Strike rank conundrum.

[Joerg]

2 hours ago, StephenMcG said:

If you are the archer, what would you do? 

That depends on my stock of ammunition and the threat potential of the approaching PC1. Arrows are a considerable investment of time, effort and possessions, and that investment will be weighed against the expected benefit. On the other hand, panicked over-reaction is the typical cause for meaningless expenditure of ammunition.

Firing at a single target at extreme range is a gamble at best. The rules aren't written as such, but not only should the skill of the archer be halved, also there should be a cap of the hit probability even if your archer comes with 190% skill. Maybe not a fixed cap, but a POWx3 roll or a POW vs POW roll in case of a hit, to determine whether the target really moved into the path of the arrow or not.

 

Is the archer honor-bound or commanded to fire as soon as he can? Then it is 50% chance. Does he lose his cool? 50%. Does he have the experience to wait (e.g. a successful Battle roll): he waits for the full chance.

[StephenMcG]

So many options! 🙂

A complex cost benefit calculation every time you fire an arrow!!! 

[Atgxtg]

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

So if PC1 is over the range for Ys arrow shot before the round start, Y would have 50% of skill to hit. But PC1 moves into range in the unengaged movement phase. Does Y fire at full skill now?

 

You'd calculate the range when the shot is fired, on SR2 , and again on SR7 if Y fires a second shot. Again in RQ2/RQG movement for unengaged characters happens before you resolve attacks and Strike Ranks. But in RQ3 movement would be integrated into attacks and Strike Ranks. So in RQ3 it's possible for the two shots to takes place at different ranges.

 

Now, speaking as a GM, and not just with the rules as written, the 1/2 skill at X range thing is a game convention and simplification of what is really a gradual process. A shot at 91 meters isn't really all that much more difficult that one at 90 meters, it's just that they have to work out range some way. So, if I were running I might say "close enough" and use one range band or the other. Other factors, such as terrain, might be the deciding factor. If Y is on top of a hill, I'd probably give him full skill for both shots. If the fight takes place in a forest, then Y would be at half skill, if he could get a shot off at all. 

 

[drablak]

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

So if PC1 is over the range for Ys arrow shot before the round start, Y would have 50% of skill to hit. But PC1 moves into range in the unengaged movement phase. Does Y fire at full skill now?

 

I guess it works both ways though. PC1 can decide to move to cover in phase 2 before Y can shoot, and then Y would have the option of shooting at medium range (with cover), or move towards PC1 to get a better shot or engage in melee.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, drablak said:

I guess it works both ways though. PC1 can decide to move to cover in phase 2 before Y can shoot, and then Y would have the option of shooting at medium range (with cover), or move towards PC1 to get a better shot or engage in melee.

Possibly. In RQ2/RQG it depends on who declared first. If the NPCs declared first then Y won't be able to move that round if he didn't already declare it, so he wouldn't have the option of moving up that round.. He'd have to wait until next round to declare that he was moving up. In RQ3 he would have that option, and depending on how long it took PC1 to reach cover, he might have been able to get a shot off before PC1 made it to cover. Both methods work, but are a little different.

[drablak]

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Possibly. In RQ2/RQG it depends on who declared first. If the NPCs declared first then Y won't be able to move that round if he didn't already declare it, so he wouldn't have the option of moving up that round.. He'd have to wait until next round to declare that he was moving up. In RQ3 he would have that option, and depending on how long it took PC1 to reach cover, he might have been able to get a shot off before PC1 made it to cover. Both methods work, but are a little different.

As someone new to RQ, this thread seems to confuse me more than help me!

The order of SoI and the dual nature of SR are a bit confusing to a newcomer. I guess it'll make more sense after a couple of sessions of actual gameplay, but every time I think I've figured it out someone adds an example that adds complexities I hadn't thought of.

Can people change their SoI? In the example above, if the NPC declared first that he was shooting at PC1, and then the PC1 states that he moves to cover, can the NPC change his declaration to "oh well, if he moves to cover I'll try to move to *there* and try shooting from that place"? If you can't "adjust" your SoI from what the others states, then the order in which these are declared matters a lot. How do you decide who goes first? From my first reading of the SoI (p.192 in RQG) I imagined it was more a "free form" affair.

[PhilHibbs]

29 minutes ago, drablak said:

Can people change their SoI? In the example above, if the NPC declared first that he was shooting at PC1, and then the PC1 states that he moves to cover, can the NPC change his declaration to "oh well, if he moves to cover I'll try to move to *there* and try shooting from that place"? If you can't "adjust" your SoI from what the others states, then the order in which these are declared matters a lot. How do you decide who goes first? From my first reading of the SoI (p.192 in RQG) I imagined it was more a "free form" affair.

I agree that it should be more "free form", and the rules are deliberately ambiguous about this, not giving any mechanism for who states first. The GM should have a rough idea what the opposition are going to do, the players base their SOI on whatever hints that the GM has given them ("they're a long way from you, Bob, but one of them is eyeing you up and getting a spell ready"), and then you play out the consequences. I would allow small adjustments that are within the spirit of the statement, like if they said "I wait for them to charge us, and attack them when they do", and the enemy runs past them just outside of sword range to attack the healer round the back, I'd let them move to intercept. SOI should not be a stick to beat the players with.

[Atgxtg]

47 minutes ago, drablak said:

As someone new to RQ, this thread seems to confuse me more than help me!

The order of SoI and the dual nature of SR are a bit confusing to a newcomer. I guess it'll make more sense after a couple of sessions of actual gameplay, but every time I think I've figured it out someone adds an example that adds complexities I hadn't thought of.

Sorry, that's because a lot of us have been playing RQ in one form or another for decades. So we probably get into a lot of special cases. Actual gameplay will help a lot. In most cases it goes pretty quickly, and the trickiest bit is remembering who goes first when SRs are tied. 

47 minutes ago, drablak said:

Can people change their SoI? In the example above, if the NPC declared first that he was shooting at PC1, and then the PC1 states that he moves to cover, can the NPC change his declaration to "oh well, if he moves to cover I'll try to move to *there* and try shooting from that place"? If you can't "adjust" your SoI from what the others states, then the order in which these are declared matters a lot. How do you decide who goes first? From my first reading of the SoI (p.192 in RQG) I imagined it was more a "free form" affair.

No and yes. In RQG it appears you can't, as was the case in RQ2. In RQ3 you can, but there is a SR penalty. But assuming you are playing the newst RQ, RQG, then no you can't cahnge your statement.  Yes, the order of declaration is important. There is no official order, but some GM's always have the NPCs or PCs declare first, while others mix it up or alter it to reflect the circumstances. 

 

Generally speaking SOIs are free form, and under most circumstances the order isn't all that important. Some of the examples here are rare situations, and some others are cases of people trying to exploit a loophole for their own advantage.

[drablak]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Sorry, that's because a lot of us have been playing RQ in one form or another for decades. So we probably get into a lot of special cases. Actual gameplay will help a lot. In most cases it goes pretty quickly, and the trickiest bit is remembering who goes first when SRs are tied.

No no, don't apologize! It's a good thing that I can reflect on these things beforehand instead of having them come up in play and having to make up something on the spot. It's always those edge cases that make the life of a GM difficult.

RQG is a great system and it's quite simple at its core, but there is a lot to take in, especially in one bite!  The devil is in the details, of course... 

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, drablak said:

No no, don't apologize! It's a good thing that I can reflect on these things beforehand instead of having them come up in play and having to make up something on the spot. It's always those edge cases that make the life of a GM difficult.

You're the GM and will know the situation and players better than any of us. Use your judgment over most of what you see posted. As I mentioned before if I were running something as a GM I'd probably not be quite so strict about enforcing something like range bands. 89 meters or 91 meters is really about the same. So for the most go with what seems to make sense to you, and don't bog down play over some technicalities. If you later discover that you did something wrong, or something bugs you, you can always figure out what to do differently on your downtime, and then telling your players how it will be from them on. All GMs have to do stuff like that from time to time.

The important thing is to relax and have fun. If your all having fun then the rest doesn't really matter.

Quote

RQG is a great system and it's quite simple at its core, but there is a lot to take in, especially in one bite!  

You don't have to take it in one bite. Just take it in at your own pace. Most of this stuff plays a lot easier than it reads

Quote

The devil is in the details, of course... 

. Maybe, but the Devil is the bad guy in RQG, so don't let him bog you down. Despite how some of us sometimes react to things (myself included somewhere near the tops of that list) there aren't any RuneQuest police out there who will come and haul you away for doing something "wrong". The worse you'll get is teasing from your players. Relax, do what you can, and have fun. 

Edited November 1, 2018 by Atgxtg

[JohannesH]

I am bit unsure how to count the missile strike ranks. If PC's DEX SR is 2, do I count it like:

2 (shoot) + 5 (loading a new missile) + 2 (shoot), which would give strike ranks 2 / 9 (third shot not allowed)

or

2 (shoot) + 5 (loading a new missile + shoot) +  5 (loading a new missile + shoot), which would give strike ranks 2 / 7 / 12

[g33k]

RE the mixing of movement vs. SR/actions, vs resolving movement 1st ...

I only invoke "Resolve Movement First" when all the SoI's show that the moving character(s) are ONLY moving, and will not end up Engaged.  Then it just exists to handle getting them moved when they have no involvement with the SR mechanism (and thus might end up being forgotten in the tension of combat).

You could just as well do it at the end, or do half of it ahead and the other half on SR 6, or by thirds ahead/6/end, or any other table convention; it won't matter how you handle it.

But if you are casting, firing missile weapons, melee'ing, or otherwise engaging in any way in "combat time," then you are engaging with the combat, and spend the whole round -- movement included! -- on the SR counter.

 

Edited March 15, 2019 by g33k
typo

[PhilHibbs]

1 hour ago, JohannesH said:

I am bit unsure how to count the missile strike ranks. If PC's DEX SR is 2, do I count it like:

2 (shoot) + 5 (loading a new missile) + 2 (shoot), which would give strike ranks 2 / 9 (third shot not allowed)

or

2 (shoot) + 5 (loading a new missile + shoot) +  5 (loading a new missile + shoot), which would give strike ranks 2 / 7 / 12

The former... which means you can't get three shots off in the first round in RQG, whereas you could in RQ3. Interesting, I hadn't realized that.

Unless you can have a DEX SR of 0 (DEX 19+), so you could potentially go on 1, 6, 11 depending on how you interpret DEX SR 0.

[Atgxtg]

30 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

The former... which means you can't get three shots off in the first round in RQG, whereas you could in RQ3. Interesting, I hadn't realized that.

Unless you can have a DEX SR of 0 (DEX 19+), so you could potentially go on 1, 6, 11 depending on how you interpret DEX SR 0.

I think there were a couple of characters in RQ2 that had SR 1/6/11 in some supplement, but I'd have to make a difficult Library Use roll to find them. 

[Bill the barbarian]

7 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

9 hours ago, JohannesH said:

I am bit unsure how to count the missile strike ranks. If PC's DEX SR is 2, do I count it like:

2 (shoot) + 5 (loading a new missile) + 2 (shoot), which would give strike ranks 2 / 9 (third shot not allowed)

or

2 (shoot) + 5 (loading a new missile + shoot) +  5 (loading a new missile + shoot), which would give strike ranks 2 / 7 / 12

The former... which means you can't get three shots off in the first round in RQG, whereas you could in RQ3. Interesting, I hadn't realized that.

Unless you can have a DEX SR of 0 (DEX 19+), so you could potentially go on 1, 6, 11 depending on how you interpret DEX SR 0.

This question and which solution is correct especially as regards SR 0 has bothered my since pre-internet BBS only days and that was not quite as useful. I hope no one objects but  I will quote these in rune questions for an official ruling, that I have be waiting on for just 30 years!

[Julian Lord]

On 10/22/2018 at 2:18 AM, Tupper said:

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how strike ranks work.  I have a simple situation that's confusing me, and seems to be one that could easily come up in a game (I don't think it's perverse at all).  Suppose two characters, A and B, are facing off against each other.  They are 15 metres apart.  Character A has a strike rank in melee of 4, character B, on the other hand has a strike rank of 2 in melee.  He's bigger, faster, and/or has a longer weapon.

Character A declares her action as: cast a spell (3SR), draw her sword and close the distance (5SR), and then attack (4SR).

Character B, on the other hand, declares that he'll wait and then attack A when she comes to him (2SR).

My understanding is that in order to resolve the attacks, we'd figure that:

* Character A has two attacks: a spell at Strike Rank 3, and a melee attack at Strike Rank 12 (3+5+4).

* Character B has one attack: a melee attack at strike rank 2.

So, this suggests that the order of the attacks is:

Character B rolls his melee attack.

Character A rolls her spell attack.

Character A rolls her melee attack.

What's bugging me is that at the time that Character A casts her spell, she's 15 metres away from Character B, so how can he attack her before her spell goes off?  What am I doing wrong?  My gut says that the answer is that B should be forced to delay his action until Strike Rank 8 (when A engages him), but I'd like to hear what wiser heads than mine have to say about the matter.

RQ1 and 2 had some confusing text on the subject of effective weapon ranges, but you're right that it's a difficult question to resolve as rules text.

Truth is that character B can only attack after character A is within weapon range, which means delaying the attack --- BUT because B is ready at SR2, then two solutions are possible ; either rule that B can attack immediately after A comes into range after that point, so spell + close the distance and so SR 8 ; or instead, and likely more realistically and fairly (because A is presumably not going in completely gung-ho but with a defensive stance), just add the spell + close the distance strike ranks to B's attack SR, so 3+5+2 = SR10. Remember, if A had a spear and B just a knife, A should (all else being equal) be able to attack first, regardless of the delay to his attack from casting the spell and closing the distance.

Though at the same time, all is never really equal, and in that scenario, if A were an incredibly fast knife fighter, and B using the spear more defensively but less skillfully, A might still manage first attack despite the circumstances.

The bottom line in the old RQ1/RQ2 text is that in-game situations like these need to be resolved more by common sense than by the letter of the rules text.

[Julian Lord]

On 10/29/2018 at 10:18 PM, 10baseT said:

I usually do reverse DEX order. Lower DEX states first.

Some people do reverse INT order -- a case could be made for reverse INT+DEX, though most players would reject the extra complication.