HyrumOWC said:I really can see it both ways.
We're going to need Matt to clarify this I think. A straight -20% that isn't cumulative is really nasty, and I can see just about every warrior dumping everything into DEX to get the extra combat actions and doing Flurries on every attack.
Starting Joe Fighter has Str 15 and Dex 15, giving him 30% in 1-H Sword. He takes the Noble background and gets +15% for 45%. He then takes the Soldier profession and gets +10% more for 55%. He then dumps his allowed 30 free points into 1-H Sword for a final total of 85%. Even if his Str is 10, and his Dex is just 13, that's still only 7% points less.
Joe Fighter (a beginning character) now gets 3 attacks, every round, at 65%. Sounds like a great trade off for me.
Hyrum.
Joe fighter would still get the three attacks, every round, without flurry. If there is a problem is is due to the attacks being tied to DEX. It's much worse if Joe fighter opts for 3 precise attacks to the head at 45%. Especially if his opponent only has a 12 DEX and so Joe gets a free/undefendable head shot at 45% at the end of each round.
On the other hand, if Joe is making his three attacks at 25%, flurries become pointless, as Jope is statistically throwing two actions away while doing his "fan" impersonation.
Yeah, it does sound like a great trade off. I can see it as a move that the very deadly fighters will use, which makes sense to me that the faster you are and the more skilled you are the more speed and accuracy and tricks you will gain. As you get better at a weapon you should be able to recover after a swing quicker and follow through with another hit. A wizard picking up a sword though should realistically not try a flurry.
atgxtg said:HyrumOWC said:I really can see it both ways.
We're going to need Matt to clarify this I think. A straight -20% that isn't cumulative is really nasty, and I can see just about every warrior dumping everything into DEX to get the extra combat actions and doing Flurries on every attack.
Starting Joe Fighter has Str 15 and Dex 15, giving him 30% in 1-H Sword. He takes the Noble background and gets +15% for 45%. He then takes the Soldier profession and gets +10% more for 55%. He then dumps his allowed 30 free points into 1-H Sword for a final total of 85%. Even if his Str is 10, and his Dex is just 13, that's still only 7% points less.
Joe Fighter (a beginning character) now gets 3 attacks, every round, at 65%. Sounds like a great trade off for me.
Hyrum.
Joe fighter would still get the three attacks, every round, without flurry. If there is a problem is is due to the attacks being tied to DEX. It's much worse if Joe fighter opts for 3 precise attacks to the head at 45%. Especially if his opponent only has a 12 DEX and so Joe gets a free/undefendable head shot at 45% at the end of each round.
On the other hand, if Joe is making his three attacks at 25%, flurries become pointless, as Jope is statistically throwing two actions away while doing his "fan" impersonation.
Arg, you're right. That's what I get for posting when I'm tired and should be in bed.
Hyrum.
I think Gnash is correct too. THe flurry rule does exxagerate the problem from combat actions. I just don;t think that flurry is what needs to be adjusted to fix the problem.
I think we should tweak the combat action s rule. Maybe 1 action per 5 Strike Ranks on the Intiative result? It is similar but not quite as DEX biased. Between the inclusion of INT, and the D10 the chance exists ofor a character to overcome the DEX barrier-plus it also helps minimize the edge that a 13 DEX character has over a 12 DEX character.
I think we should tweak the combat action s rule. Maybe 1 action per 5 Strike Ranks on the Intiative result? It is similar but not quite as DEX biased. Between the inclusion of INT, and the D10 the chance exists ofor a character to overcome the DEX barrier-plus it also helps minimize the edge that a 13 DEX character has over a 12 DEX character.
atgxtg said:
I need to go back and read the section on reactions thorougly to be sure, but my concern is that since flurries all occur on one action rank, that it's not so much that the total number is greater, but that he'll effectively "burn through" all of his opponents reactions right at the beginning of the round. The tactical benefits of this should be obvious, especially if you consider multi-character combat.
Honestly, I have several problems with the way CA's are implemented. I like the concept (kinda), but I really think they overdid it in some ways. In previous versions of RQ, the number of actions you could take were bounded by two things:
A) The total number of strike ranks in a round. This is still kinda the same (no more then 4 action phases in a round).
B) The skill of the character. To get two attacks, you had to have over 100% and split the skill (effectively making each additional attack "cost" at least 50 skill points). Same deal with splitting parries.
B is dramatically changed. The game basicallly tosses out the idea that skill level determines how much you can do in a round, but puts it all in dex instead (making that the "uber stat" IMO). They did add in combat options that have skill costs related to them (like flurries), a system that I actually do like in principle. However, I have a feeling that it'll take a lot of tweaking to make it work.
I would almost have preferred if the CA system still restricted you to *one* attack per equipped weapon total and *one* parry or dodge. That way extra CAs would really only mean that you could do other things (like move more or cast spells or ready equipment) in addition to attacking, but wouldn't result in the combat itself being so dramatically skewed based on dex itself. Do that, and the flurry ability could work similarly to the way I mentioned (since it actually adds attacks instead of just concentrates them all at one time).
Interestingly enough, we use a house rule for parries and dodges that is similar to this. You can make as many as you want (but have to choose which you're doing of course!), with each successive attempt at a cumulative -20%. Once you fail, you can't attempt any more. We still require splitting of skills for multiple attacks, and splitting of parry/dodge if you want to defend from two attacks on the same strike rank.
Hmmm... It's some serious changes to the CA system, but IMO it retains the "skill based" idea of the game a bit more. I do like the basic idea of the CAs. I just don't like that you can effectively make more attacks or parries in a round based purely on your dex stat. I'm not sure if it's a great solution, but at first glance simply restricting the actual number of attacks and parries themselves would seem to fix a lot of the "high dex guy wins" aspect of combat, while still utilizing the "simple" mechanism of the CA process itself.
I'll have to do some playing around with this. It might just work...
I'm not sure what else it should be based on other than maybe the relevant weapon skill. Personally I like the quick method. When I see a game that takes a long time to make a character with lots of figuring (ala rolemaster) I usually decide against that game because I dont want to spend that much time and effort and have my character die early (I actually had my head chopped off in the first swing in the first battle of a game once- if I had spent 45 minutes or an hour making that character I would not wish to make another!)
I think it's perfectly logical to let Dex decide how many attacks per round (after all Dex does measure speed and hand eye coordination). And if you have a low Dex then start improving it.
I will however use the assign method of Stat generation where you can switch them around, that way if you have a lower Dex it's probably because you wanted to focus on something else.
I think it's perfectly logical to let Dex decide how many attacks per round (after all Dex does measure speed and hand eye coordination). And if you have a low Dex then start improving it.
I will however use the assign method of Stat generation where you can switch them around, that way if you have a lower Dex it's probably because you wanted to focus on something else.
Don Allen said:
That was specifically what I was talking about. The idea being that your dex determines the total number of "things" you can do in a round, but your skill determines how many of those things can be attacks or parries. I'm coming from a RQ2/3 perspective though. In that game, your dex determines how early in the round you start (and therefore how quickly you can get your first attack off), but in order to make a second attack (or more) you have to split your weapon skill. A high dex person in earlier versions of RQ has more time in which to act during a round, and will be able to move more, cast more magic, and potentially make more attacks, but he doesn't automatically get more attacks or parries in a round just because he rolled better during character creation.
I'm not so sure. My concern is that it effectively turns combat into "guy with higher dex wins". If I have 4 combat actions, and you have 3, I'll have one attack each round that you *cant* defend against. I already have one more "thing" I can do (like take a move action, or cast a spell) then you, but it's the potential for an extra attack that is the dealbreaker here.
This essentially pidgeonholes all characters into working up dex. At the early levels, you might be able to survive with a lower dex because not every attack by an opponent will hit, and your armor will protect you somewhat. At higher skill/power levels, the requirement to be able to actively defend against any attack that comes in will (presumably) increase. Again. I'm looking at this from a RQ3 perspective, but assuming that I were to translate my Gloranthanish campaign into MRQ, I'm expecting that "highish power level" characters are going to be running around with damage enhancing magic, and protections, and tons of other stuff, which in RQ3 makes succeeding at a parry/doge necessary most of the time to avoid damage. This is *worse* in MRQ since you can choose to blow percentages to further increase the effectiveness of an attack.
In a combat at that level, the guy with more CAs will always win. Because as soon as he gets an undefended attack, he'll blow a location off the person he's fighting. Barring a massive magical benefit on the part of his opponent (or really unlucky roll), it's pretty much a guaranteed result.
That's not a problem inherently. There are certainly combat combinations in which an opponent is so much tougher then the other that he's virtually guaranteed to win. However, that typicaly occurs as a result of skill differential and/or magical power differential (or gear differential). All of which are things that are obtained over time by a character as a part of his adventuring. To make a rolled stat the primary determinant of success in battle in a skill based game just seems "wrong". Characters should become more powerful over time because their skills increase, and their gear improves, and the gain increased magical capabilities. Not because they rolled well when they started the character.
And if the balance argument is "well anyone can train dex up to 19 and have four CAs too!", then why bother with it in the first place? Why not just give every character 4 CAs and just use Dex as it's currently used as a component of the strike rank roll? That way the higher dex guy goes "first", but does not necessarily automatically get to do more stuff during a round. I just feel that the dex stat becomes way to all-important the way the CA system is set up right now.
Gnarsh,
I did think of an option to make DEX less dominant.
If we chance the number of CA from being DEX based to being based on the Initiave roll, the higher DEX characters will still have an advatage, but not a constant one.
If we go with CA= Intitative roll/5
We minimize DEX by adding INT into the equation as well as a random D10 roll.
This will give the high DEX characters more actions on average, but won't give them twice the actions of an average character. Sometimes they might even end up with less actions.
And that way no one gets an extra attack from being 1 point of DEX higher (like 13 vs 12).
Or, theyre is always the old SR system.
I did think of an option to make DEX less dominant.
If we chance the number of CA from being DEX based to being based on the Initiave roll, the higher DEX characters will still have an advatage, but not a constant one.
If we go with CA= Intitative roll/5
We minimize DEX by adding INT into the equation as well as a random D10 roll.
This will give the high DEX characters more actions on average, but won't give them twice the actions of an average character. Sometimes they might even end up with less actions.
And that way no one gets an extra attack from being 1 point of DEX higher (like 13 vs 12).
Or, theyre is always the old SR system.
A
Archer
Guest
I would prefer something that has nothing to do with intelligence or dexterity, but your experience of actually be in combat.
It does not matter if you are fast, agile or smart if you freeze in the spot due to fear when faced with combat. "Mental toughness" is one of the most important aspects of martial arts, just because keeping a cool head, knowing what you should do, and how to best achieve it, are what determines "initiative" than anything else.
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.
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.
Well, now it is _very_ late here (05.02 in the morning) and I have to get some sleep. Good night, and cya later when I awake.
It does not matter if you are fast, agile or smart if you freeze in the spot due to fear when faced with combat. "Mental toughness" is one of the most important aspects of martial arts, just because keeping a cool head, knowing what you should do, and how to best achieve it, are what determines "initiative" than anything else.
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.
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.
Well, now it is _very_ late here (05.02 in the morning) and I have to get some sleep. Good night, and cya later when I awake.
atgxtg said:
Yeah. It's a step in the right direction, because at least it's not a hard break kind of situation (12 dex, 2 CA, 13 and 3...). I'm *really* not a big fan of a random roll at the beginning of a round having that much impact on you either though. Because now that d10 roll can make up to a 2 point difference in the number of CAs you get for the round. I'm ok with using an initiative style roll to determine who goes in what order. I'm not so ok with deciding that a die roll determines how many things you can do that round.
I'm much more likely to keep the 4 action ranks and the dex to CA ratio, but just limit the number of attacks you get in a manner similar to RQ3 rules (attack/parry/dodge, pick two), I'll obviously have to tweak the skill cost system for several abilities, but the idea is that you choose your attack/parry/dodge use at the beginning of the round (just as you do in RQ3), then you act according to your available CAs and ranks. Skills can be "split" effectively by making additional attempts during later actions/reactions but at a cumulative reduced skill.
The objective for me would be to essentially duplicate the sr based round of RQ3, but simplify it considerably. 4 total action phases works fine because typically that's the maximum attacks you could do in 10/12 sr anyway (so you don't lose anything from earlier editions). Your dex determines how many possible actions you can take (just as it does now by making you start later in the round), and your skill can be split to use those actions to make additional attacks instead of just moving or casting spells.
For example. A character with a 15 dex would have 3 CAs. Lets say he's got a 120% skill with his weapon. During combat, he may choose to spend the first CA casting a spell. Then the second moving up to his opponent. Then on the third he makes an attack. On the next round, he chooses to attack twice. He applies whatever minuses that is (details, yeah!) and makes his first attack on CA1. Then he makes a second attack on CA2. On CA3, he can't attack, but he could choose to move, cast a spell, or do any other action. Additionally, during this entire time, he's got the potential to make 3 parries or 3 dodges (but he must choose what he's doing first). Each one is made at some cumulative minus. Alternatively, if he's not attacked during a particular combat phase, and he's got some reactions left, he could choose to make a free hit (if it becomes available).
The point is that he's still got 3 combat actions, and 3 combat reactions, but multiple uses of the same combat skill will incur a reduction in skill. He's still using the "same skill" the whole time, rather then thinking of the skill as resetting after each use. Of course, he could equip a weapon in each hand, and use two different attack options and ignore defense entirely. He still only has 3 CAs, so a maximum of 3 attacks, but he could make one at full skill with one weapon and split the other weapon to make two additional attacks. And he can *still* potentially take free-hits and such as reactions (just can't parry or dodge in this case).
Dunno. I'll have to dig through the rules a bit more, but I think I can make this work. It'll have the virtue of matching much more closely with earlier versions of RQ's combat system, while retaining the simplicity of the CA system (and signficantly reduce the high dex problem). It's doable I think...
Archer said:
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.
Archer said:
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.
Gnarsh said:
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?
AKAramis said:
Actually, that's not correct (unless I'm missing something). There is a "defend" combat action, but it does not add extra parries or dodges. It just allows you to gain a +20% to your parries and dodges between the strike rank you start defending and the next time that rank comes around.
So no. You can't burn a combat action to get another parry or dodge. You can expend one to increase your chances of succeeding at such things, but you gain no additional actions.
In fact, the more I look over the combat system, the more I'm convinced of the overwhelming advantage a higher dex (more combat actions) provides. Since it *also* determines the number of reactions, there are benefits to be gained on that side of the equation as well.
For example. You can use a reaction to parry/dodge a "free hit". So. If I know that I've got one more combat action then you do, not only can I attack once against you unopposed, but I can also safely perform many more actions that might otherwise be dangerous. I can ignore you if I want. You have to spend a reaction attacking me (your "free" hit), and I spend a reaction defending against it. I can afford to do that because I've got an extra one. You can't. By taking a free hit against me, you've just given me an unopposed attack.
What I've realized is that having an extra CA does not just give you an extra attack if you focus on nothing but attacks. It allows you to do that even if you spend other actions doing other things. I'm free to draw a weapon safely if I have more CAs then you. I'm free to change stance safely if I want. I'm free to move however I want around you. I'm free to reload a ranged weapon if I want. Not only am I safe to do that, but if you make the mistake of using a reaction to get your free hit you've just given me a free unopposed attack on you at the end of the round (and gained nothing).
All that because you have a higher stat? In a skill based game? Ridiculous. Overwhelmingly high benefit even for a single point advantage on CAs.
The combat system needs serious work. IMO, it's a total disaster as written...
From all the reviews of actual combats I have heard it sounds like combat is fun as written.
I believe that skills and stats each should have thier place. Number of attacks should be based on how fast you are. What you do with those attacks should be based on your skill level.
I believe that skills and stats each should have thier place. Number of attacks should be based on how fast you are. What you do with those attacks should be based on your skill level.
Don Allen said:
Even if it means that a guy with a 19 DEX can do twice as many things as a guy with a 12 DEX? The current action system can lead to a medicore skilled character trashing a higher skilled character with undefendable attacks. If makes DEX far more significantthat skill.
