Multiple Actions in new SR system

[Tywyll]

I was recently reading BRP's new take on the old RQ SR system.

I noticed on page 201, in the section on multiple actions, it says that you gain multiple actions based on having a SR of 5 or less. It then goes on to say that this system isn't compatible with splitting attacks with 100% skill or greater.

So, as I read it, if you get multiple attacks thanks to speed in the SR system, you get to make them at your full value every time. Is that correct?

What method of parry/dodge works with it? I assume the progressive -30% method, but I'm not sure.

[Harshax]

I was recently reading BRP's new take on the old RQ SR system.

I noticed on page 201, in the section on multiple actions, it says that you gain multiple actions based on having a SR of 5 or less. It then goes on to say that this system isn't compatible with splitting attacks with 100% skill or greater.

So, as I read it, if you get multiple attacks thanks to speed in the SR system, you get to make them at your full value every time. Is that correct?

What method of parry/dodge works with it? I assume the progressive -30% method, but I'm not sure.

Assuming the SR system is quoted from RQ, then no, you don't attack at full value. You split your attack skill in half for both the first and second attack. Additionally, this can only be accomplished if you have a skill over 100%. The limit in RQ was two attacks. As for parries, I believe you could parry once, and dodge once if you did not attack.

The Stormbringer variant did not have a SR prerequisite. You could make as many attacks as you wanted if a) your skill was above 100% and you could place at least 50% of your effort into the attack. These attacks happened in increments of 5 DEX ranks after your first attack.

[RMS]

Assuming the SR system is quoted from RQ, then no, you don't attack at full value. You split your attack skill in half for both the first and second attack. Additionally, this can only be accomplished if you have a skill over 100%. The limit in RQ was two attacks. As for parries, I believe you could parry once, and dodge once if you did not attack.

It's not a direct quote and I read it the same way as the OP. I don't know if that's what was meant, but I don't like the idea of getting two attacks per round just for having a low SR...especially since so much of SR is determined by weapon length which is generally not conducive to a weapon being fast. I like the tactical option of choosing to split an attack when skill is high enough. (Though I'm seriously thinking about just going with the DEX system from default BRP, which is pretty much identical to the Elric! system.)

[NickMiddleton]

It's not a direct quote and I read it the same way as the OP. I don't know if that's what was meant, but I don't like the idea of getting two attacks per round just for having a low SR...especially since so much of SR is determined by weapon length which is generally not conducive to a weapon being fast.

And yet in RQI/-/III, missile weapons got to launch as many attacks as their sheer speed allowed...

The question is what was the rule in RQIII for a SIZ 18 and DEX 18 man with a Pike? He strikes at SR 2 in RQII: +5SR for second action, +2SR for the next strike and that's SR9 (well within the 12 SR of the RQII round. In the RQIII the first strike is at SR3, and the second at SR9 +3SR for second action, +3 for strike): still within the round of 10 SR.

Since second (or third) shots with bows weren't penalised (possibly we got that bit wrong), we always ruled that if you had the speed and reach to get a second attack, you did so at full skill - but by doing so you were sacrificing your other action in the round (the Parry or Dodge), as you do when wielding two weapons.

I like the tactical option of choosing to split an attack when skill is high enough. (Though I'm seriously thinking about just going with the DEX system from default BRP, which is pretty much identical to the Elric! system.)

For free flowing combat, it is hard to beat the Elric! DEX rank system - it imposes just enough order on the chaos of hand to hand melee that it becomes comprehensible without bogging down in excess detail. I dearly love RQ's Strike Rank system, but they can be a bit fiddly.

Cheers,

Nick

[RMS]

And yet in RQI/-/III, missile weapons got to launch as many attacks as their sheer speed allowed...

Yeah, I'm aware of the discrepancy. The real problem is that each shot from a missile weapon is considered a single shot, while each roll for an attack (and defense) is considered to consist of a series of movements, feints, attacks, etc. That's why splitting attack skills is only allowed against multiple opponents.

The question is what was the rule in RQIII for a SIZ 18 and DEX 18 man with a Pike? He strikes at SR 2 in RQII: +5SR for second action, +2SR for the next strike and that's SR9 (well within the 12 SR of the RQII round. In the RQIII the first strike is at SR3, and the second at SR9 +3SR for second action, +3 for strike): still within the round of 10 SR.

I don't recall all the SR's in RQ3, but I know that anyone with sufficiently high DEX could strike a second time when skill level was high enough. My books are still packed from my summer move so I can't look it up, so maybe it was a houserule. I do know that I always allowed the 2nd attack on SR10 regardless of whether an earlier attack was made. It fit the spirit, if not the letter, of the rules IMO.

Since second (or third) shots with bows weren't penalised (possibly we got that bit wrong), we always ruled that if you had the speed and reach to get a second attack, you did so at full skill - but by doing so you were sacrificing your other action in the round (the Parry or Dodge), as you do when wielding two weapons.

I don't think you technically had to sacrifice anything to do that, but I also don't recall anyone trying to use missiles while being hacked at with weapons... In addition to what you mention, you could also attack the same person twice at full power.

After years of running Orlanthi sorts of characters where missile weapons were there mainly to soften up targets before pulling out swords, we started a game with primitive Balazaring hunters a few years back. We were initially amazed at how powerful these characters were with their reliance on missile weapons and a total lack of armor. We'd hit-n-run on Lunar soldiers and either just whittle them down in a running skirmish (where knowledge of the land and speed were completely to our advantage) if they left their fortresses, and leave a trail of corpses behind. When they came out in strength we'd disappear into the Elder Wilds for a season or two, or double back on their supply line, etc. It was very interesting, and a lot of fun.

For free flowing combat, it is hard to beat the Elric! DEX rank system - it imposes just enough order on the chaos of hand to hand melee that it becomes comprehensible without bogging down in excess detail. I dearly love RQ's Strike Rank system, but they can be a bit fiddly.

I've always tended to run SR's pretty freeflow anyway, only using them to determine who goes first when melee is going. If I just go off of DEX rank, but then use a common sense approach to who goes first based on weapon reach (and SIZ if appropriate) then it works out to basically be the same thing.

I do notice that with the ability to use Dodge and Parry over-n-over, Elric! combat tended to drag out longer than old school RQ combat. A favorite tactic in RQ was always to gang attacks so one defender would take attacks that they couldn't actively defend, thus taking opponents out fairly quickly. That doesn't work out in Elric! the same.

[deleriad]

I had thought but could have it wrong that in RQ3 you had to have both the SRs and the skill in order to make multiple melee attacks in the same round. Thus if you had 120% skill in 1h sword and attacked on SR 5 then you could make two attacks; one on 5 and one on 8. (We had tried the house rule about using your DEX SR as the gap between actions rather than the flat 3 but it did seem to make DEX SR rather overimportant.)

This did make multiple attacks a round quite difficult. I *think* we may have ruled that skill enhancers like Bladesharp and situational modifiers added on after the halving though which made them rather tasty. If you had 120% greatsword with Bladesharp 4 and high ground advantage then suddenly you were a mowing machine.

[RMS]

I had thought but could have it wrong that in RQ3 you had to have both the SRs and the skill in order to make multiple melee attacks in the same round. Thus if you had 120% skill in 1h sword and attacked on SR 5 then you could make two attacks; one on 5 and one on 8. (We had tried the house rule about using your DEX SR as the gap between actions rather than the flat 3 but it did seem to make DEX SR rather overimportant.)

If it's only the 3 SR between, then practically everyone can get two attacks within the rules, since an average person with a typical 1 handed weapon attacks on SR7, so would get a second attack at SR10. I just houseruled the SR10 part because most weapons having a SR8 are short weapons, like knives, and those should be easier to get two attacks with rather than harder than a big heavy weapon.

As I recall most of the warrior specialists had no problem getting to 3 attacks per round once the actual skill was high enough...which isn't too difficult with gifts and magic.

This did make multiple attacks a round quite difficult. I *think* we may have ruled that skill enhancers like Bladesharp and situational modifiers added on after the halving though which made them rather tasty. If you had 120% greatsword with Bladesharp 4 and high ground advantage then suddenly you were a mowing machine.

I always let Bladesharp add on before, which meant it could add to your ability to actually get two attacks by boosting you over 100%, but then you didn't get the bonus multiple times per round. Your way would make it nastier for someone with a skill already high enough to split, but wouldn't allow the spell to push you there, and getting to the ability to split is a big deal. A pair of good warriors with 2 attacks each can mow through a competent group of 3-4 NPCs just short of that ability since they are always setting each other up for a free attack.

[RosenMcStern]

I had thought but could have it wrong that in RQ3 you had to have both the SRs and the skill in order to make multiple melee attacks in the same round.

No, you are perfectly right. This was the rule: you needed both the skill and a SR of 7 or lower. BRP requires 100%+ skill and a DEX of 6 or higher (not uncommon).

The part about being able to attack twice if you have SR 5- is the only rule I consider really broken in BRP. A man with a pike is not faster than a man with a knife: deadlier yes, faster no.

[NickMiddleton]

I had thought but could have it wrong that in RQ3 you had to have both the SRs and the skill in order to make multiple melee attacks in the same round.

Or two weapons - in which case you sacrifice the ability to Dodge and can attack or parry with either weapon. You can't use both Parry's against the same attack, and if you attack twice your second attack comes at 3SR after the first. But a charcater with less than a 100% skill can attack twice in a round by this method - which is why I'd allow a character with the SR to strike a second time in the round using the same rules.

Thus if you had 120% skill in 1h sword and attacked on SR 5 then you could make two attacks; one on 5 and one on 8. (We had tried the house rule about using your DEX SR as the gap between actions rather than the flat 3 but it did seem to make DEX SR rather overimportant.)

And, unlike the less than 100% skill two weapon case, you STILL got to PArry or Dodge as well...

Cheers,

Nick

Edited October 1, 2008 by NickMiddleton
typo...

[Tywyll]

But, as written, it seems to imply that you can get up to 5 attacks if your SR is low enough.

Was this meant to be at full percent? It seems so.

[NickMiddleton]

But, as written, it seems to imply that you can get up to 5 attacks if your SR is low enough.

Which is a clear variation from how Strike Rank worked in RQII/III and Elfquest. I'd reinstate the minimum SR separation of 3SR between combat actions, and the "two actions in a round unless you have the skill to split oe action" we've already alluded to - so with a skill of less than a 100% you could take the second attack, but only at the expense of being able to Parry or Dodge that round.

Was this meant to be at full percent? It seems so.

Per my earlier comment, it being full skill doesn't bother me iff it's at the expense of the other "action" the character gets in a round.

Cheers,

Nick

[Shaira]

Hi all,

Here's my take on the BRP SR thing:

• Dodges and Parries are unaffected by Strike Rank - you can do them normally, use the -30% rule, they don't cost SRs to do, etc (BRP p202)
  
• HOWEVER, you can only do one Dodge or Parry per SR; if 2 opponents attack you on the same SR, you can only defend (either Dodge or Parry) against one of them (BRP p202)
  
• SIZ SR modifier only affects melee weapons (BRP p202)
  
• Missile Weapons have a Weapon SR of 0, *and* a Rate Of Fire. The assumption is that ROF refers to the optional "RF" column in the weapons tables (p257), *not* the "Attk" column, as the former is specifically for SR use.
  
• MULTIPLE ATTACKS: If your SR with an attack is 5 or less, you can make multiple attacks (SR 5 goes on SRs 5 and 10, SR 3 goes on 3, 6, 9, etc). Note that this replaces two standard BRP rules: the splitting atts over 100% rule, and the Weapon "Attk" rule. Note that the assumption is that every additional attack is at full percentage; no divides.
  
• MULTIPLE ATTACKS W. MISSILE WEAPONS: The RF column writeup on p257 gives an example of figuring multiple missile weapon attacks, and clearly shows you add in a +3 SR mod for notching another arrow. So, if your Longbow SR is 2, you can attack once at SR 2, then add +3 for notching another arrow, and +2 for adding your DEX SR again, to attack for a second time at SR7.
  

IMHO the above rules are consistent and clear (although requiring some careful reading !) but *different* from RQ2/3, which is fine. The only thing missing for me is the 100%+ multiple attack rule, which I like. I'm currently adding it back in as an optional rule, as follows:

OPTIONAL RULE: SPLITTING 100%+ ATTACKS IN THE STRIKE RANK SYSTEM

If your attack with a weapon is 100%+, you can make multiple attacks by dividing your attack chance into equal parts, as long as no single part is below 50%. So, attack chance 110% gives you 2 attacks at 55%, 180% gives you 3 attacks at 60%, etc. The following condition applies:

- Each attack must be against a different target.

- All attacks take place at the same SR.

Note that if you *already* get multiple attacks due to low SR, you don't need this rule: for example, a Lance attack at SR5 can attack again at SR10 *at the full percentage* - there is no need to divide, and the same target may be attacked. This optional rule only applies to attacks with an SR greater than 5.

So there you go. Not perfect, but workable. Incidentally, the decision that all 100%+ split attacks occur at the same SR derives from the fact that SRs *do not* refer to a second-by-second action countdown - I find it's always worth reminding myself of that!

I've been playing the above SR rules in my campaign for the past few months and have found no problems - in actual play it feels basically the same as RQ3, with a minor variation around the Dodge and Parry rules. Ganging up on foes is now extremely important - whittling down those defenses, attacking on the same SR, etc. One thing I'm toying with is whether or not you can actually *delay* your SR to be able to double-up with someone slower on their SR, to more effectively bypass a target's defenses. I'm currently saying no: my rationale is that your SR is all bound up with your overall combat performance, skill levels (including Dodges and Parries, etc), and that *deliberately* slowing down is tantamount to deliberately choosing to react more slowly, etc, and has all kind of side-effects. We'll see.

Cheers!

Sarah

[RosenMcStern]

[*]MULTIPLE ATTACKS: If your SR with an attack is 5 or less, you can make multiple attacks (SR 5 goes on SRs 5 and 10, SR 3 goes on 3, 6, 9, etc). Note that this replaces two standard BRP rules: the splitting atts over 100% rule, and the Weapon "Attk" rule. Note that the assumption is that every additional attack is at full percentage; no divides.

This is exactly the rule as explained in the book. However, this is also sorely wrong, as it lets a fighter who is bigger and has a longer weapon (clumsy SIZ 20 DEX 9 troll with maul SR 5) attack at double the rate allowed to a smaller but faster character (incredibly fast halfling SIZ 8 DEX 20 with shortsword SR 6). It totally contradicts the philosophy behind Strike Ranks, and I think it should never be used.

[deleriad]

But, as written, it seems to imply that you can get up to 5 attacks if your SR is low enough.

Was this meant to be at full percent? It seems so.

As written, yes. Finally had a chance to read the rules and they are crystal clear.

SRs are incompatible with skill splitting for multiple attacks.

You can attack a number of times per round based on your SR. So for example, if your SR with a melee weapon is 3 then you can attack on SRs 3, 6 and 9. In the extreme case, a SIZ 21, DEX 21 person with a Pike can attack 10 times per round (once each SR).

I must admit that I would never actually use this system as written as I think it misses the point of SRs - as RQ3 occasionally does. Basically, SRs should simply tell you when things happen not, on the whole, how often things happen.

[Nightshade]

I have to agree that the multiple-attacks rule as written is both imbalanced and illogical; as someone said, missile weapons live their own little life (because frankly, the process of using them is not the same as for melee weapons) but having the giant with the maul get the most attacks is, bluntly, ridiculous.

[Tywyll]

I do definitely agree with RQ4 that your melee rank should be based on a total of Siz and Dex, rather than using them individually to determine their benefit.

However, I also think that large characters can get the advantage on faster ones, simply because they have such a longer reach and can land a hit before the small guy gets there.

[Nightshade]

However, I also think that large characters can get the advantage on faster ones, simply because they have such a longer reach and can land a hit before the small guy gets there.

Sure; but the rule at hand doesn't only do that, it controls how _often_ they can hit.

[Verderer]

I am trying to get my head around strike ranks, and I can't help feeling that this system is somewaht broken: as has been pointed out, the bigger/longer your weapon is, the more often you tend to strike, especially if you have high size and dex. Now, size and str I can understand, they make sense, but that weapon reach thingy is just whacked. What I am thinking is that they should be exactly the opposite, the smaller/shorter the weapon, the more often you're able to attack (provided you are within the 'range'). The longer weapon striking quicker makes only sense to me when the combatants are initiating the melee, ie. when they're still relatively distant from each other.

So what I am thinking here is using the weapon sr only in the first melee round, when the two combatants are engaging. After the first round, I would reverse the weapon sr: 0 becomes 3, 1 becomes 2, 2 becomes 1, and 3 becomes 0, and vice versa, of course. Only if the combatant maneuver away from the opponent can they regain the advantage of the weapon reach.

What would you experienced BRP GMs think of this? Would it work, would it get messy etc?

I am also inclined to allow combatants attack multiple times in a round, provided their sr (modified as above) allows them to do so. I would perhaps consider giving a cumulative -10 penalty for each additional attack. No requirement of the 100% skill rule for multiple attacks, though.

I am about to lauch two campaigns, Val-du-Loup/Stupor Mundi one, and Classic Fantasy one. I will probably use the sr system only in the former campaign for more realistic combat, and use the DEX system (as suggested by Threesixty here) for a more relaxed and 'heroic' feel. Or if this is confusing for the players (same players on both campaigns), I will go with just one rule. But I really want to solve this issue with strike ranks to see if get a

satisfactory and working rules for them.

EDIT: Of course this mod would require some common sense rules for deciding when you're able to close in, and reverse the weapon sr. If the owner of the longer weapon wins the first combat round, or if it is a tie (no hits), then this can't happen. Or when the combatant with shorter weapong dodges or parried the opponent, he/she may decide to close in to take advantage of the short weapon. And so on.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Verderer

[RosenMcStern]

Advice from someone who has used Strike Ranks from 1987 to 2008 (21 years): drop them and use DEX ranks and the spot rules for closing against a longer weapon. They are easier, and work better.

[Thalaba]

Advice from someone who has used strike ranks from 1989 to 2010, keep using them over the DEX system, as it makes combats more tactical and interesting.

But don't use the method presented in the book for multiple attacks - you should revert back to the RQ3 method. With that method, you get 2 combat actions, choosing from attack, parry, or dodge, per round. If you have a skill over 100% in any one of these, you can split it to perform that particular action twice. If this results in two attacks, the second attack takes place 3SR after the first.

Note that a character can always get a second attack in a round without having a skill over 100% forgoing a parry and attacking with the off hand weapon. Tactically, the character must decide if sometimes offence is the best defence. It's because of this kind of tradeoff that I love RQ3, and that system is full of tradeoffs.

EDIT: Oh, and I think your proposal will result in too much complexity - especially as a GM trying to keep track of all your NPCs and goons.

Edited April 30, 2010 by Thalaba

[windmark8040]

With all the above being said, what do the BRP entry 1/2 MR mean, in regards to missile attacks?

And if a missile weapon has a 1/CR,(which I understand, means the weapon may only be fired once/round) is the weapon fired on the character's DEX rank only? Then the character is assumed to be reloading the clumsy weapon until the next Combat Round, and his next DEX rank?

And if thats the case, a Lasso, which has a 1/5 CR, means what? Its useable only once every 5 Combat Rounds?

[RosenMcStern]

MR stands for Melee Round, the RuneQuest term for Combat Round. It is a leftover of some RQ3 table. All of your other guesses are true, IIRC.

[Smoking Frog]

I am trying to get my head around strike ranks, and I can't help feeling that this system is somewaht broken: as has been pointed out, the bigger/longer your weapon is, the more often you tend to strike, especially if you have high size and dex. Now, size and str I can understand, they make sense, but that weapon reach thingy is just whacked. What I am thinking is that they should be exactly the opposite, the smaller/shorter the weapon, the more often you're able to attack (provided you are within the 'range'). The longer weapon striking quicker makes only sense to me when the combatants are initiating the melee, ie. when they're still relatively distant from each other.

So what I am thinking here is using the weapon sr only in the first melee round, when the two combatants are engaging. After the first round, I would reverse the weapon sr: 0 becomes 3, 1 becomes 2, 2 becomes 1, and 3 becomes 0, and vice versa, of course. Only if the combatant maneuver away from the opponent can they regain the advantage of the weapon reach.

I am also inclined to allow combatants attack multiple times in a round, provided their sr (modified as above) allows them to do so. I would perhaps consider giving a cumulative -10 penalty for each additional attack. No requirement of the 100% skill rule for multiple attacks, though.

EDIT: Of course this mod would require some common sense rules for deciding when you're able to close in, and reverse the weapon sr. If the owner of the longer weapon wins the first combat round, or if it is a tie (no hits), then this can't happen. Or when the combatant with shorter weapong dodges or parried the opponent, he/she may decide to close in to take advantage of the short weapon. And so on.

I'm not an expert on BRP/RQ systems, but I do have some experience training with Japanese weapons of different lengths. I can see why you have some difficulty with the "reality check" aspect of this game system. The rule is trying to capture a very complex aspect of armed combat in a simple mechanic.

Every weapon has an optimum attacking distance based on its length and how it is used -- a swung sword has a different attacking distance than a thrust sword, etc. Every weapon also has different characteristics that make it "faster" or "slower" to use: A moderate length naginata with a not-too-big blade can be manuevered/swung fairly quickly while a halberd with a very large head might be very difficult to swing because of the imbalance and weight, depending on how well made it is.

The important thing about attacking distance is that an effective way to fight someone with a long weapon is, as folks have pointed out, getting inside of his attack range. This works even against swords when you have a weapon like a staff that can be used at various attack distances by "choking up" on the grip, that is, by changing your grip to "shorten" the weapon. Trying to change your grip on a sword could result in lost fingers. Quarterstaffs probably work well at this too: use the staff's full length to get inside your opponent's range, then shorten up the grip on the staff and deliver a nice crushing blow.

There were many classical fighting schools in Japan that taught grappling in armor and with weapons precisely because someone might try to get inside the range of your sword and take you down. Or you might want to do that to your opponent.

It seems to me, then, that if you wanted to have an accurate simultion of what is going on in armed combat, you should probably have a mechanic for when two people are using weapons with similar strike distances, and have mechanics for how to get inside a longer weapon's strike distance and how to get back away from someone inside your strike distance. And you need to have mechanics for grappling with weapons and in armor.

I'm not sure, however, that if you cooked up something like that that it would be worth the trouble. But it might be a good exercise just to try it.

That's my thought for the day, and it's worth at least what you've paid for it -- nothing!

Cheers,

Karl

[Nightshade]

And note that some elements of the problems you are discussing is only true of the current incarnation; in the RQ versions, most of the time you couldn't strike twice no matter what your strike rank, and with the RQ 3 version, if you could your strike rank didn't have much impact on that.

[Verderer]

Much food for thought, thank you ladies and gents. I guess I will use the Val-du-Loup campaign to test the sr system. I like the tactical possibilities it gives to combat, and in some ways it seems more realistic. I can always use the DEX system in the CF campaign, and then we can compare notes and decide which one we like best. We've played CoC quite a lot, so we're familiar with one type of dex rank system, although I guess it's not exactly the same as BRP?