A question about flurry

[Archer]

Does the Flurry action play out like this?

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

Or would all his 4 attack be at 0%?

 

[iamtim]

The SRD states, and I quote, "Each blow struck in a flurry is at -20% to Weapon skill."

Thus, I believe that all four attacks would be at a straight 60%.

'Course, the character has no further actions to use for defense...

 

[B_Steele]

'Course, the character has no further actions to use for defense...

But he would have all his Combat Reactions for defense...keep that in mind.

-Bry

 

[iamtim]

But he would have all his Combat Reactions for defense...keep that in mind.

Oops. My bad.

 

[atgxtg]

But he would have all his Combat Reactions for defense...keep that in mind.

Oops. My bad.

Yeah, you can have your cake and eat it too. It makes a lot of sense tactically for a skileed warrior in MRQ to flurry in order to reduce the number of attacks he will be recieving.

 

[Archer]

well it is the "Each blow struck in a flurry is at -20% to Weapon skill,..." that made me interpreted that to be either of the ways I described above.

It does not sound like it is a flat -20% penalty, but as if each blow struck would diminish the ability to strike correctly.

Especially since it continues;
"...since the character is sacrificing technique for speed."

 

[iamtim]

well it is the "Each blow struck in a flurry is at -20% to Weapon skill,..." that made me interpreted that to be either of the ways I described above.

Oh, I can see where your interpretation came from. Lack of the term "cumulative", though, is indicative that each attack should be penalized separately.

 

[Archer]

well it is the "Each blow struck in a flurry is at -20% to Weapon skill,..." that made me interpreted that to be either of the ways I described above.

Oh, I can see where your interpretation came from. Lack of the term "cumulative", though, is indicative that each attack should be penalized separately.

That is true.
When you put it like that, I do not know really why I just got hung up on the word "Each" in interpreting how the rule works. I just got the first impression reading through that whole sentence that it was cumulative. It seemed to imply that, too me at least. But as you said, the word is missing, indicating that it is a separate penalty on each attack.

 

[Gnarsh]

well it is the "Each blow struck in a flurry is at -20% to Weapon skill,..." that made me interpreted that to be either of the ways I described above.

Oh, I can see where your interpretation came from. Lack of the term "cumulative", though, is indicative that each attack should be penalized separately.

Honestly though, I suspect that that's just poor wording. From a game mechanic point of view it makes more sense to make the minuses cumulative. Otherwise, doesn't that basically mean that the attacker can make infinite attacks? A single -20% seems cheap for that IMO. In previous versions of RQ you had to split attacks, which required a skill over 100 and evenly splitting the attack (meaning a second attack "cost" at a minimum 50% of skill).

Given that in MRQ you can already make multiple attacks depending on how you use your combat actions, it seems quite unbalanced to also allow multiple attacks in a single attack action just by lowering the skill by 20. My interpretation of the rule was that each additional attack "cost" your total skill 20% (just as splitting does in older rules). Thus, a 120% warrior flurrying for 3 attacks would make all three at 80% (still a really good deal IMO).

 

[atgxtg]

TI think that would be excessive. Kepp in mind that all fluyying does it let you make all your attacks at once, rather than spread out during the round. You don't get any extra attacks. A 20% penalty seems about right for the benefit.

Othwise the rule sort of penalizes the high DEX characters.

 

[iamtim]

Othwise the rule sort of penalizes the high DEX characters.

Right. We'd wind up with a bunch of characters whose last attacks looked like something Montgomery Burns (of "The Simpsons" fame) would deal out.

"Take that, you ruffian! Eh!"

 

[mthomason]

LMAO!

"Smithers! Come and hit this man for me, I can't quite seem to connect."

 

[AKAramis]

I read it as 60/60/60/60 instead of the base 80.

 

[Archer]

LMAO!

"Smithers! Come and hit this man for me, I can't quite seem to connect."

LOL, that gave me some funny visuals....

 

[Lord Twig]

TI think that would be excessive. Kepp in mind that all fluyying does it let you make all your attacks at once, rather than spread out during the round. You don't get any extra attacks. A 20% penalty seems about right for the benefit.

Othwise the rule sort of penalizes the high DEX characters.

How are we penalizing the high Dex characters? So if you have two actions you can take -20% to both attacks and hit at the same time. If you have four attacks you can take -20% to two attacks and hit at the same time then hit with the other two later at full percent. That sounds balanced to me. If you want to hit with three attacks at the same time take -40% to all attacks or -60% to hit with four. That sounds fair to me.

High Dex characters are already going to rule the battlefield, they don't need even more advantages.

Honestly hitting your opponent more times before he can hit back is a huge advantage -20% seems like a low price to pay.

 

[Lord Twig]

Othwise the rule sort of penalizes the high DEX characters.

Right. We'd wind up with a bunch of characters whose last attacks looked like something Montgomery Burns (of "The Simpsons" fame) would deal out.

"Take that, you ruffian! Eh!"

Huh? How does their last attacks become weaker? Less likely to hit, maybe, but not weaker.

 

[iamtim]

Huh? How does their last attacks become weaker? Less likely to hit, maybe, but not weaker.

Humor, meet Lord Twig. Lord Twig, this is humor.

:-D

 

[atgxtg]

How are we penalizing the high Dex characters? So if you have two actions you can take -20% to both attacks and hit at the same time. If you have four attacks you can take -20% to two attacks and hit at the same time then hit with the other two later at full percent. That sounds balanced to me. If you want to hit with three attacks at the same time take -40% to all attacks or -60% to hit with four. That sounds fair to me.

High Dex characters are already going to rule the battlefield, they don't need even more advantages.

Honestly hitting your opponent more times before he can hit back is a huge advantage -20% seems like a low price to pay.

Hitting your opponent more times before he can hit back is a huge advantage. MIssing your opponent on the other hand, just saves him the bother of buying a fan.

Flurry is listed as being able to use all your remaining actions at once. If it were at -20% per attack, cumulative, the high DEX characters won't want to flurry. Four attacks @20% are not anywhere near as good as two attacks @60%.

 

[Gnarsh]

Hitting your opponent more times before he can hit back is a huge advantage. MIssing your opponent on the other hand, just saves him the bother of buying a fan.

Flurry is listed as being able to use all your remaining actions at once. If it were at -20% per attack, cumulative, the high DEX characters won't want to flurry. Four attacks @20% are not anywhere near as good as two attacks @60%.

I don't know about that. The high dex character will likely have more combat actions, right? Thus, if it's a flat -20%, he gains a more powerful flurry then someone with less actions. You're also assuming relatively low/starting skills. Make that high dex character have a 120% skill, and suddenly the "cost" to flurry is effectively nothing, but he gains the ability to effectively destroy any lower dex opponent somewhat automatically each round. For the most part the "spend skill points to gain a benefit" are clearly aimed for those with skills over 100%, so I don't think it's unreasonable to examine those cases and determine the effectiveness under those conditions.

I don't have the rulebook right in front of me, and honestly haven't spent a lot of time checking out all the possible combinations of actions and reactions, so it's possible this wont be as big of an issue as it sounds, but at first glance, I have to agree with Twig. MRQ already gives a *huge* advantage in the combat system to those with higher dex. The CA system could almost be renamed "guy with higher dex wins", because everything else being equal, if you've got even one more CA then your opponent, you're going to beat him (barring serious luck on his part).

Allowing flurries to be static point cost basically exagerrates this even more. The guy with 4 CA's is going to beat the guy with 3CA's, but instead of it taking him the full round, he'll do it at the beginning of the round (and likely before the other guy even has a chance of damaging him).

 

[Don Allen]

Seems ok to me to have just a 20% penalty. Those who are better at fighting should be better fighters. Quicker, and able to take down an opponent easier. I will probably consider giving the one using flurry a -20% on defence rolls or maybe have to make an exhaustion check. In other words make sure you take the opponent down and hope you aren't attacked for the rest of the round.