Good examples of Strike Ranks in action

[Kloster]

56 minutes ago, g33k said:

A common HR -- that I think(?) got published in one version or another of some BRP-related game (or maybe a 'zine article?), but maybe was only ever a (very common) HR -- was to limit long-weapons' SR-advantage to the 1st melee round.  Someone with a spear may have an extra chance to stick you, as you tried to close with your shortsword; but after that, they would choke up on their spear a bit to re-balance for close-in fighting, and it was no longer an extra 3' of reach vs. a closing foe..

This was not house rule but RQIII combat options.

[Bill the barbarian]

2 minutes ago, Kloster said:

This was not house rule but RQIII combat options.

I do not recall that Kloster, any chance of a page number?

[Kloster]

2 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

I do not recall that Kloster, any chance of a page number?

Players book p 57: Special melee tactics - Close Combat and p 58: Closing against a long weapon. Those are rule I miss in RQG (along all the maneuvers).

 

[Bill the barbarian]

22 minutes ago, Kloster said:

Players book p 57: Special melee tactics - Close Combat and p 58: Closing against a long weapon. Those are rule I miss in RQG (along all the maneuvers).

That's why I did not recognize it.

The short weapon wielder has the option of adding 1 SR to his/her next Melee SR by stating the intention of closing. The longer weapon wielder may also add a SR next MR by stating the intention of keeping the foe at bay and step back maintaining the relationship as it was last MR. Should the long weapon wielder not wish to step back (suicidal or?) or be unable (cliff), the short weapon wielder closes and puts the long weapon wielder in a world of hurt. As long as they are in close combat. the short weapon strikes first, and the long weapon is limited to an attack or a parry or a dodge only. The short weapon acts as normal.

That is regular rules in RQ3 and I have used it and seen it used a few times. Good rule.

Edited March 28, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[DerKrieger]

11 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

The short weapon wielder has the option of adding 1 SR to his/her next Melee SR by stating the intention of closing. The longer weapon wielder may also add a SR next MR by stating the intention of keeping the foe at bay and step back maintaining the relationship as it was last MR. Should the long weapon wielder not wish to step back (suicidal or?) or be unable (cliff), the short weapon wielder closes and puts the long weapon wielder in a world of hurt. As long as they are in close combat. the short weapon strikes first, and the long weapon is limited to an attack or a parry or a dodge only. The short weapon acts as normal.

I like the spirit of that rule however it seems like it would either rarely come into play (long weapon simply backs up and keeps advantage) or where it would be of use it would lead to some rather questionable tactics of suicide rushing into the enemy line with shorter weapons. I guess properly armored and reinforced with spells that is a valid strategy but I feel like it should keep Shields in mind as well. Get as close as you want but a nice hearty shove from a shield and a spear following up is a pretty convincing argument to stay back.

[Bill the barbarian]

10 minutes ago, DerKrieger said:

Get as close as you want but a nice hearty shove from a shield and a spear following up is a pretty convincing argument to stay back.

One would use knock back rules here to get some space. Tactically, RQ3 seems to have befitted from the AH relationship. Their skill in war-gaming rules helped here.And agreed, good rule, not perfect.

Edited March 28, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[Hyperlexic]

I think one thing - a lot of these rules seem to work really well for 1:1 duels, it's harder in the chaos of a mass melee with movement, ambushes/flanking, etc.

[Kloster]

11 minutes ago, Bill the barbarian said:

One would use knock back rules here to get some space. Tactically, RQ3 seems to have befitted from the AH relationship. Their skill in war-gaming rules helped here.And agreed, good rule, not perfect.

Yes, RQIII's combat was much more tactical with lot of options.

21 minutes ago, DerKrieger said:

I like the spirit of that rule however it seems like it would either rarely come into play (long weapon simply backs up and keeps advantage) or where it would be of use it would lead to some rather questionable tactics of suicide rushing into the enemy line with shorter weapons. I guess properly armored and reinforced with spells that is a valid strategy but I feel like it should keep Shields in mind as well. Get as close as you want but a nice hearty shove from a shield and a spear following up is a pretty convincing argument to stay back.

I have used it quite a number of time. You should be prepared, and can not be used against every opponents, but it can be very efficient, because it forces the opponent to go back to keep the distance or to accept a disadvantage. I used it to break a line, going forward, and then striking the opponent on my right, still parrying the one I have pushed back.

[DerKrieger]

12 minutes ago, Kloster said:

I have used it quite a number of time. You should be prepared, and can not be used against every opponents, but it can be very efficient, because it forces the opponent to go back to keep the distance or to accept a disadvantage. I used it to break a line, going forward, and then striking the opponent on my right, still parrying the one I have pushed back.

That does sound pretty cool, wouldnt be hard to allow something like that off the cuff if the players have a particular strategy. Still I wouldnt want every combat to be rushing into someone with daggers and making them run away or get stabbed.

[Kloster]

4 minutes ago, DerKrieger said:

That does sound pretty cool, wouldnt be hard to allow something like that off the cuff if the players have a particular strategy. Still I wouldnt want every combat to be rushing into someone with daggers and making them run away or get stabbed.

In RQ, rushing systematically is a sure and short way to die.

[Bill the barbarian]

22 minutes ago, DerKrieger said:

That does sound pretty cool, wouldnt be hard to allow something like that off the cuff if the players have a particular strategy. Still I wouldnt want every combat to be rushing into someone with daggers and making them run away or get stabbed.

I would agree with Koster there, The fact that a PC might want to so something that is not wise is on the PC not the rule.

Let's get our hypothetical and hapless  PC (we could cal him Ruric the Hapless) and unleash a little mayhem on him. Being an initiate of Yelmalio, Ruric the Hapless is in the Rubble underground spear out shield unlimbered when he bumps into a trollkin with a dagger.'

Aha,' thinks Ruric, 'not this time!' and moves to attack. His spear misses with a roll of 67 and the little bugger (lacking sense and being more afraid of running back into his ZZ overlord than this gangly hooman in front)  leaps froward and attacks.  A 31, Hit. But Ruric rolls a a shield parry and well 12 pts is 12 pts and as long as Ruric parries, not even an impale will get by the shield. He is considering changing his name from hapless when...

Edited March 28, 2019 by Bill the barbarian

[g33k]

1 hour ago, Kloster said:

I have used it quite a number of time. You should be prepared, and can not be used against every opponents, but it can be very efficient, because it forces the opponent to go back to keep the distance or to accept a disadvantage. I used it to break a line, going forward, and then striking the opponent on my right, still parrying the one I have pushed back.

I believe this tactic to be particularly dangerous against a line... because as you push back "your" foe there comes a space where you are facing THREE foes, who can take multiple nigh-simultaneous attacks on you.

Not that you can never do it, but ...

[Kloster]

10 hours ago, g33k said:

I believe this tactic to be particularly dangerous against a line... because as you push back "your" foe there comes a space where you are facing THREE foes, who can take multiple nigh-simultaneous attacks on you.

Not that you can never do it, but ...

Yes, it is dangerous, and I say it CAN work, and not against every opponent, and only if well prepared.

[styopa]

On 3/28/2019 at 9:44 AM, Hyperlexic said:

I'm going to look back at RQ6/Legend and see what that has.  I seem to recall the Action Point system and thinking 'wow that's interesting... complicated but interesting'.

It's not a bad effort, imho number of action points is HUGE and the breakpoint is *just* above human avg, so slightly-better-than average will crush average, all else being equal.  The SFX were too determinative and action-movie for me.

SRs in RQ were honestly one of the systems that needed fixing but doing so was an early sacrifice on the "we have to be backward-compatible withe rq2' altar.  Our HR system reverses it (so you want a high Dex SR to go first, and is all quickness based, with longest weapons striking first only when closing.

[DerKrieger]

7 hours ago, styopa said:

SRs in RQ were honestly one of the systems that needed fixing but doing so was an early sacrifice on the "we have to be backward-compatible withe rq2' altar.  Our HR system reverses it (so you want a high Dex SR to go first, and is all quickness based, with longest weapons striking first only when closing.

Long weapons almost always get the first strike whether you are in the first 3 seconds of a fight or 3 minutes later. When your character makes an attack role that is them closing it to strike however your opponent doesnt just stand there and either threatens you with their weapon until you back off or they back off themselves. The longer a fight goes on then the more of a advantage the fighter with longer reach is at. If you have a shorter weapon you want to close in and end it quickly because otherwise the longer range weapon is going to get more attempts at hitting you and the odds wont always be in your favor. I think having long range weapons keep the SR advantage is a perfectly simple way of keeping this advantage without getting into the complicate nature of who is at what distance at all times.

 

Here is some reenactors with spears and other weapon combinations demonstrating that range tends to win the fight:

 

[Bill the barbarian]

Thanks DerKrieger, eye opening! Especially the lack of experience with the spear and still they won more often than not. Plus the comment about always having a 2nd weapon with a spear. The enemy closes, or spear breaks just drop it and pull the 2nd weapon.

Cheers