QuickStart 2 attacks in one round?

[styopa]

2 minutes ago, Jeff said:

I believe both my wife (who as an alternate for the German Olympic Archery team does know her stuff) and my old dojo (who also introduced me to RQ2) would disagree. It is worth keeping in mind that within a melee round, the melee combatant is performing their attack for the entire round and the strike rank indicates the order in which it occurs. An archer firing into a melee can potentially shoot multiple times in a single round, but unless the combatant is alone, the archer either has to do an aimed shot (to hit a specific person, not a specific location) or is firing blindly into a crowd. 

Again: FIRING INTO MELEE ISN"T THE POINT AT ALL.  

I'm agreeing that an archer can fire several times in 12 seconds, that's obvious.  Ask your expert wife if you disagree?

I'm disagreeing that somehow melee attacks be ~penalized~ based on a bunch of rationalized actions that aren't simulated AT ALL (and which I suspect, let's be honest, has more to do with 'that's how we've always done it' NIH inertia than rational evaluation..) and wouldn't apply to the conveniently-ignored examples of combatants for whom footwork, self-preservation, and such wouldn't even faintly apply?

Just now, Jeff said:

That's not the approach we will be taking.

As I've said before: I'm not trying to change YOUR mind.  Chaosium will publish the rules it'll publish. (shrug)

[jongjom]

11 hours ago, Jason Durall said:

Yes. 

It does make missile weapons faster to use than melee, but this is offset by the fact that firing into melee is extremely risky, and firing while engaged in melee is extremely difficult. 

Looking at the characters in the QS there are some characters with a missile weapon SR of 1. So as it stands they can get 12 shots off in a round at their full base % chance each (accepting the risks etc.)? 

Is this doable? 12 javelins or small axes thrown with 'normal' accuracy in about 12 seconds? Hum...

[Jeff]

No, it still takes 5 SR to ready a weapon. So SR 1, then 5 to ready, then shoot again on SR 7, then 5, ready to shoot SR 1 of the next round.

[jongjom]

8 minutes ago, Jeff said:

No, it still takes 5 SR to ready a weapon. So SR 1, then 5 to ready, then shoot again on SR 7, then 5, ready to shoot SR 1 of the next round.

Ok that makes sense. So only two shots in a round. That feels about right.

Even House Ruling / simplyfying it, as styopa suggests, it to make it effectively one full % chance shot a round doesn't change the game too much. 

[Jeff]

6 minutes ago, jongjom said:

Ok that makes sense. So only two shots in a round. That feels about right.

Even House Ruling / simplyfying it, as styopa suggests, it to make it effectively one full % chance shot a round doesn't change the game too much. 

And to get 2 missile shots each round requires a DEX of 16 or higher. The moral being, it is possible to close with trolls, but fear elves shooting from a distance.

[Sayerson]

@Jeff "No, it still takes 5 SR to ready a weapon. So SR 1, then 5 to ready, then shoot again on SR 7, then 5, ready to shoot SR 1 of the next round"

Wouldn't that be ready in sr 6? Combining readying the weapon and dex/siz srs?

Edited June 20, 2017 by Sayerson
Readability

[boztakang]

11 minutes ago, Sayerson said:

Wouldn't that be ready in sr 6? Combining readying the weapon and dex/siz srs?

you are forgetting the SR used to fire the weapon the first time:

SR 1 - fire first shot

SR 2-6 - +5 to Ready next shot

SR 7 -  +1 to fire second shot

able to ready, but not fire a third shot this round. 7+5+1 = 13

[Sayerson]

 

19 minutes ago, boztakang said:

you are forgetting the SR used to fire the weapon the first time:

SR 1 - fire first shot

SR 2-6 - +5 to Ready next shot

SR 7 -  +1 to fire second shot

able to ready, but not fire a third shot this round. 7+5+1 = 13

Yes. You are right.

[styopa]

3 hours ago, boztakang said:

you are forgetting the SR used to fire the weapon the first time:

SR 1 - fire first shot

SR 2-6 - +5 to Ready next shot

SR 7 -  +1 to fire second shot

able to ready, but not fire a third shot this round. 7+5+1 = 13

Right.

The only way you get that third shot would be to have a SR0 dex or use Mobility (which reduces your SR by 1)

[MOB]

Here's what we're going to do going forward:

Cult of Chaos Forum (password protected) - Discussion, questions, post mortems about "The Broken Tower" scenario in the RuneQuest Quickstart. 

RuneQuest Forum - Discussion about the RQG rules themselves, and the rules as presented in the RuneQuest Quickstart. No discussion or spoilers about "The Broken Tower" please.

Carry on...

[Dominic]

On 19/06/2017 at 10:32 PM, Psullie said:

Paid a bod yn dwp you made me question myself - so I dug out my RQ2 book and check, perhaps this was a house rule after all, the original rules just state (for bows) S/MR which means as many attack as SR allowed. As it takes 5 SR to 'reload' with a DEX of 15+ you would fire on a 1, 6 & 11 at no penalty!

I fear that 2-3 attacks a round without splitting the attack roll makes missiles too deadly. 

Sure, a very skilled archer can do it.  But:

1. We can reflect that through the attack splitting rules.  The 5 round reload just serves to determine when the 2nd/3rd arrows strike.

2. It is unbalanced to make a skilled swordsman (who could also theoretically make several sword strokes in 12 seconds) split his percentage, but not the archer.

 

How does multiple arrows work with the new dodge & combat rules?  Can the target parry twice and still close with the archer?  Or is the 2nd arrow "unparyable", unless the target is >100% skill.

 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

21 hours ago, Dominic said:

I fear that 2-3 attacks a round without splitting the attack roll makes missiles too deadly. 

Sure, a very skilled archer can do it.  But:

1. We can reflect that through the attack splitting rules.  The 5 round reload just serves to determine when the 2nd/3rd arrows strike.

2. It is unbalanced to make a skilled swordsman (who could also theoretically make several sword strokes in 12 seconds) split his percentage, but not the archer.

 

How does multiple arrows work with the new dodge & combat rules?  Can the target parry twice and still close with the archer?  Or is the 2nd arrow "unparyable", unless the target is >100% skill.

 

Unlike attacks, parry no longer follows the previous rule of needing over 100% for multiple parries. You can parry as many attacks as you can fit into strike ranks, but at a cumulative -20% penalty for every parry after the first. The same goes for Dodge. Bearing in mind you can't attack and parry with a single weapon/shield on the same SR.

Please note - I'm referring to the current iteration of the unreleased RQG rules that Jason Durall has talked about here: 

There are some small differences with the QuickStart rules.

Edited June 25, 2017 by Paid a bod yn dwp
thought i better explain that I was referring to the latest iteration of the core RGQ rules, not the quick-start

[Dominic]

That actually makes archery imbalance problem even worse.  

A high dex master swordsman must split his attack percentage in order to get multiple attacks, but the high dex archer (master or not) gets multiple attacks for free.   And the free attack is harder to parry, -20%.

if I have 80% sword and high dex, and strike someone with equal defence, I hit in about 16% of rounds (ignoring spl/crit).  But if I fire twice in a round, the first shot hits 16% of the time, the second 32% - so three times better than the swordsman every round.

When the skill level reaches 100%, the archer is five times more deadly the swordsman every round (assume5% funble chance).

Edited June 26, 2017 by Dominic
Typo

[AlbertG]

For the sake of simplicity, I think that melee attacks, ranged attacks, parries and dodges should all follow the same rules. Be it split the % among the number of actions, use the full % or substract 20% for each consecutive action of the same type.

But please, use the same rule for all actions.

Edited June 27, 2017 by AlbertG

[Psullie]

While I'm all for streamlining the architecture by removing redundant mechanics I'm inclined to agree with the differing approach. I think comparing hand-to-hand combat with missilery is akin to comparing apples to oranges 

I feel that in combat, regardless of your fighting style, a significant part of you is planning on how to stay alive. Archery, once you've made the call not to dodge incoming fire, is significantly more attack focused.

I would add the caveat though that archery within an enemies melee reach be treated as melee for the purpose of multiple attacks, and likewise any situation where a combatant can act with impunity gain the benefit of missile style multiple attacks.

[styopa]

36 minutes ago, Psullie said:

While I'm all for streamlining the architecture by removing redundant mechanics I'm inclined to agree with the differing approach. I think comparing hand-to-hand combat with missilery is akin to comparing apples to oranges 

I feel that in combat, regardless of your fighting style, a significant part of you is planning on how to stay alive. Archery, once you've made the call not to dodge incoming fire, is significantly more attack focused.

I would add the caveat though that archery within an enemies melee reach be treated as melee for the purpose of multiple attacks, and likewise any situation where a combatant can act with impunity gain the benefit of missile style multiple attacks.

I was thinking that too.  That was the point of my comment (here? elsewhere?  too many threads to track) with the same mechanical conclusion:

During statement of intent, a toon can declare (or defaults to) standard action: this allows you to either move full, or move half with the usual ability to attack/parry/dodge.

OR, one can declare*

all-out attack: the toon uses the 'rolling SR' system for their attack SR like missiles but may not dodge, parry, or move more than half.

all-out defense: the toon is able to parry and dodge each once in the round at no penalty; subsequent parries or dodges are at -10% (instead of -20%), may move half

all-out move: may move full non-combat speed but may not parry or dodge.

*as all-out attacks could be gamed to be of more use to NPCs who rarely care about living until tomorrow, I'd limit NPC all-out moves to ones with a specific reason - enraged minotaurs, or targets of Berserking spell, or toons that are mindless/care nothing about their own safety Zombies (who are so slow it likely wouldn't matter), skeletons, gorp, etc.

This makes all attacks (missile or melee) use the same mechanism, albeit missile users are (likely) going to always be all-out attacking unless in threat of melee.

It also provides a useful realistic mechanic for the application of effects like Berserking - they don't get BETTER with their weapons nor particularly vulnerable, necessarily, just focused on attacking exclusively.  Maybe they'd also get -1 on their SR to enhance the likelihood that they'd get that 2nd attack.

 

 

[Mugen]

On 18/06/2017 at 4:26 PM, Jason Durall said:

You can attack twice in a round if your skill is 100% or over (before modifiers or augments), and both attacks have to be at 50% or higher. The second attack happens at the SR of the first plus the second.  

Is this also true for dual-weapon wielders ?

If so, is there any good reason to use any other weapon than a shield in your off-hand ?

[DSC1978]

On ‎6‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 2:28 PM, Psullie said:

While I'm all for streamlining the architecture by removing redundant mechanics I'm inclined to agree with the differing approach. I think comparing hand-to-hand combat with missilery is akin to comparing apples to oranges 

I feel that in combat, regardless of your fighting style, a significant part of you is planning on how to stay alive. Archery, once you've made the call not to dodge incoming fire, is significantly more attack focused.

I would add the caveat though that archery within an enemies melee reach be treated as melee for the purpose of multiple attacks, and likewise any situation where a combatant can act with impunity gain the benefit of missile style multiple attacks.

Greetings all,

I registered to this forum just because of this thread.

I disagree with the above statement. Where it is true that archery and hand to hand combat are completely different in real life, I still think that the main purpose of RQ/BRP is not to be a realistic game system, but one which allows realistic results. What I am trying to say here, is that what is important is the fact that the combat ends up being deadly, with severe consequences. It is not simulationist by trying to describe realistically every step of a fight. But I also believe that archery is being grossly misrepresented - if you could shoot twice per round basically at your skill rate, history would have been full of archers. And guess what, it is not the case.

I know for a fact that the main issue I will be facing with my players at one point or another will be a sense of unfairness if using a bow gives an unmatched edge. I saw that in previous versions (last one being the Moon Design one) where it was actually easier just to go for a two hands weapon than anything else in close combat (and no, my players are not into character optimization, but they don't want to see their characters being killed because the system is flawed). And yes, there are ways around that for a GM, but it just show that you end up artificially addressing an issue with the system, instead of allowing normal play.

I think therefore that the rules need to be aligned for both close combat and distance attacks.

There are several ways of doing this:

Archery to follow the same rules as close combat (second attach halved if skill >100%; all articles I have read lead to believe that archers being able to fire multiple times had a certain level of mastery).

Hand to hand combat to be aligned with archery (you just use your full skill for the second attack at a different strike rank; bow has still an edge as you don't need to be engaged and you still have initiative - but this would be quite stupid as it would go against the way BRP has been evolving over the years)

Or something a bit more innovative: second attack at -20% (for both, or archery only? your hand will start shaking because of the effort, depending also on the size of the bow, the distance, wind conditions etc. - more modificators to be taken into account?), huge edge to defenders with a shield big enough (should almost entirely negate the fire power of an archer)... Should you halve the skill only if you attack (whether hand to hand or long range) a different target, and have otherwise just a -X%/extra attack if you carry on the same target?

Where I understand that RQ is not simulationist, I would hate having a flawed system just on the basis of "this is how it was done in 2nd ed/3rd ed/whatever". This is the perfect opportunity with this new version to make of RQ the perfect RPG to be honest, and all the communications I have seen so far are very encouraging and promising. But please fix this, as it doesn't make any sense and seems grossly overpowered for no particular reason (that being said, as I haven't seen the quick start nor the beta version of the rules, I accept that there might be already safeguards in place to address this point; but from the posts of some of the people involved in the new RQ in this thread, I sincerely doubt it).

I am very excited about the new RQ, but at my age, with the little time I have to play, I can honestly say that I won't go and buy a flawed system anymore. I expect to have something working reasonably well without me having to tweak/rewrite some of the rules.

 

[AlbertG]

1 hour ago, DSC1978 said:

Where I understand that RQ is not simulationist, I would hate having a flawed system just on the basis of "this is how it was done in 2nd ed/3rd ed/whatever". This is the perfect opportunity with this new version to make of RQ the perfect RPG to be honest, and all the communications I have seen so far are very encouraging and promising. But please fix this, as it doesn't make any sense and seems grossly overpowered for no particular reason (that being said, as I haven't seen the quick start nor the beta version of the rules, I accept that there might be already safeguards in place to address this point; but from the posts of some of the people involved in the new RQ in this thread, I sincerely doubt it).

I am very excited about the new RQ, but at my age, with the little time I have to play, I can honestly say that I won't go and buy a flawed system anymore. I expect to have something working reasonably well without me having to tweak/rewrite some of the rules.

 

I couldn't agree more that what @DSC1978 said.

Edited June 30, 2017 by AlbertG

[Revilo Divad Of Dyoll]

4 hours ago, DSC1978 said:

 

Where I understand that RQ is not simulationist, I would hate having a flawed system just on the basis of "this is how it was done in 2nd ed/3rd ed/whatever". This is the perfect opportunity with this new version to make of RQ the perfect RPG to be honest, and all the communications I have seen so far are very encouraging and promising. But please fix this, as it doesn't make any sense and seems grossly overpowered for no particular reason (that being said, as I haven't seen the quick start nor the beta version of the rules, I accept that there might be already safeguards in place to address this point; but from the posts of some of the people involved in the new RQ in this thread, I sincerely doubt it).

I am very excited about the new RQ, but at my age, with the little time I have to play, I can honestly say that I won't go and buy a flawed system anymore. I expect to have something working reasonably well without me having to tweak/rewrite some of the rules.

 

Hi!

Just as a comment, I ran an RQ2 campaign for many years (many years ago), and the "imbalance" between number of attacks with missile and melee weapons worked fine in practice. 

On a related note, I always liked the fact that while in AD&D (which we were playing at the same time), the correct response to facing an archer was to charge straight at him because he couldn't possibly fire enough arrows to hurt you, the same did not hold true in Runequest.  (And multimissiles hurt a lot!). 

But to each his own.

Thanks,

David.

[Psullie]

2 hours ago, DSC1978 said:

Greetings all,

I registered to this forum just because of this thread.

 

Welcome on board, more voices the better

Like you I'm a long time player, still have my RQ1 laying about, and keen to see a nice tidy new game

I'd be happy with either view as long as it does what it sets out to do. Games design is a two step job - decide on the point of view, then build the mechanic that reflects that view. With that in mind I did some googling and discovered some interesting facts...

Modern sports bows have a draw weight of 40 - 50 pounds. The English longbow at Agincourt had a 100lb draw weight, some later Chinese bows has draws of 125lb+ Native American bows has a draw of 45lb, the Ancient Egyptian bows also around 40lb. This is impotent as it relates to effort and effectiveness. Given RQ's ancient setting lets zone in on the 40lb, comparable to todays bows. Some interesting info here

Bernard Cornwell in the back of Agincourt suggest 15 aimed shots per minute, other sources range from 6 - 12 (8 was expected by Tudor times) - these remember are 100lb+ bows! 

At the time of Genghis Khan Mamaluk Archers (40lb recurve bow) were able to 'discharge five arrows in two and half seconds' if stationary and at the ready, mounted archers could manage 2 per ten seconds. source

The key difference is purpose, the longbow is a long range support weapon, the recurve bow a close range skirmish weapon. 

As far as I can see RQ models itself after the lighter bows from the ancient world. Short range, fast ROF and low penetration. Hence the 2 shots per round. If RQ was medieval I'd imagine Longbows and their ilk would be limited to 1 per round

I'm only throwing this out there to help frame the 'bow rate of fire' thread. If I'm wrong with my assumptions happy to hear otherwise.

Also I know that this raises the issue then why can't hand-to-hand get multiple attacks as long as they have the SR, I guess that boils down to the point of view of Jeff and Co. and all we can do is offer reasoned suggestions...

cheers

 

 

 

[Yelm's Light]

1 hour ago, Psullie said:

At the time of Genghis Khan Mamaluk Archers (40lb recurve bow) were able to 'discharge five arrows in two and half seconds' if stationary and at the ready, mounted archers could manage 2 per ten seconds. source

I can't access that page, but I have a great deal of trouble buying the former claim.  If you're talking about single-fire five times in 2-1/2 seconds, there's no way in hell anyone could pull it off.  Maybe a one-shot in some kind of 'V' formation.

[DSC1978]

4 hours ago, Psullie said:

Welcome on board, more voices the better

Like you I'm a long time player, still have my RQ1 laying about, and keen to see a nice tidy new game

I'd be happy with either view as long as it does what it sets out to do. Games design is a two step job - decide on the point of view, then build the mechanic that reflects that view. With that in mind I did some googling and discovered some interesting facts...

Modern sports bows have a draw weight of 40 - 50 pounds. The English longbow at Agincourt had a 100lb draw weight, some later Chinese bows has draws of 125lb+ Native American bows has a draw of 45lb, the Ancient Egyptian bows also around 40lb. This is impotent as it relates to effort and effectiveness. Given RQ's ancient setting lets zone in on the 40lb, comparable to todays bows. Some interesting info here

Bernard Cornwell in the back of Agincourt suggest 15 aimed shots per minute, other sources range from 6 - 12 (8 was expected by Tudor times) - these remember are 100lb+ bows! 

At the time of Genghis Khan Mamaluk Archers (40lb recurve bow) were able to 'discharge five arrows in two and half seconds' if stationary and at the ready, mounted archers could manage 2 per ten seconds. source

The key difference is purpose, the longbow is a long range support weapon, the recurve bow a close range skirmish weapon. 

As far as I can see RQ models itself after the lighter bows from the ancient world. Short range, fast ROF and low penetration. Hence the 2 shots per round. If RQ was medieval I'd imagine Longbows and their ilk would be limited to 1 per round

I'm only throwing this out there to help frame the 'bow rate of fire' thread. If I'm wrong with my assumptions happy to hear otherwise.

Also I know that this raises the issue then why can't hand-to-hand get multiple attacks as long as they have the SR, I guess that boils down to the point of view of Jeff and Co. and all we can do is offer reasoned suggestions...

cheers

 

 

 

There again, I hear you, but I think that there is a difference in between firing 2/3 arrows in a round, on a fixed target at 50m, and firing under pressure, in battle, where your life is on the line. 

If bows were that great, they wouldn't have been replaced by crossbow (ok, better penetration results but much slower and burdensome to carry, not even speaking about the price to make them) and later on fire arms (where it was taking forever to reload). 

Bows can be powerful, like every single weapon in the hands of à well trained fighter. But taking the view that multiple fire will be at your skill rate is just not realistic/logical. And I defy anybody to tell me the contrary. 

 

It's a bit like hand to hand combat. In my view, the perfect system should be an opposed test - let me explain myself, let's say we both start a fight, and we are unskilled (i.e. 25%), one of us is bound to hit the other one within a round (unless we are too afraid to try :); but 50% of the time my blow will connect, the other 50%, it will be you ). We might not deal each other a lot of damages, we might not be able of martial prowess, but I guarantee you than one of us will manage to punch/kick the other one. Now, let's say that you are actually a skilled fighter (i.e. 75%) my chances to hit you become very thin - but one of us will anyway end up winning the round (25-75 in this exemple). I think these kind of systems are elegant because they are fast, when dealing with NPC, the player makes most if not all the rolls, which is a bit more amusing and dramatic. 

As I said, I am not interested in a simulationist system, but just something a bit realistic otherwise my players get fairly quickly bored - people might like or dislike a system (number of dices, complexity etc.) but as long as it's logical, they will buy (into) it. 

When it comes to D&D or AD&D, this is why I always had a major issue. The background might be cool, the possibilities unlimited, but why on earth would you die from a single arrow at lvl 1, and be allowed to look like a porcupine still in good shape and fighting form at lvl 10?!? Just doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't appeal to me (please note, personal opinion ; if people like it, then fine).

 

One of the best RPG when it came to that was shadowrun 3 ; it wasn't very scalable at high level, but there was a certain logic (even in the background). RQ has the same potential; yes we have ducks etc. but we also have a rich, well written and logical background (and by logical, I don't mean realistic here, but it makes sense). So not having a set of rules to match such a wonderful universe is just a bit sad (but I haven't seen the rules, so I accept completely that my rant might be without any basis).

We are not in the 70s and 80s. RPG has evolved and there are a lot of avid players out there. RQ has the chance to reestablish itself as a modern reference. I just hope that the team is aware of it, and is not trying to please the old guard with just a few cosmetic changes, but nothing too heavy as we don't want people to be lost. And don't get me wrong, I am not asking for the baby to be thrown with the bath water... there are a lot of original mechanisms you can keep and I think there has been a lot of really good input (especially on the runes).

 

For me it's a bit like watching a movie with massive holes in the scenario... it ruins it for me. 

 

Just my two cents...

[Psullie]

good points

Just a note: To some extent bows were replaced due to heavier armour worn by knights. But the main reasons bows were replaced was because unskilled people are cheaper. It took a lifetime to train a bowman, 30 minutes to train a musketeer, or crossbowman. Even with slower reload etc. a general could simply put more on the battle field.

[DSC1978]

Entirely agree with you there. Was just speaking about the full skill rate for every shot which seems overpowered. But I think I said what I wanted to already. 

Don't get me wrong, it's just because I want this RQ to be the best one ever and flawless. Which is why as the Chaosium team checks this forum I thought I might give my two cents and got registered. 

I am not pretending to be right or representative of the majority of gamers. 

Have a good evening all, the sun is coming down on the old world