr.max(3) + weapon.sr.max(4) = 12 SR.max and in rq3 dex.sr.max(4) + siz.sr.max(3) + weapon.sr.max(3) = 10 SR.max . Rq2 may have the more SR but dex and siz's sr goes higher ... so it's the very same range of SR in the end !
• Flat percentiles malus are usually better to use, simply because calculating half percent skill is boring. If I recall well, in rq2 half skill malus are limited to 50% which is not written in rq3 (not the french ed. at least). This clearly is a good rules of rq2 which should still be present in the 3° Ed for player having more than 100% skills. I may always prefer rq3 but some rules.

Edited January 28, 2017 by MJ Sadique
some ohoohohrrible punctuation

[Jusmak]

I saw discussion about strikeranks and bows concerned. Normally it goes DEX SR + 3 for nodding and aiming. There was a idea, that what if arrows are more ready. Would it be then possible to fire 10 arrows at meleeround. While longbow for my liking needs more aiming also against individual targer, how about repeater? It has magazine, no need to load at all. Only drawing string back, which is anyway shorter than in longbow.

[soltakss]

9 hours ago, Jusmak said:

I saw discussion about strikeranks and bows concerned. Normally it goes DEX SR + 3 for nodding and aiming. There was a idea, that what if arrows are more ready. Would it be then possible to fire 10 arrows at meleeround. While longbow for my liking needs more aiming also against individual targer, how about repeater? It has magazine, no need to load at all. Only drawing string back, which is anyway shorter than in longbow.

The Bashkorts of Russia have the Three Arrow trick, where their mounted archers pull three arrows at a time from the quiver, holding one in the hand and two in their mouth, thus reducing the time it takes to fire the other two arrows. In my RQ, I reduce the SR for reloading by 2 (in RQ2) and 1 (in RQ3), allowing a normal archer to fire three arrows per round. I am sure that other horse archers have similar ideas, but I know of the Bashkort one.

 

[MJ Sadique]

8 hours ago, Jusmak said:

I saw discussion about strikeranks and bows concerned. Normally it goes DEX SR + 3 for nodding and aiming. There was a idea, that what if arrows are more ready.

Strike ranks and bows, one of the simpliest rules but so much fight over that tiny idea of "what if more than one arrow are prepared before hand ?". Rules states you need Dex.SR to aim, bend the bow n' shoot. Preparing a weapon by taking an arrow from a quiver and nodding take 3SR.

• Reality state a shooting rate of 10 to 16 adjusted shoots per minute which mean 2 to 3 shoots per round.
• rq3 Rules give 12 to 13 shoots in one minute (49 RA) with a monstruous DEX.SR of 1 and 3 SR between each shoot.
• rq3 Rules give 16 shoots in one minute (48RA) with a standard DEX.SR of 3 and 0 SR of preparation between each shoot.

Some masters find 3 shoots per round is too much with a longbow but making such choice made your archer slower than they were in reality. If you need an archer with 21+ in DEX to attain a realist shooting rate, you choose that a Legolas level archer in rq3 have the same shooting rate than a english *just good* archer.

I've made my choice to state that you can prepare arrows before hand or use an assistant to have 0 SR between shoots. Make your own choice ! (I like soltakss choice...)

8 hours ago, Jusmak said:

Would it be then possible to fire 10 arrows at melee round.

To me YES,
-Without magic with an superb DEX.SR of 1 and having prepared all arrows before hand for an ambush, you may shoot at each SR. It will be an exceptional case but you can do it.
-With Magic, this will be another answer. Attaining DEX.SR of 1 will be easier and a Multi-missile variant spells could be use to create duplicate magic projectiles. I don't even need to mention Ki rules of Land of Ninja.

High rate of shoots may be astonishing but I know few being which can survive Three critical hits straight. Does really 10 strikes per round really useful ?

[Atgxtg]

10 hours ago, Jusmak said:

I saw discussion about strikeranks and bows concerned. Normally it goes DEX SR + 3 for nodding and aiming. There was a idea, that what if arrows are more ready. Would it be then possible to fire 10 arrows at meleeround. While longbow for my liking needs more aiming also against individual targer, how about repeater? It has magazine, no need to load at all. Only drawing string back, which is anyway shorter than in longbow.

The thing is, historically the higher rates of fire were used when firing into a mass of enemies, not aimed fire against a single target. Elric! and BRP have a volley fire rule, which could be adapted to RQ Strike Ranks. The problem is, once you allow archers to fire more arrow per round, you then have to consider firearms. It is technically possible for a shooter to empty a revolver or semi-auto weapon in one melee round. 

[Pentallion]

If my opponent starts thinking he can fire 10 arrows at me in a round, I will invite him outside my house whereupon I will assault him with a nerf stick repeatedly while he fires his mulitple nerf arrows at me.  Sure, he can fire 10 arrows very quicky....after I've laid into him thirty times with my nerf sword.

Sorry, but in real world, I hit you more than once in 12 seconds. In fact, I can lay into you with my sword three times a second!!!  This is a game and the game has set limits for playability.  Start tweaking that for whatever excuses and the game falls apart.

Edited January 30, 2017 by Pentallion

[styopa]

3 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

If my opponent starts thinking he can fire 10 arrows at me in a round, I will invite him outside my house whereupon I will assault him with a nerf stick repeatedly while he fires his mulitple nerf arrows at me.  Sure, he can fire 10 arrows very quicky....after I've laid into him thirty times with my nerf sword.

Sorry, but in real world, I hit you more than once in 12 seconds. This is a game and the game has set limits for playability.  Start tweaking that for whatever excuses and the game falls apart.

That's sort of where I fall too.

IMO I've never understood the "bows get to fire faster than anything else" idea, except insofar as the logic was ported from D&D (where bows, of all missile weapons but darts, get to fire multiple times per round IIRC).  Who knows how EGG justified it.

IIRC RQ2 was at least more logically consistent than RQ3 in this sense (you'll rarely hear me say that) in that most missile weapons got to fire 1/SR (ie, multiply if your DEX SR was low enough).  I disagree wholeheartedly with the idea for the reasons Pentallion stated above.  

Yes,  conceptually and anecdotally, archers of many cultures from Mongols, to the Bashkorts mentioned above, to the Yabusame all had techniques for *very* rapid shooting.   But in the SAME SENSE, if I were to stand whacking a pell with a sword, I could hit it a TON of times in that same span as well...yet we don't really allow melee combatants to do this unless they have extraordinary skill (for various handwavy reasons).

Nope, after some consideration I give archers and missile weapon firers the (basically) same sort of strike rank calculations that anyone in melee gets:  They get an initiative, and can fire when their turn comes.  Obviously, they don't have to close distance, and if they (in roleplaying) started the round with an arrow nocked and drawn, they can release at the start of the first round, then initiative each round thereafter, so they still have an advantage in that case (as they should). 

But no, no multiple shots unless they have skill > 100% like any other combat skill.

 

[Atgxtg]

13 hours ago, Pentallion said:

Sorry, but in real world, I hit you more than once in 12 seconds. In fact, I can lay into you with my sword three times a second!!!  This is a game and the game has set limits for playability.  Start tweaking that for whatever excuses and the game falls apart.

Oh sure, probably. But then you got that RQ thing about multiple strikes making up one attack. 

 

Now yes, in the real world most of us can swing a sword more than a dozen times in 12 seconds. But not that many of us are skilled enough for most of those swings to be legitimate attacks. Of course before you get close enough to swing your sword you are probably going to have to eat an arrow or two. 

[Atgxtg]

 

 

On 1/26/2017 at 1:15 PM, styopa said:

The thing that originally 'triggered' me on the predictability of the RAW SR system was called shots, honestly.  RAW is that called shots are at the end of the round at half %.

i) it made no sense to me that a Quincy Quicksword (normal melee SR 3) would be so much more penalized than Chloe Clodhopper (SR9).  (Likewise the half-skill penalty similarly overpenalizes better-skilled toons, but that's another story)

 

That's why I always preferred the other version of called shot where you got to shift the hit location by 1 per SR you delayed. 

[Jusmak]

Hmm, yes good point to remember gamebalance in everything. If arrows should let fly in every SR, why not melee stabs with dagger or minor spell like disruption in every SR... 

Actually I think it is more realistic to bind attack speed increase into skill%, than dexterity as a stat, whether it is about melee or missile weapon. Ideas about rapid missile reloading times are reasoned from mastery level of expertise of the bow, sofar. All hours I spend in mat doing different form of martial arts lead into same conclusion. People should avoid doing things fast, if there is not enough skill behind. Otherwise it does not lead into any good, just hassle and not learning anything meaningful. As I tried to shoot with curved bow once, even I am nimble, I could not even notch the arrow at first. Speed comes, when person´s movements and base become steady. And steadiness becomes after practicing same techniques, same movement every day about 3000 times for years.

[Atgxtg]

I once did up a BRP variant where the order of attack was determined by opposed skill rolls. Things like weapon reach gave a bonus to skill.

[el_octogono]

I once did a houserule variant where you could attack any number of consecutive times, but with a cumulative penalty. If you missed, the initiative goes to your enemy. Penalty also applied to parries, so if  you where fighting more than one enemy you had to make a tactical stop to regain your %. This way you could attack any number of times against any number of enemies, without major hassle.

Something similar happened with ranged combat.

Edited January 31, 2017 by el_octogono

[SDLeary]

10 minutes ago, el_octogono said:

I once did a houserule variant where you could attack any number of consecutive times, but with a cumulative penalty. If you missed, the initiative goes to your enemy. Penalty also applied to parries, so if  you where fighting more than one enemy you had to make a tactical stop to regain your %. This way you could attack any number of times against any number of enemies, without major hassle.

Something similar happened with ranged combat.

This sounds like the fine basis for a new Combat Action... the Surge. Each subsequent action takes place on the following SR. If you miss, initiative on the next melee round automatically goes to your opponent(s). I might also enact some sort of fatigue roll for the flurry of action, especially if the fighting had been going on for a while.

SDLeary

 

[mikkling]

On 1/27/2017 at 0:10 AM, Arnold-C said:

To be honest, the RQ2/RQ3 strike rank and melee round rules don't make much sense in my eyes.

Could be just me, but that regular human beings can only act twice in a 12 (10) second timeframe isn't very convincing. What do combatants do the whole time before and after they are allowed to act? Gazing around, applauding to those which had already acted, talk shop...? My best guess would be: they twitter.

If seen as individual actions, I agree that SRs makes little sense: you swing at SR 5, your opponent at SR 8; before and after, you do not act.

Instead, I always rationalised strike ranks as a measure of how fast you can create or exploit an opening for a proper attack in an ongoing exchange of blows or a jockeying for position. This also motivates random hit locations -- you exploit the opening you get. Of course, it gets a bit clunky since SRs serves at least two functions: both as initiative and as a time-keeping device. But it kinda works. Since the exploitation of openings is also a matter of skill, I also house-rule the conversion of skill percentages to SRs, to the tune of -20% for -1 SR and +1 SR for +10%. A +1 SR delay could alternatively net you a ±2 mod to the hit location roll. If your opponent is unaware of you, you get your opening as soon as you reach him.

A similar rationalisation goes for missile weapons, where I use DEX SR + 3 SR for readying and aiming a single shot. Getting good shots at human-sized opponents moving about, especially if they are aware of you, is far from automatic. And if you want to fire into melee and avoid friendly fire, you get +d4 SR to your shot, for moving to a better angle or waiting for an opportunity. 

Best,

Mikael