Strike Ranks: initiative order or action allowance?

[DreadDomain]

4 hours ago, styopa said:

Our approach deliberately removes the need for any other skill or roll.  Closing, fending, etc all just flow naturally from the mechanics of movement and initiative.

When 2 opponents close, the one with the longer reach gets to strike first.  Thereafter, it's based on who has the higher initiative (with longer/heavier weapons being penalized, everything being equal the shorter weapon person will strike first as long as they're in close).  If the person with the longer weapon does get init, they can step back a hex (as long as they have the space to do so) forcing the shorter-weaponed person to close again.

 

On 5/26/2019 at 6:46 AM, styopa said:

Boiled down to essentials, ours gives players a quickness-based initiative, and when two melee combatants FIRST engage, the one with the longer reach (a simplified combination of SIZ and weapon size) strikes first.  That's it.  Once two combatants are in melee, it's quickness based in which big-heavy-long weapons are at a disadvantage.  However, as our movement is simultaneous, as long as the person with the longer weapon can keep backpedalling they can force the smaller weapon to keep 'closing' and thus suffering striking second..

Sounds interesting. Can you elaborate a bit on how ot works mechanically? What do you mean by quicknes-based initiative?

It reminds me of something we also tried back in the days. On initial engagement, we used SR as is. After that, we were only using DEX SR. The shorter weapon fighter could try to close by using movement and thd longer weapon fighter could back away (as you describe I believe). The SWF could also attack. If he hit an extremity, fight you proceed normally but if he hit chest or abdomen, we considered he had slipped inside their opponent reach and be in close combat (as per RQ3).

[Shiningbrow]

For me, I think the problem is that time is divided nicely for the purposes of bookkeeping, and is too abstract. The great problem being the concept of a melee round.

For example (and feel free to correct me if I've missed something here), while spell casting and ranged attacks can carry over from one MR to the next, normal melee combat doesn't. So, if you normally attack on SR 7, then (in one theory), you still have 5 more Strike Ranks  up your sleeve for preparation for your next attack/action... Surely, this should mean on the next MR, you should be attacking at SR 2?

But.. no. the abstraction fails here.

Also, I'd like to know, when casting Rune Magic with MPs, when do you lose the MPs? When the spell is initially cast, or when it goes off? (or, for some ideas mentioned above, ie, Heal Wound over time) as each MP is used? The answer to this can seriously affect how the combat can turn out. If they're lost when the spell is cast (as, I presume, since the casting only takes place in the mind or words of the person - so, effectively instantaneous) then they're down those MPs for the next 10-12 seconds (which is a lot in combat!) Do you remove the used RPs when cast? Or only when it comes into effect (and, does your deity care if you're still alive or not when they come to deliver your plea?)

You cast your Rune Spell, and then do other stuff, and then it happens.... what if you die between the casting and the effect? (probably should be a more specific thread about this)

Back to SRs... I think a much simpler mechanic would be to just count up from 1, and ignore the "Melee Round" abstraction. 1 + SRMs - hit, add more SRMs - hit, add more SRMs - hit. Rune Spells go off  at +X SRs after casting.

Statement of Intent is important because, in theory, you're already halfway through swinging your axe to hit the opponent when they die from someone else's attack... so changing to attack someone else is going to take effort (and, in RL - if you try that too quickly, you can do serious damage to yourself!)

But, the SoI can't be engraved in stone, because you can see that the person you were intent on attacking has just had their head removed... or, that Rune Spell that was cast last 'round' has just taken effect, and a huge lightning bolt has taken out your friend.... it shouldn't take 12 seconds for you to be able to decide that hitting the trollkin in front of you is not the wisest option, but taking out the priest is...

With a cumulative SR system, significant changes to intent add X SRs, minor changes only Y SRs... (such as, changing your bow attack from enemy A to enemy B standing only 2 feet away from them... In RL, that's barely a second!)

[PhilHibbs]

2 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

For me, I think the problem is that time is divided nicely for the purposes of bookkeeping, and is too abstract. The great problem being the concept of a melee round.

Ringworld had a pure "impulse" system, a smooth continuity of strike ranks. So it is an option in BRP, but I think most people found it too fiddly and book-keepy.

2 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

For example (and feel free to correct me if I've missed something here), while spell casting and ranged attacks can carry over from one MR to the next, normal melee combat doesn't. So, if you normally attack on SR 7, then (in one theory), you still have 5 more Strike Ranks  up your sleeve for preparation for your next attack/action... Surely, this should mean on the next MR, you should be attacking at SR 2?

But.. no. the abstraction fails here.

The abstraction is an abstraction, and if you follow any abstraction too far, it fails. I agree that the "SR6 discontinuity" is a little jarring - if you have skill over 100, and you can get your melee SR down to 6 or below, then suddenly your attacks per round double. It's fairly unusual for a competent fighter to have a melee SR greater than 6 though.

2 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Also, I'd like to know, when casting Rune Magic with MPs, when do you lose the MPs? When the spell is initially cast, or when it goes off? (or, for some ideas mentioned above, ie, Heal Wound over time) as each MP is used? The answer to this can seriously affect how the combat can turn out. If they're lost when the spell is cast (as, I presume, since the casting only takes place in the mind or words of the person - so, effectively instantaneous) then they're down those MPs for the next 10-12 seconds (which is a lot in combat!) Do you remove the used RPs when cast? Or only when it comes into effect (and, does your deity care if you're still alive or not when they come to deliver your plea?)

I think the MPs are spent at the end, as a failure to cast means you don't lose the MP. In what way does it seriously affect the combat?

2 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

You cast your Rune Spell, and then do other stuff, and then it happens.... what if you die between the casting and the effect? (probably should be a more specific thread about this)

Should there? Really? 

2 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

Back to SRs... I think a much simpler mechanic would be to just count up from 1, and ignore the "Melee Round" abstraction. 1 + SRMs - hit, add more SRMs - hit, add more SRMs - hit. Rune Spells go off  at +X SRs after casting.

So a Great Troll with SIZ 22 and DEX 21 and a greatsword hits every Strike Rank? Nice! (yeah, cheap shot, the serious point is that a change like that needs to be taken into account in quite a few places, you need to plateau the melee SR calculation so that you can't end up with numbers that are too small)

[styopa]

18 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

Sounds interesting. Can you elaborate a bit on how ot works mechanically? What do you mean by quicknes-based initiative?

It reminds me of something we also tried back in the days. On initial engagement, we used SR as is. After that, we were only using DEX SR. The shorter weapon fighter could try to close by using movement and thd longer weapon fighter could back away (as you describe I believe). The SWF could also attack. If he hit an extremity, fight you proceed normally but if he hit chest or abdomen, we considered he had slipped inside their opponent reach and be in close combat (as per RQ3).

Without getting too far into the detail -weeds, everyone has a DEX SR of their DEX/3 round up. 

Everyone rolls initiative at the start of each round and adds their DEX modifier. (usually a d10, but in smaller or cluttered environment, this might be a d8 or even a d6 (say trying to fight in a 1m diameter tunnel) making DEX more significant to the result.)  That's when they act (we count from the highest number downward to 0).  

As we count down, each SR anyone can act, they do - they can move 1m per SR, typically.  In most cases, initiating an attack or casting a spell ends movement.  (Being mounted on a combat-trained mount would be an exception, for example.)

If they move adjacent to someone/thing they want to attack, they can do so.  If that thing is ready/aware and reasonably facing the incoming person, the longer weapon strikes first.  If the weapons are approximately the same size, the significantly larger combatant (ie generally 4 SIZ bigger, but it's a judgement call particularly where natural weapons are involved) would get to strike first.  If they're roughly the same siz weapon and reach, then highest dex goes first.

It's probably also important to note that one can move into the Zone of Control of an active aware enemy, but this stops movement.  Also, starting your move in a ZOC means that you may only move 1 hex that round (ie you can disengage, or shift around your target somewhat, but you can't back up, run around them, and attack from behind in the same round).

If someone starts the round adjacent to the front of an enemy, they could act on their SR (ie to move away) but if they are going to strike, they deduct the Weapon speed from their effective SR: Natural weapons 0, short weapons (up to about a gladius) -2, medium weapons (clubs, most swords, etc) -4, long weapons (2h swd, spear) -6, etc to figure out when the attack lands.  Yes, it's possible in close melee with an unwieldy weapon, no dex bonus, and a terrible roll, you simply won't get to act that round. Certain particularly slow/unwieldy weapons (flail) are penalized more than their siz would warrant, others are bonused (a quarterstaff might be 6' long, but is treated as a short weapon).

Note that we do not give missile weapons special treatment; they attack on their rolled+dex SR and that's it, unless they split attacks like anything else.

So to give you a walkthrough: a combatant with a longer weapon that's ready will get to hit first when they close to melee.  Then the shorter weapon will strike in that round.  The next round (as they start adjacent), they will both get their natural initiative but the longer weapon will have a handicap to their SR if they want to stay in melee.  Likely on their SR - whether they go first or not - their smarter move is to back up a hex.  This means they forego their attack and are kind of just waiting that round (the next round they could close, of course), but if the shorter weapon person wants to continue fighting, they're going to have to re-close and the long weapon will get first strike again.

Needless to say we use hex maps for any substantial combat.

Hopefully that gives you a rough picture.

 

6 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

So a Great Troll with SIZ 22 and DEX 21 and a greatsword hits every Strike Rank? Nice! (yeah, cheap shot, the serious point is that a change like that needs to be taken into account in quite a few places, you need to plateau the melee SR calculation so that you can't end up with numbers that are too small)

Not sure you mean to, but you're actually pointing out the major flaw ("better is lower") in the current count-up SR system here.  No, your example isn't possible...unless someone's firing a 1/SR missile weapon.  Then yeah, it kinda is?   Yes, I'm aware of the "our system is broken so we're going to assert an arbitrary 3SR 'spacer' to nock/fire an arrow" preventing it...but that's an obvious kludge that one might rationalize if one was drawing an arrow out of a quiver but with a sheaf of readied arrows?  Nah.  Better = lower always gets into complicated mathiness around 0, particularly when its capped at 0, plateauing all results at some arbitrary ceiling. 

[g33k]

I really liked the rule -- (I think it was "official" in RQ3?) but we played it as a HR in RQ2 -- that standing-off with a much-longer weapon prevented the short-weapon wielder (Shorty) from attacking at all.

Shorty needed to "close" first -- make a successful, unparried attack; this didn't hit their foe, but drove the foe's weapon out of line and let Shorty get inside the foe's reach.

Then the converse applied -- Shorty could get all stabby-slashy, and the long-weapon wielder couldn't bring their weapon to bear until/unless they in turn made a successful, unparried attack against Shorty, that would do no damage, but re-establish the longer range.

IIRC, we said 2 weapons had to have a SR difference of at least 2 points (maybe 3?) for this "stand-off" effect to apply; otherwise, we just gave the longer/reach weapon the traditional SR advantage.

 

Edited May 29, 2019 by g33k

[Bill the barbarian]

1 hour ago, g33k said:

I really liked the rule -- (I think it was "official" in RQ3?) but we played it as a HR in RQ2 -- that standing-off with a much-longer weapon prevented the short-weapon wielder (Shorty) from attacking at all.

 

Most definitely a home rule.

[Kloster]

3 hours ago, g33k said:

I really liked the rule -- (I think it was "official" in RQ3?) but we played it as a HR in RQ2 -- that standing-off with a much-longer weapon prevented the short-weapon wielder (Shorty) from attacking at all.

Shorty needed to "close" first -- make a successful, unparried attack; this didn't hit their foe, but drove the foe's weapon out of line and let Shorty get inside the foe's reach.

Then the converse applied -- Shorty could get all stabby-slashy, and the long-weapon wielder couldn't bring their weapon to bear until/unless they in turn made a successful, unparried attack against Shorty, that would do no damage, but re-establish the longer range.

IIRC, we said 2 weapons had to have a SR difference of at least 2 points (maybe 3?) for this "stand-off" effect to apply; otherwise, we just gave the longer/reach weapon the traditional SR advantage.

 

It was a house rule. The RQIII one was that the longer weapon had a better weapon SR as long as he can maintain range. If the shorter weapon hloder decides to close range and the longer weapon holder does not want or can't maintain distance, then, the short weapon can strike and the long weapon can not strike before the short weapon. This is part of the RQIII combat rules that were not ported to RQG.

[Bill the barbarian]

13 hours ago, Kloster said:

It was a house rule. The RQIII one was that the longer weapon had a better weapon SR as long as he can maintain range. If the shorter weapon hloder decides to close range and the longer weapon holder does not want or can't maintain distance, then, the short weapon can strike and the long weapon can not strike before the short weapon. This is part of the RQIII combat rules that were not ported to RQG.

Not quite at the need for house ruling yet. I am liking RQ G but when I do start, be sure that the closing rule Kloster mentions will be under the microscope. Until a better rule comes along, this is good enough. Combat in RQ 3 was rather good and while this may have been one of the weaker parts, it still beats many other systems hands down.

Edited May 30, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[styopa]

4 hours ago, g33k said:

I really liked the rule -- (I think it was "official" in RQ3?) but we played it as a HR in RQ2 -- that standing-off with a much-longer weapon prevented the short-weapon wielder (Shorty) from attacking at all.

Shorty needed to "close" first -- make a successful, unparried attack; this didn't hit their foe, but drove the foe's weapon out of line and let Shorty get inside the foe's reach.

Then the converse applied -- Shorty could get all stabby-slashy, and the long-weapon wielder couldn't bring their weapon to bear until/unless they in turn made a successful, unparried attack against Shorty, that would do no damage, but re-establish the longer range.

IIRC, we said 2 weapons had to have a SR difference of at least 2 points (maybe 3?) for this "stand-off" effect to apply; otherwise, we just gave the longer/reach weapon the traditional SR advantage.

 

It was a house rule and I'd thought about that but then you have to sort of remember the 'state' of the combatants and we were trying to get to a system where nothing had to really be remembered from one round to the next.  Almost NEVER an issue for players.  Very much an issue for me as GM trying to keep track of 14 trollkin.

 

[Shiningbrow]

18 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

think the MPs are spent at the end, as a failure to cast means you don't lose the MP. In what way does it seriously affect the combat?

Spirit combat.

If you're casting a Rune Spell with lots of MPs (that take it to more than 1 MR) then it can affect what other spells can be cast in that following MR (unless you rule no other magic can be used until the Rune Spell goes off...). Relevant to taking a bad hit that requires urgent Healing in the casting round (or perhaps other scenarios).

I did write "can" to mean "can" - not "will".

18 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Ringworld had a pure "impulse" system, a smooth continuity of strike ranks. So it is an option in BRP, but I think most people found it too fiddly and book-keepy.

I don't understand the issue.. just count up.

 

18 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

The abstraction is an abstraction, and if you follow any abstraction too far, it fails. I agree that the "SR6 discontinuity" is a little jarring - if you have skill over 100, and you can get your melee SR down to 6 or below, then suddenly your attacks per round double. It's fairly unusual for a competent fighter to have a melee SR greater than 6 though.

This is where the (that which cannot be named) RQ and the Actions per Round idea is superior.. the higher your DEX, the more attacks/actions you get. (Doesn't work quite as well for an open-eneded timing system though).

 

18 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

So a Great Troll with SIZ 22 and DEX 21 and a greatsword hits every Strike Rank? Nice! (yeah, cheap shot, the serious point is that a change like that needs to be taken into account in quite a few places, you need to plateau the melee SR calculation so that you can't end up with numbers that are too small)

True - but if we change the system from MR to open-ended SRs, then that mechanic ought to change as well. 0 SRMs should just be out and out abolished!