RQG- Wish list

[Mikus]

Just got a copy of the RQG-QS rules and I must say I like them.  What I do have hopes for is the following.

Hit locations for missile weapons separate from melee weapons, just as in RQ3.  As any hunter knows you nearly always aim for the vitals in the chest.  I can guarantee you that having only a 1 in 20 chance of striking the chest with a missile weapon weapon, including spears, is just silly.  Thats why RQ3 had separate tables.

Although I love the parry rules which are similar to Stormbringer, where you can parry in any SR in which the parrying object is ready with each cumulative parry at 20%, there is a big issue IMHO.

Morg the Wicked is using his longsword and attacks on SR7.  On CT1, SR3 he is attacked and parries at his full 87%.  On SR5, (approx 2 seconds later), he is attacked again and parries at 87-20 = 67%.  Morg attacks on SR7 and is then attacked again on SR8, (approx 3 seconds after the second parry this CT), and parries at 87-40 = 47%. Now about 4 seconds later on SR12 he is again attacked and parries at 87 -60 = 27%.  Its now CT2 and on SR1, (approx 1 second later!), he is again attacked yet now parries at 87%!!  For some reason in 1 second he regained his wind and starts all over again simply because it is a new CT.

Might I suggest dropping SR and CT and use something we are all quite familiar with. Time.  We have to count CTs and SRs and also calculate when you can strike or act so why not just determine how long an action takes in seconds and start counting from the time you get initiative?  For example, it takes Morg 7 seconds to make an attack with his Longsword.  He is surprised by a Troll and Combat Time begins.  It is second 1 and the Troll gets to act because he surprised Morg. This is an ambush.

Morg rolls a d6 for Initiative and gets a 6.  He begins his turn on S6 which means he cannot attack until, (6+7), S13. If the surprise had been mutual they would have both rolled a d6 and added their Attack Time.  If there was no surprise, such as cussing each other from across the room, no initiative is needed and they both attack on their Attack Time for the weapon being used.

The Troll attacks on S1 but luckily Morg had his longsword ready so he can parry, yet at -20 due to surprise. If the attack had been on or after S6, (his initiative roll), then there would be no -20%.  This makes his current chance 87-20 = 67%.  Each parry temporally reduces Parry by 20.  So after the parry, on second 2, his Parry chance with the longsword is 47%.    Parry recovers at a fixed rate of 5% per second so he will be back up to full parry in 8 seconds, (8x5=40), or second 10. The Troll requires 8 seconds to attack with his club and will get another attack on second 9.  If Morg were to parry that attack he would still be at a -5 to his normal chance.  After the parry on S9 he would once again suffer a reduction of 20 so would be at (87-5 on S9, then -20 for the parry bringing him to 62% on S10.  

This is not that hard, just count up time and note who did what on a particular second...[ S9 - MSP ]..shorthand for Second 9 Morg sword parry 62. 

There are 2 types of actions in general, supplementary actions, which can be used along with a primary action.  Like drawing a dagger while fighting with a sword.  Although drawing the dagger takes time it does not affect time between sword attacks.  Tying a shoe might take 5 seconds, during which time you cannot be counting down for your next sword attack. Tying a shoe is a primary action.

Morg attacks with his Longsword on S13.  He then must wait till S20 for his next attack.  Drawing a dagger takes 2 seconds and will be drawn on S15 but it takes him 5 seconds to use the dagger so it will also be ready for action on S20.  Yet on S17 he realizes that his shoe is untied and drops to tie it.  It takes 5 seconds and is tied on S22.  He gets up and will be ready to attack with the dagger on S27 and the Longsword on S29.

Hackmaster uses a system similar to this and it really is no more difficult that abstract Melee rounds or Strike Ranks and is how people think.  It really is second nature and only requires knowing when you did something and how long it takes to do something you want to do.

These are really the only things on my wish list, and the combat time has been on my wish list since the 80's. I also like damage to location rules better than both RQ2 and RQ3.  Seem a bit more survivable while still being wicked.

 

Edited February 11, 2018 by Mikus

[Yelm's Light]

It may be how people think, but it's not how combat works.  7 seconds would be a ludicrously long time to get off an attack with a longsword, unless you were parrying in between.  Not to mention that all maneuvers with a particular weapon don't take the same amount of time to complete.  Any kind of absolute time frame is bound to run into these issues; hence the SR system, which is relative.

[David Scott]

1 hour ago, Mikus said:

Hit locations for missile weapons separate from melee weapons, just as in RQ3.  As any hunter knows you nearly always aim for the vitals in the chest.  I can guarantee you that having only a 1 in 20 chance of striking the chest with a missile weapon weapon, including spears, is just silly.  Thats why RQ3 had separate tables.

As has been discussed elsewhere, some of us never bothered with that extra bit of complexity of 2 tables in RQ3. I used the aimed shot rules which avoided rolling on the table altogether:

Quote

Aimed Blows 
If a player wishes his adventurer to aim a blow at a particular hit location, he must specify the hit location during statement of intent, then wait until the end of strike rank 10. The player then rolls the attack at half normal skill plus any modifiers. If the attack succeeds at the reduced chance, it hits the desired hit location. This simulates the need to wait for an opening and the chance that no opening will appear. 

 

[g33k]

It's also worth noting that no substantial changes in the rules are likely at this time...  It's REALLY far advanced!

So we can all itemize our wishlists... but we all need to understand that we aren't going to have ANY impact.

The only possible change I can imagine is if one of the playtesters (or the lucky few with one of the GenCon50 Drafts) writes Chaosium revealing something Actually Broken in the rules (there was just such a late revelation in 3rd-Beta in another playtest draft I was involved in; the author/designer had to scramble to produce an all-new subsystem).

 

[Roko Joko]

(never mind)

Edited February 12, 2018 by Roko Joko

[styopa]

Anything in particular that you want to see is going to have to be house-ruled at this point.

If your house rules are overwhelmingly (I mean, more than just this little forum) popular, then you might see them include it in a later edition as something optional.

 

[Mikus]

On 2/11/2018 at 5:35 PM, David Scott said:

As has been discussed elsewhere, some of us never bothered with that extra bit of complexity of 2 tables in RQ3. I used the aimed shot rules which avoided rolling on the table altogether:

 

I have to admit that makes sense.  Most hunters take the time to aim rather than just winging it.

Thanks for the input.

[BWP]

While I'm not committing to anything until I see the final version of the RQG rules, I am at this point planning a whole bevy of house rules for combat.

I'd be surprised if there's any group of "experienced" RQ players (regardless of which edition, or editions, they have that experience with) who won't be doing something similar.

The printed rules form a nice baseline.  They're not the last word on the subject, and every GM will adapt and modify to suit his (and his group's) tastes.

Now, if you regularly play at organised tournaments (or otherwise move between different gaming groups), you probably need to keep a very good grasp of what the "core" rules are vs. whatever your preferred house rules are ... but otherwise, it's your game, do whatever works for you!

 

[styopa]

On 2/11/2018 at 4:35 PM, David Scott said:

As has been discussed elsewhere, some of us never bothered with that extra bit of complexity of 2 tables in RQ3. I used the aimed shot rules which avoided rolling on the table altogether

Yet if you used the melee table (only) that makes a chest shot - the center mass where everyone fundamentally aims - a 5% likelihood, which seems pretty odd. 

I understand the point of using the aimed shot rules, but (imo) using a 2nd hit loc table was far simpler than constantly recalculating the small SIZ hit modifiers for that single location.

[David Scott]

1 hour ago, styopa said:

I understand the point of using the aimed shot rules, but (imo) using a 2nd hit loc table was far simpler than constantly recalculating the small SIZ hit modifiers for that single location.

There’s no SIZ recalculation with an aimed shot, you wait until the strike rank 12, your roll is half your skill plus modifiers, if you succeed you hit the area selected (that’s RQG which I’m currently using but I’m sure RQ3 is virtually the same). Most of my players did it, as why would you waste an arrow on a random shot, but your game experience may vary. 

[styopa]

6 hours ago, David Scott said:

There’s no SIZ recalculation with an aimed shot, you wait until the strike rank 12, your roll is half your skill plus modifiers, if you succeed you hit the area selected (that’s RQG which I’m currently using but I’m sure RQ3 is virtually the same). Most of my players did it, as why would you waste an arrow on a random shot, but your game experience may vary. 

The "halved" chance to hit is only about whether you even got the opportunity to hit the target location.

RQ3 does have target SIZ modifiers which, if you're not using them you're making aimed shots significantly easier.  If you're shooting at a location, it's logically a smaller target.

IIRC it's what, -10% per SIZ below 5?  So an average person SIZ 12 chest would be 2/10ths or SIZ 2.4 (round to 2).  Meaning (IIRC) it would halved skill with a further -20% mod.  Without using it, yes, I imagine it's much more attractive to aimed shot than otherwise.

Funny, my players generally have almost always preferred to hit the target (somewhere) and have a chance of causing some harm, than watch their chance to miss roughly triple (even before you consider the SIZ penalty)?  (Miss chance is about 4x with the SIZ mod included.)

 

[David Scott]

1 hour ago, styopa said:

The "halved" chance to hit is only about whether you even got the opportunity to hit the target location.

It actually says

Quote

This simulates the need to wait for an opening and the chance that no opening will appear.

Quote

RQ3 does have target SIZ modifiers which, if you're not using them you're making aimed shots significantly easier.  If you're shooting at a location, it's logically a smaller target.

IIRC it's what, -10% per SIZ below 5?  So an average person SIZ 12 chest would be 2/10ths or SIZ 2.4 (round to 2).  Meaning (IIRC) it would halved skill with a further -20% mod.  Without using it, yes, I imagine it's much more attractive to aimed shot than otherwise.

Wow, I’ve never seen that before, calculating the aimed area as a fraction of size and applying the size modifier (-10 per size below 4). Does anyone else do this? There’s no implication in the rules that you should be doing this. We always used it for killing swarming beetles and rats. @Jason Durall is this how it would work in RQG? Have I and other GMs I know been doing it wrong ?

[styopa]

30 minutes ago, David Scott said:

It actually says

This simulates the need to wait for an opening and the chance that no opening will appear.

"The "halved" chance to hit is only about whether you even got the opportunity to hit the target location."  ...isn't that pretty much what I said?

30 minutes ago, David Scott said:

 There’s no implication in the rules that you should be doing this. 

How is it not logically implied?

If I'm shooting at a thing SIZ4+ it's an unmodified strike.  If I'm shooting at a thing smaller than SIZ4, it's modified. 

If a person is SIZ 12, then logically their chest (or arm, or whatever) is smaller, with the general rule elsewhere described (IIRC armor section) arms (each), head, and abdomen are 1/10 of SIZ, chest and legs (each) are 2/10 SIZ.

I'm not surprised it didn't jump out at you, but it seems eminently logical that shooting at someone's head (only) is going to be intrinsically harder than shooting at their whole body, no?

 

EDIT: not sure why this is such a big deal - didn't this discussion start with the assertion that the missile-hitloc table isn't worth the effort?  If verisimilitude isn't a primary concern in that respect (at least, not worth the trouble), I'm not sure this niggling rule is that big a loss if missed?

Edited April 6, 2018 by styopa

[BWP]

7 hours ago, David Scott said:

Wow, I’ve never seen that before, calculating the aimed area as a fraction of size and applying the size modifier (-10 per size below 4). Does anyone else do this?

@Jason Durall

(I don't know why I can't delete that tag for Jason Durall in the quote.)

Not any of the groups I've ever played with.  It's always seemed clear to us that SIZ modifiers are a reference to the SIZ of "the target" as a whole, I've never seen anything in the rules that states or even implies that you should apply those modifiers if you're only considering "parts" of a target.

For an aimed shot, halve your chance (and delay to SR10) is the rule-as-written (Book 1, p.50).  Note the errata that specifies you apply all relevant modifiers before the halving.

Regardless, putting the RQ3 missile hit tables back into the rules is probably #1 in my personal list of "house rules that I am contemplating".  Count me amongst those who think that dropping those hit tables is a dopey idea (for all the reasons that have been stated).  Of course, the good news is that re-adding the rule is trivially easy to do.

 

[styopa]

8 hours ago, BWP said:

Not any of the groups I've ever played with.  It's always seemed clear to us that SIZ modifiers are a reference to the SIZ of "the target" as a whole, I've never seen anything in the rules that states or even implies that you should apply those modifiers if you're only considering "parts" of a target.

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to convince anyone; we play the rules the way they make sense to us.  YGMV + (shrug).

But as a point of logic:

....you're saying that shooting the BIRD (let's say SIZ1) should be intrinsically harder than hitting that head (also SIZ 1) assuming both are entirely immobile, etc.?

8 hours ago, BWP said:

  Note the errata that specifies you apply all relevant modifiers before the halving.

Yeah, I simply disagree with that.  We make divisions, etc AND THEN apply situational modifiers.  It doesn't make sense to me that (let's say) you're sneaking up from behind (+20% to hit normally), that benefit is somehow intrinsically less beneficial because you're aiming for something.  Same if I was attacking from prone - normally -20% - I can effectively halve that penalty by aiming for a location?  Nah, seemed too gamey to us.

 

[Mikus]

Although I love the Owl-Head example it also indicates that the original intent of the '1/2% and wait to SR 10' rule was instead of using the SIZ modifier rule.  Otherwise you could shoot the owl at say SR5 with C% while you would have to shoot at the head on SR10 with 0.5 x C%.  Than makes no logical sense either.  The SIZ modifier intent was obviously a way of adjusting the % based upon size alone. The halving rule was a simplified version and waiting till SR 10 was becaus although the entire individual might be targeted at any time in a random it what may fashion, getting an opportunity to hit only the left arm might never happen.  I would think a more logical approach, although a bit more crunchy, would be to enforce the SR10 but use the SIZ of the area targeted rather than 1/2 the normal %.   Think about targeting the eye from 10' with a squirt from a mustard bottle verses just hosing him down willy nilly. 

[Runeblogger]

I always thought halving the skill to attempt something difficult made no sense.

If an archer with 40% in his skill with the bow wants to hit someone on the head, he will have 20%, that means a 20% reduction in his skill.
Meanwhile, a master archer with 90% will suffer a reduction of 45%. So, the more skilled you are, the bigger the difficulty! Isn't it a bit unfair for the master? (even if he has higher chances)

I always liked better straight penalizers. For example, say -50% for hitting the head. The master archer has then 40% and the beginning archer relies on pure luck.

[Atgxtg]

I disagree, not all penalties should be linear. I think it's completely fair that penalties are a faction of the skill score. as it penalized everyone proportionally. I think it would be nice to do that for all penalties, but it isn't feasible. Otherwise you end up with silly situations like master archers setting up fights in pitch black conditions, since the 75% penalty in the RAW hurts them less that in does most everyone else.

 

Realistically every attack should be targeted towards a specific location, and the skill roll determines just how far off the mark someone is. That's why most missile weapons are targeted towards the chest (biggest target area and best chance of getting a hit, even if the shot if off the mark by a few inches) and why most melee attacks tend to go after limbs (arms are in the way, and legs are harder to defend). 

[Mikus]

33 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

 That's why most missile weapons are targeted towards the chest (biggest target area and best chance of getting a hit, even if the shot if off the mark by a few inches) and why most melee attacks tend to go after limbs (arms are in the way, and legs are harder to defend). 

Back to my original issue with dropping the two tables.  Seems more of an ease of use than a realism choice.  For RQ I'm not sure that is the way to go.  If I want ease of use I could do something else.  That opens the 'why %d vs d20' which was valid in RQ2 where everything was in 5% chunks.  I think I also like fraction of skill vs linear.  For example: Darkness Spell causes a See Skill to be reduced to 1/10th.  Master with 107 has a 11% chance and Noob with 28% has a 3%.  This verses a -90 where Master is 17% and Noob is -70.   As long as the fraction is a 1/x type it is easy.  Just divide the skill by x and round to the nearest whole number.  I think Mythras does this but I wont say for sure.

[Mikus]

It's nice bantering these ideas around like this. It gives me a chance to think about long cherished beliefs, why I hold them, and if they make any sense.  Sometimes change is not so good but resisting change for the better because it is uncomfortable is not so good either.  When I first saw MRQII was was appalled at what they had done to RQ3.  After time I warmed up to the 'skills without category' and who knows, perhaps I could even come to appreciate the dropping of the resistance table. Yet for now I still think it better than one or two skills to cover the same ground.  Although it did not always scale so well I think it worked well and was an elegant way to handle nearly any situation.

[BWP]

9 hours ago, styopa said:

Just to be clear, I'm not trying to convince anyone; we play the rules the way they make sense to us.  YGMV + (shrug).

But as a point of logic:

....you're saying that shooting the BIRD (let's say SIZ1) should be intrinsically harder than hitting that head (also SIZ 1) assuming both are entirely immobile, etc.?

Yeah, I simply disagree with that.  We make divisions, etc AND THEN apply situational modifiers.  It doesn't make sense to me that (let's say) you're sneaking up from behind (+20% to hit normally), that benefit is somehow intrinsically less beneficial because you're aiming for something.  Same if I was attacking from prone - normally -20% - I can effectively halve that penalty by aiming for a location?  Nah, seemed too gamey to us.

 

I never said anything about should.  I'm simply saying what the rules are.  Your Game Will Vary.  No problem with that ... but if you turned up to play a tournament game and expected the GM to use the same rules that you've been using, you might have an argument on your hands.

For my part, I particularly dislike the "halve your chance and hit anywhere you want" rule.  I'd prefer a (admittedly, more complex!) rule where you roll the hit location as normal, but get to adjust the location based on how much percentage you sacrificed for the attack (or something like that ... I don't have the specifics of what I wrote up conveniently to hand).

 

[styopa]

Fwiw my understanding of the "halving" for a called shot is that is solely about situation/opportunity: I think it's explicitly mentioned in the rules that it's about "if you get a clear shot at the location during the round"...nothing else.  Iirc the same modifier applies firing into melee, for the same reason.*

*honestly without my rules in front of me in long past remembering what's a 20+ year house rule vs RAW

Otoh If the target was unaware/unmoving, in my sense there would be neither delay nor halving for a called shot, only the size modifier...which is why 'assassination' style shots are so often lethal.

[Atgxtg]

I think there is some variation between different versions of the rules, too. IMO none of the called shot rules are all that great. 

Halving skill doesn't factor in for the SIZ of the location being targeted (targeting the chest should be easier than an arm), and waiting 'till the end of the round is probably a bit too severe. 

Bumping hit locations by delaying Strike Ranks seems a bit better, but makes it all about speed and not about skill. 

 

I'd like to see something better, as long as it isn't too complicated (and that's very subjective). One of my favorite variants is to pick the location targeted, roll 2d20 for hit locations, and go with the one closest to the area aimed at. I suppose that could be adapted so that taking a penalty could grant another d20 to roll for hit location. 

 

[styopa]

8 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

One of my favorite variants is to pick the location targeted, roll 2d20 for hit locations, and go with the one closest to the area aimed at. 

ie in D&D terms "roll hit location with advantage"? 

 I kid, I kid.

[Atgxtg]

14 hours ago, styopa said:

ie in D&D terms "roll hit location with advantage"? 

 I kid, I kid.

Nah, that's roll 4 dice for hit locations  and drop the lowest.