A question about flurry

[Don Allen]

Well if a mediocre character with say, 60% with a high dex was fighting a 90% with low dex then all attacks for Mr.60 in a flurry would be 40%. He will probably hit him, if lucky, twice (and Mr.90 would probably parry them). Then Mr.90 would probably do some major damage to Mr.60. If on the other had Mr.90 was in a position to flurry he would stand a much better chance of destroying Mr.60. Seems fair to me...
(I'm basing this on Mr.60 getting 3 attacks and Mr.90 getting 2)
I don't know for sure though since I have not run a combat yet but it seems right that a faster character should be able to do more things.

A 19 DEX! I think a 19 DEX should definately be able to do twice as many things as a 12. That would be like me and Jackie Chan having a contest to see who can throw more punches.

 

[simonh]

I'll just throw this out for information. This is how Elric handles multiple attack/defence actions.

Characters perform their actions in descending DEX order. Parries and dodges are performed on the DEX rank of the attack.

It is possible to atatck multiple times if your skill is 101 or more. Your skill is didved by the number of attacks you make, but may not work out at less than 50%. i.e. you can't perform 3 attacks a round untill you have 150% skill. Your second attack occurs at your DEX rank -5, third at DEX -10, etc.

Your first dodge or parry is at full chance. Your second defensive action is at -30%, thrid at -60%, etc. (Actualy it's a little more complex than that, but not worth digging into right now).

The MRQ system seems pretty serviceable though, I don't see much reason to mess about with it (yet!).

Simon Hibbs

 

[Gnarsh]

Well if a mediocre character with say, 60% with a high dex was fighting a 90% with low dex then all attacks for Mr.60 in a flurry would be 40%. He will probably hit him, if lucky, twice (and Mr.90 would probably parry them). Then Mr.90 would probably do some major damage to Mr.60. If on the other had Mr.90 was in a position to flurry he would stand a much better chance of destroying Mr.60. Seems fair to me...

Well. It actually depends on how you interpret a particular part of the combat rules as well. Many people have commented about the combat results tables, and pointed out the flaw that a missed parry/dodge against a missed attack makes the attack "succeed as normal". Others have countered that this is irrelevant since you're not required to parry/dodge unless the opponent hits you.

The problem is that there are semi-conflicting rules. In the section where it oulines the order of events, the attacker rolling his skill comes before the defender using a reaction to defend. This is the basis of the above argument. However, if you actually read under the reactions portion, it says you must choose to make a reaction after the action is taken, but before the result is known. This would mean that you must choose to parry or dodge *before* you know whether the attacker hit or missed. This actually makes a lot more sense then allowing a defender to wait and see if he got hit before deciding to defend himself (and is more consistent with previous incarnations of RQ).

It's a subject of interpretation, but the fact that an "attacker misses" row exists in the tables (as wrong as one of the results is), kinda implies that it's possible to parry or dodge a miss. Doubly so since they created two whole game concepts (overextension and riposte) based on that exact situation occuring. On that basis I really think that the idea that you don't have to use a reaction to defend until after you've been hit is wrong. Not only does it not make much realistic sense, but the majority of rules in conflict suggest that methodology rather then the opposite.

(I'm basing this on Mr.60 getting 3 attacks and Mr.90 getting 2)
I don't know for sure though since I have not run a combat yet but it seems right that a faster character should be able to do more things.

A 19 DEX! I think a 19 DEX should definately be able to do twice as many things as a 12. That would be like me and Jackie Chan having a contest to see who can throw more punches.

Mr. Chan doesn't throw more punches because he's inately faster then other people. He presumably spends a whole lot of time practicing (skill. Not stat). Is he able to type faster then an average secretary? Being more dextrous can give someone an advantage with certain skills (hence the skills bonus), and potentially react faster to things around him. But it does not blanketlymake you capable of doing *everything* faster.

The real problem is that for anyone who's been playing RPGS for any time, it's pretty obvious that players will not miss the benefits of dex. They'll make sure they get a starting dex of 13 or higher. Every time. Because those that dont will be less capable then those that do. It's not like characters with higher dex have to pay 25-50% off all of their combat skills in order to get it, right? But that's the range of advantage they'll have because they have that dex. It will become the "must have" stat.

There's simply no balancing point to it. And that's just poor game design. You don't lose anything for having a higher dex, and the benefits are *huge*. That's a problem.

 

[Vadrus]

Is 4 the maximum number of actions in a round or does the table continue to scale? At work so I can't check and can't remember.

The reason I was wondering is with Coordination 9 a PC could have a DEX of 36, is all the extra DEX wasted (apart from the skill boost)?


Vadrus

 

[zanshin]

Okay, this made me think of the way rounds were handled in ShadowRun and it worked really well. Basically you roll for your Strike Rank and then everyone acts in that order. Then you act again on your Strike Rank -10. Then -20 and -30 (if you got that high). Simple easy.

So if you had a Int of 16 and a Dex of 14 you would have +15 Strike Rank modifier. Roll a d10 and add 15. If you rolled well, say an 8, you would go on 23, 13 and 3, for a total of three actions. If you only rolled a 3 you would go on 18 and 8 for only two actions.

If you somehow managed to get both Dex and Int up to 21 AND you rolled a 10 you could go on 31, 21, 11, and 1.

Thoughts?

I proposed something similair in a thread house rule:combat actions, though i suggested deducting 6 from the total for each action.

I like it, i think it will help make combat more dynamic , and will mitigate the crucial importance of DEX as it will be averaged by INT and subject to a random factor rather than all being about the break points.

I left number of reactions as was, so still making DEX very important. I guess you could have reactions variable each round but that would be even more book keeping.

 

[Archer]

That is why I would like to have a skill named "Combat Experience" or "Coolness under fire" (for more modern settings) that determined initative. It is something you learn, not something you are born with.

Twilight 2K experience?

It's funny. Considiering that everything else becuase a skill. Make an INT+DEX (maybe +POW, strong willed people often take action ) based skill would have been easy.

I do not know, it was far too long ago I played TW2k to remember how that worked.

My idea were more based on what I have learned talking to war veterans about their experiences. Granted, this is in modern warfare, but I think it holds true in ancient warfare as well. A person that can be coolheaded in combat has a much greater chance of surviving. Mainly because he acts as he has been trained instead of panicing.

I would like to comment on the very idea of "initiative" in RPGs as well. In RPGs it means "who acts before another", while in the real world, getting the initative on someone means you are able to get the upper hand in a fight. You gain an advantage that allows you to press home the attack.
Real fighting are nothing like "I hit you, you hit me" of RPGs.

But then, creating something better than the current initative system (you act first, then him, then that one, etc.) are hard, since we also have to take into account that the game should be playable. So not much point in discussing it, I think.

I know a couple of games that work that way. Bascially a character gains the advntage and becomes the attacker. The character without the intiative is the defender until he can do something to "sieze the initiative". It isn't that hard to do. Usually it just means differentiating between a block and a true parry. True parry is harder, but gets the advantage.

I have not seen any game to date that has used something like that (which of course does not say much). For unarmed martial arts I think the system you describe would work well, with some alterations. But I am not so sure about other forms of armed combat. I think that would require even further modifications.
Just parrying or blocking is not enough in martial arts to gain the upper hand. You must have good timing, good reflexes, and counterattack at the right moment to gain the upper hand.
That said, your idea can be worked on, and it is a good start to begin designing a new initative system.

 

[Archer]

Okay, this made me think of the way rounds were handled in ShadowRun and it worked really well. Basically you roll for your Strike Rank and then everyone acts in that order. Then you act again on your Strike Rank -10. Then -20 and -30 (if you got that high). Simple easy.

So if you had a Int of 16 and a Dex of 14 you would have +15 Strike Rank modifier. Roll a d10 and add 15. If you rolled well, say an 8, you would go on 23, 13 and 3, for a total of three actions. If you only rolled a 3 you would go on 18 and 8 for only two actions.

If you somehow managed to get both Dex and Int up to 21 AND you rolled a 10 you could go on 31, 21, 11, and 1.

Thoughts?

Stormbringer uses a similar system. Dexterity ranks. Each action you take happens 5 dexterity ranks later. That would be a very easy modification of current initative system in RQ.
Roll d10 + SR, first action happens as you say on SR, then SR -5, then SR-10, SR-15 and so on.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Could the combat experience/coolness under fire skill be used to determine number of combat actions instead of Dex alone?

 

[zanshin]

I think that an initiative system which gives control of the flow of combat to the superior fighter is realistic, but might not be so much fun as the skilled fighter would have an even greater edge.

From my own martial arts experience i would say you have the initiative so long as you are successfully hitting your opponent with blows that count (ie are not dodged or parried) - look how a boxer follows up a stunning blow (that doesnt knock their opponent out or down) with further blows to put them away properly.

An opponent under pressure will sometimes send out wild blows that occasionaly do hit - they have not regained the initiative, but in their panic they are trying anything that may fend off the attacker.

I think that with both attack and parry rules, and the rule for losing combat actions when suffering a disabling blow, that mrq is a reasonable simulation of the combat environment that is still fun to play.

 

[Archer]

Could the combat experience/coolness under fire skill be used to determine number of combat actions instead of Dex alone?

Yes, it could. Just make a new table where you insert the % of the Combat Experience skill. Say, 1 Combat Action for every 30% in the skill?

 

[Archer]

I think that an initiative system which gives control of the flow of combat to the superior fighter is realistic, but might not be so much fun as the skilled fighter would have an even greater edge.

It would require the players to become creative to actually come up with something that changes the situation.

From my own martial arts experience i would say you have the initiative so long as you are successfully hitting your opponent with blows that count (ie are not dodged or parried) - look how a boxer follows up a stunning blow (that doesnt knock their opponent out or down) with further blows to put them away properly.

I agree.

An opponent under pressure will sometimes send out wild blows that occasionaly do hit - they have not regained the initiative, but in their panic they are trying anything that may fend off the attacker.

Counterattacking forcefully and successfully are the best way to regain initative. Defensive blows as you say, rarely do much good.

I think that with both attack and parry rules, and the rule for losing combat actions when suffering a disabling blow, that mrq is a reasonable simulation of the combat environment that is still fun to play.

Well, it is at least the simplest way to play it.

 

[Lorgryt]

Character Skill 80% flurries his opponent with four actions.
Attack 1: 60%
Attack 2: 40%
Attack 3: 20%
Attack 4: 0%

This was how I interpreted it.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Counterattacking forcefully and successfully are the best way to regain initative. Defensive blows as you say, rarely do much good.

One of the reasons I have "counter-strike" as a defensive reaction option.

I also use my modified version of opposed tests quite a bit in combat. It helps to switch the initiative between combatants.

 

[zanshin]

Well, it is at least the simplest way to play it.

Other systems dont even have the level of complexity that MRQ offers.

Unless all your play group are hard core simulationists sometimes simple is better. I have a mix of play styles in my group - 1 simulationist, 1 gamist and 1 for whom the story/roleplay is all and doesnt like it when rules stop him engaging with play. All of them like to be in the driving seat for their character - realistic rules which have their character cowering before a welter of blows and unable to effectively respond until they luck out on a roll will be less fun i feel.

For me MRQ (with my house rule tweaks :wink: ) is 'good enough'.

But im always interested in looking at other peoples interpretations.

One of the problems with a 'coolness under fire' rating that relates to weapon skill is its loading more and more importance into the same area, and the break points in skill just take over from the break points in DEX as most crucial. It also doesn't let you reflect the difference between the fast nimble swashbuckler and the slow heavy hitter - all are rendered the same according to weapon skill (as far as number of blows are concerned).

Perhaps those who do want to reflect this could add a further weighting to strike rank - every 25% in the weapon skill used gives a +1 to strike rank determination. Or it could be its own skill - tactics - with the initiative roll being substituted for a roll against the skill.
Or characters could advance in experience as they kill things and be given bonuses for the number of things they killed. We could call the arbitrary break points for these 'levels' :wink:

 

[Don Allen]

I am 6'7 and 310 lbs. I am slow as Christmas. My Dex would be pretty low indeed. I think Jackie Chan is just plain more dexterous than I am and is not just quicker because he has more "skill" than I do. I took Kung Fu (Tiger Claw) back in College and although it did make me more precise (and using conservation of motion I did increase my speed some) I learned mostly HOW to attack more effectively, not make MORE attacks. There is such a thing as one person just being faster than another (and not due to skill). I think that is figured into the flurry rules in that someone with "low skill" is rarely going to flurry since they are too imprecise to hit, but someone who is "skilled" will flurry since they still stand a good chance of landing their blows. In otherwords the more skilled person will do better.

It seems like a "point buy" system would alleviate the problem that many see in the Dex and Combat rules though.

 

[Archer]

Counterattacking forcefully and successfully are the best way to regain initative. Defensive blows as you say, rarely do much good.

One of the reasons I have "counter-strike" as a defensive reaction option..

I think that is an excellent idea. May I ask how you have formulated the rule regarding this reaction?
I will probably include some form of counterstrike into the available reactions. But if it works the way that all you do is spending a Reaction to gain an attack on the opponent, you will end up having a flow of combat where every character will first fire away all his CA's as attacks, then most of his reactions as counterstrikes.
This is far from how it should work.

Had we used a system were you are not allowed to attack while you do not have the upperhand (I wont use the correct word initiative, since it will confuse most role-players who tend to think of initative as something else), it would have been possible to do it in this simple way.

But, if we are to create a counterstrike rule within the confines of the current way of doing things in the rules, we need to make it more "balanced".

My current idea works like this, but is a bit complicated compared to most combat actions in RQ.

Counterstrike
This is a reaction that can be taken as a response to the attack of an opponent that has a higher Initative in the Strike Rank order. It must be declared before the success or failure of the opponents attack is made known, and beyond costing the counterstriking character a reaction, it also costs him a Combat Action in the next combat round.

The character may immediately make a normal attack against the attacking character. The attack can not be a Precise Attack or a Flurry.
If the attack is successful, and the opponents attack fails, the counterstriking character trades place with the attack character in the Strike Rank order. And both characters will from this point act according to their changed Strike Rank.

I also use my modified version of opposed tests quite a bit in combat. It helps to switch the initiative between combatants.

I would be intrested in learning about this as well

 

[Archer]

Regarding the Combat Experience skill I have mentioned earlier.

Yes, a person can be much faster than another. There is no question there. And there is no question that it affects outcome of martial arts combat.

But it is also a fact that psychology and experience of real combat (not just martial arts training, but actual combat where the opponent really wants to kill you) also plays a vital role.

So do training for the circumstance when someone actually wants to kill you. This is why if you look at the more hardcore military training today, or look at any historical warrior society, or any of the warrior cultures that remains today (I am thinking of some african tribes here which names I can not remember at the moment), emphasise the training of actually seeing blood, getting used to pain, and in the military training's case; being fired at by live ammunition while you try to crawl through obstacles.

After having talked with veterans that has served as peace keeping troops in bossnia (who were under mortar fire regularly), and some veterans of other conflicts (two who actually was in vietnam), I have realized that what makes someone survive combat is not just the fact of "being faster" or "being more well trained". It is the combination of training, psychology, experience, and skill.

So being trained properly, getting used to the reality of combat, is what makes you act correctly in the given situation, instead of panicing and get yourself killed through indecision.

That is why I suggested the Combat Experience skill. Let it be based on Dex + Pow if you wish. That way a faster or more psychologically resistent person will have an edge, but experience will over time make the difference in predetermined ability to act and act correctly diminish between the "slow and hard hitter" and the "quick and nimble" as you put it.

I know this might be the most extreme simulationist way of doing it. But for certain settings that tries to be closer to real life than heroic fiction, it might be worth it. It is all a matter of flavor.

That is also why I said that the current way of doing it in RQ is the simplest way of doing it. It is good enough for heroic fiction.

In a setting that highly focuses on Hong Kong Chambra martial arts, I can very well see initiative and number of actions being determined by who's Kung Fu is "stronger" rather than who is the most dexterious. Just to point out yet another way of handling it, according to flavor of the setting.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I like this combat experience skill idea.

I'm going to use it at a base on Dex+Pow (would 10+Dex+Pow-Int work?).

Number of combat actions will be derived from it, 1 action per 30% of skill (rounding up).

Opposed tests of combat experience will be used to determine initiative.

 

[Archer]

I like this combat experience skill idea.

I'm going to use it at a base on Dex+Pow (would 10+Dex+Pow-Int work?).

Number of combat actions will be derived from it, 1 action per 30% of skill (rounding up).

Opposed tests of combat experience will be used to determine initiative.

This is of course just my point of view and how I would do it, so feel free to do it anyway you want

Why would Int be deducted from the score? Being smarter is never a bad thing in combat. Being dullwitted though is.
I would not give it a base of 10 either, since very few persons will be born with combat experience, or instinctively know what to do in combat.

Dex + Pow would be to two most vital basic factors. I would then allow characters to increase the skill by 1-3 points every time they have been in real combat, and perhaps 1 point for any hardcore military training they have experienced. Beyond that, it is not a thing that you can train.

Number of actions per % is a matter of how fast you want characters to be able to do many things in a combat round. So that is pretty much also dependent on the style in which you play. If you play a lot of combat you might want to have a high % per action granted, and if you do not play a lot of combat, but still want characters to be able to do a lot of things when they eventually enter combat, you give them actions for a lower %.
It should probably be so that a sort of Action cap is introduced. So that you can never gain more than X actions per round, no matter the % in the skill.

As for the opposed Combat Experience checks, that works if there are only two persons, or you roll for each of two groups as a whole. When adding a more opponents / groups it quickly becomes more complicated.

As such I suggest using a special rule for Combat Experience. You simply roll against it in the beginning of combat. If you succeed you use the value you rolled as your Strike Rank value to determine the order of initative. If you fail the roll, you always act last (if several people act last, they act in order of Dexterity, higest to lowest) and are only able to take one combat action that round.

 

[Sigtrygg]

I think that is an excellent idea. May I ask how you have formulated the rule regarding this reaction?

Simple, I stole it from Harnmaster

The way I use it is a character may opt to use a reation to immediately and simultaneously strike his attacker. Both roll to hit. If both hit, both cause damage.

I also use my modified version of opposed tests quite a bit in combat. It helps to switch the initiative between combatants.

I would be intrested in learning about this as well

I use it mainly for the both critical/succeed/fail results, in which case the highest or one nearest to his target number wins and has the initiative for the next action.