QuickStart 2 attacks in one round?

[Psullie]

5 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

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.

Hi Yelm's Light - For your reference this quote is from: Genghis Khan and the Mongol War Machine By Chris Peers

[styopa]

3 hours ago, Psullie said:

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.

Which would imply that the base skill disparity of 05% vs 20% is not nearly enough, and that skill GAIN rates also would vary by weapon.  It certainly doesn't take a lifetime to be an ass-kickingly awesome archer in RQ. (Or any system, which is why there is little to no real choice between bows and crossbows in most games. 

[Mugen]

11 hours ago, DSC1978 said:

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.  

I agree. This is how Pendragon handles combat, and it always worked fine to me.

One of the biggest flaw of traditional BRP combat is when 2 opponents have good combat skills and they go into an endless "I attack, you parry, you attack, I parry" exchange.

11 hours ago, DSC1978 said:

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).

Well, you'll find evolutions in various parts of the game (Runic Magic, Runic Affinities, Passions), but combat is clearly an updated version of RQ3, with large bits from RQ2.

[Psullie]

8 hours ago, styopa said:

Which would imply that the base skill disparity of 05% vs 20% is not nearly enough, and that skill GAIN rates also would vary by weapon.  It certainly doesn't take a lifetime to be an ass-kickingly awesome archer in RQ. (Or any system, which is why there is little to no real choice between bows and crossbows in most games. 

I think this raises the whole issue of cultural weapons etc. By Tudor England all Yeomen were required to attend regular archery from the age of 12 or so. In the tower of London Henry V's (IIRC) armour is on display, he was very very broad shouldered due to many years, since childhood, swinging broadswords, axes etc. 

If your character comes from a culture of archers, then sure. But if not then buying NEW skills should be very costly. I think think this would also reinforce cultural bias towards certain equipment and why even when better technology comes along they are slow to adapt (Samurai during the shogunate, French Gendarmes during the Wars of Religion etc.)

[g33k]

On 6/30/2017 at 0:57 PM, DSC1978 said:

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).  

Devastating multi-volley bow-fire is specifically NOT when your life is on the line, when you are under imminent threat -- it is at range, when you don't have to worry about the melee weapons on the other side.

Also:  the famous "English" longbow of Agincourt & Crecy was VERY much a weapon demanding both high skill and a powerful & specially-conditioned body.  The crossbow gained primacy not as a superior weapon, but as a better tool of war:  you could turn hundreds of ordinary guys into reasonably-competent crossbowmen with just a week or two of training; the lowbow took YEARS.

 

[styopa]

5 hours ago, g33k said:

Devastating multi-volley bow-fire is specifically NOT when your life is on the line, when you are under imminent threat -- it is at range, when you don't have to worry about the melee weapons on the other side.

BUT...I would point out this is a fantasy game.  

There are *many* circumstances where you're fighting things in melee that ALSO are utterly unconcerned about your melee attacks.  Mindless undead, golems, berserkers, or even players who believe they have sufficient armor/magical protection to utterly disregard the attacks of their opponents: why do we 'assume' they they're ducking and dodging (and penalize them therefore like all melee combatants) when they wouldn't be?

 

[DreadDomain]

On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 0:26 AM, 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.  

So far my biggest (only) turn off in the quick start is how SR are managed when engaged in melee. I don't like that once you attack, this is what you do for the rest of the turn (aka it represents a series of blow) but if you are at range every single shot is played out (much better). I also don't like that you need a skill over 100% to "attack twice"... Wait, is an attack a serie of blows or not? If it is, how can I have two series of blow with only one weapon against the same opponent going at the same time (for the rest of the turn?. If it is not a serie of blow, how come I am limited to one blow per 12 seconds (unless I split my skill)?

Honestly, I believe how SR is used when unengaged, is already an excellent pacing mechanism. Melee is already different from range by the nature of how SR is calculated.

As written, melee is anything but visceral. It feels artificial and gamey.

So far everything else looks fantastic though.

[boztakang]

On 7/14/2017 at 1:21 PM, DreadDomain said:

 I also don't like that you need a skill over 100% to "attack twice"... Wait, is an attack a serie of blows or not? If it is, how can I have two series of blow with only one weapon against the same opponent going at the same time (for the rest of the turn?. If it is not a serie of blow, how come I am limited to one blow per 12 seconds (unless I split my skill)?

High skill allows you to make 2 blows out of the series "count".  The abstraction is that a normal fighter is only going to get one "good opening" to attack per round. A weapon master is skilled enough to spot additional chances that someone less skilled may not.

In a fight, a novice might swing their sword 20 times in a round to the master's 2, but the master will make those two swings count, while the novice is unlikely to connect at all (gets one "attack" at low percentage)

You could even imagine the 3 attacks of a master with 150% or better skill as a single sweeping blow that takes out multiple locations - cause she's just that good. 

[styopa]

On 7/20/2017 at 1:59 PM, boztakang said:

High skill allows you to make 2 blows out of the series "count".  The abstraction is that a normal fighter is only going to get one "good opening" to attack per round. A weapon master is skilled enough to spot additional chances that someone less skilled may not.

In a fight, a novice might swing their sword 20 times in a round to the master's 2, but the master will make those two swings count, while the novice is unlikely to connect at all (gets one "attack" at low percentage)

You could even imagine the 3 attacks of a master with 150% or better skill as a single sweeping blow that takes out multiple locations - cause she's just that good. 

That rationalization worked with D&D's 1 minute combat rounds, where the collection of attacks, parries, dodges, trivial hits, etc was all rationalized into an "attack" roll against an "armor class".  

It is less persuasive in a simulationist system with 12 second rounds where we're precisely rolling to check our success for individual missile shots, individual dodges, individual spell castings, individual parries, hell even individual blows against the specific amount of armor covering individual limbs...but somehow the attack roll (alone) is *actually* only the single effective blow out of many feints and strikes that come to naught?    

I concede, it might be slightly more credible if RQG was going with the 'defense' ability, but that conceptually has a host of worms if that particular can is opened.

[boztakang]

2 hours ago, styopa said:

It is less persuasive in a simulationist system with 12 second rounds where we're precisely rolling to check our success for individual missile shots, individual dodges, individual spell castings, individual parries, hell even individual blows against the specific amount of armor covering individual limbs...but somehow the attack roll (alone) is *actually* only the single effective blow out of many feints and strikes that come to naught?    

come now, I can personally swing a sword 20+ times in 12 seconds... the "one" parry is the one that matters, just like the "one" attack is the one that matters. Spells take some time, so we don't have to compress that, but we do abstract a lot of chanting, calling names, and adjustment of mental state into a single "spell" roll. 

Yeah, realistically, sometimes 3 or four melee rounds will pass in a second or two, while in other cases, opponents will spend a minute or more waiting for a chance to take a telling blow. RQ abstracts that down to a relatively reasonable 12 seconds per meaningful exchange.

I'm afraid I really just don't understand your objection here...  

[DSC1978]

On 20/07/2017 at 7:59 PM, boztakang said:

 A weapon master is skilled enough to spot additional chances that someone less skilled may not.[...]

the master will make those two swings count, while the novice is unlikely to connect at all (gets one "attack" at low percentage)

You could even imagine the 3 attacks of a master with 150% or better skill as a single sweeping blow that takes out multiple locations - cause she's just that good. 

I am still wondering whether a master at 50% is still a master as he will actually struggle to hit... 

Not sure where we were on that, but did we say that multiple parries would be allowed at -20%? This would mean that Bob the master swordman (120%) attacks Zac who is a  better than average fighter (60%). Are we saying that a master swordman will do 60 vs 60 on thr first attack and the. 60 vs 40? seems broken to me here.

Especially if the starting characters are in 75% + in their combat skill as it seems to be the case in the quick start - your master will be able to do two attacks but he'll never hit if he doesnt't have a score above 150% (plus the fact that I have always been  bothered by skills above 100% ; I think it doesn't make any sense).

[d(sqrt(-1))]

A minor point but in RQ2 if you split your attack the separate attacks had to be vs different targets (p23 Splitting Attacks)

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

38 minutes ago, d(sqrt(-1)) said:

 

A minor point but in RQ2 if you split your attack the separate attacks had to be vs different targets (p23 Splitting Attacks)

 

Good point. I hope in RQG that spilt attacks will have the same flexibility as parry and dodge in the new rules, in that it can be used against same or different opponent. 

[d(sqrt(-1))]

Yes I had a quick look but the QS doesn't seem to mention split attacks.

[boztakang]

7 hours ago, DSC1978 said:

I am still wondering whether a master at 50% is still a master as he will actually struggle to hit... 

Not sure where we were on that, but did we say that multiple parries would be allowed at -20%? This would mean that Bob the master swordman (120%) attacks Zac who is a  better than average fighter (60%). Are we saying that a master swordman will do 60 vs 60 on thr first attack and the. 60 vs 40? seems broken to me here.

The char with skill over 100% does not HAVE to split their attack. It is just an option. So, the master here could attack once at full 120% v 60%, -20% to both for the skill over 100, giving a single attack of 100% v 40% with 6% to crit, 30%special, OR they could choose to make the two attacks as you describe. They could also make the attacks 70v60, 50v40 or 50v60, 70v40 or anywhere between.

[soltakss]

7 hours ago, d(sqrt(-1)) said:

A minor point but in RQ2 if you split your attack the separate attacks had to be vs different targets (p23 Splitting Attacks)

We houseruled this to allow multiple attacks against the same person - A high skill should mean that a master should have the advantage over a less-skilled person.

[styopa]

On 7/22/2017 at 3:26 AM, d(sqrt(-1)) said:

A minor point but in RQ2 if you split your attack the separate attacks had to be vs different targets (p23 Splitting Attacks)

May be RAW but I don't know anyone that used that...

[d(sqrt(-1))]

We did. Nothing wrong with a houserule though.

I suspect that if you have 100+ skill you may be better off using the full skill to land a blow rather than splitting it, unless you are in the 200%+ range

[DSC1978]

Thanks. My point exactly. I rest my case. 

[Mugen]

On 22/07/2017 at 9:21 AM, DSC1978 said:

Plus the fact that I have always been  bothered by skills above 100% ; I think it doesn't make any sense).

I think it does :Truly, a 1-100 scale on a d100 would not be enough to put my Tennis skill (which is very low) and Roger Federer's :D.

[g33k]

12 hours ago, d(sqrt(-1)) said:

I suspect that if you have 100+ skill you may be better off using the full skill to land a blow rather than splitting it, unless you are in the 200%+ range

Statistically, two 50% blows average the same damage as one 100% blow -- half the time, one blow lands, while 2 blows -- or no blows -- land 1/4 of the time each.  So it's kind of a high-risk / high-gain move -- taking the chance to Win Big with 2 blows, accepting the risk of Losing Big in landing no blows at all; as you go beyond 100% and each blow goes beyond 50%, the two-blows option begins to look better.  This simplistic analysis of course doesn't take into account crit/fumbles, the other guy's parry-chances, etc.

[g33k]

For the record, I too agree that the RAW should permit same-target or different-target on split attacks...

[DreadDomain]

On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 4:59 AM, boztakang said:

High skill allows you to make 2 blows out of the series "count".  The abstraction is that a normal fighter is only going to get one "good opening" to attack per round. A weapon master is skilled enough to spot additional chances that someone less skilled may not.

In a fight, a novice might swing their sword 20 times in a round to the master's 2, but the master will make those two swings count, while the novice is unlikely to connect at all (gets one "attack" at low percentage)

You could even imagine the 3 attacks of a master with 150% or better skill as a single sweeping blow that takes out multiple locations - cause she's just that good. 

I appreciate the attempt to rationalize the rules, I really do. To be honest, I'd love to buy into it because I'd love RQG to knock my sock off from cover to cover. In the end though, that explanation doesn't really work when placed side by side with how range combat works and certainly doesn't feel "visceral" as described by Jeff in a design note (I believe).

To top it all, managing SR and attacks differently while in or out of mêlée is simply a extra layer of complexity that frankly doesn't bring any benefit IMHO.

Edited August 14, 2017 by DreadDomain

[Zit]

BTW, the Quick start says "When attacking with a shield, the attacker gives up all chance
of parrying that round with the shield." It logically means that if I parry, I cannot attack anymore. But the quick rules say nothing like this for other weapons

So does this work for all the melee weapons ?

This how I always played, but after 40 years, this is still not clearly stated in the rules (or I missed it or it will be in the full rules) and many are still debating this. I'd like the authors to at last definitely and for once clarify this point.

Edited August 24, 2017 by Zit

[Yelm's Light]

11 hours ago, Zit said:

BTW, the Quick start says "When attacking with a shield, the attacker gives up all chance
of parrying that round with the shield." It logically means that if I parry, I cannot attack anymore. But the quick rules say nothing like this for other weapons

So does this work for all the melee weapons ?

This how I always played, but after 40 years, this is still not clearly stated in the rules (or I missed it or it will be in the full rules) and many are still debating this. I'd like the authors to at last definitely and for once clarify this point.

I have one word for you.  Riposte.