A
Archer
Guest
How simple, and very effective 
Don Allen said:
Possible. But the point buy systems really only work if the things you spend the points on are relatively similar in value.
Using a point buy system for starting stats, you'll end up seeing a lot of characters starting with an 18 dex (so they can train to 19 as quickly as possible, and also assuming you can't buy higher then you could roll on startup). Basically, expect to see a whole lot of ugly, short, high dex/str/con characters, because those are the stats that'll have the greatest effect on their initial survivability.
One of the reasons that rolled stats "work" in previous versions of RQ (and heck, in every game where stats are traditionally rolled), is that the stats themselves have a relatively minor and incremental effect on the game. Certainly, in RQ2/3, stats mattered. There were break points for damage bonuses, but you weren't gimped if you didn't hit them. One of the most powerful combat characters in my current campaign only has a d4 strength bonus. Strike ranks mattered, but were split up between dex, siz, and weapon length. And even then, only delayed your starting attack. Since you don't get a second attack unless you use two weapons (and take no defensive actions), or have a skill over 100%, starting later in the round just isn't that big of a deal.
I guess what I'm getting at is that one way to look at the 4 strike rank round of MRQ is that you've just taken the 10/12 SR model used previously and compressed it. Instead of counting every rank, you just have 4 ranks, and assume each is long enough for one "action". And that actualy kinda works with the RQ3 convention of 3 SRs between attacks in terms of conversion. Take a 12 SR round, divide it into "actions" of 3 SR length, and you have 4 possible combat action ranks, right? It's the exact same system, you've just simplified it (which is the goal for MRQ).
The problem is that all of the weight in terms of numbers of action has been shifted from 3 different things (dex, size, weapon length) into one (dex). Additionally, the weight of dex is *huge*. If we keep the 1 CA=3 SRs comparison, dex alone generates a range of up to 9 SRs. And it's not just when you can attack, but how many as well. That's way too much power in a single stat.
I think the feel of earlier systems is more accurately maintained if you allow CAs based on Dex (that's fine), but restrict the total number of attacks/parries/dodges based on skill (some method of either division or cumulative reduction for additional attacks). I just think that the game as designed right now, not only favors high dex characters excessively, but also will end up as a HP-fest. Damage to defense seems a bit out of whack as well, with heavy armor not coming close to enough to defend and parries with anything but a shield being almost worthless. I see dodge being used as the primary defensive ability for most characters simply because 3-4 points of armor and a successful dodge will avoid all damage most of the time, while the same armor with a successful parry will not stop a regular hit in some cases (depending on the weapon of course!).
I'm just looking at how the game will scale as characters improve in magic and skill, and seeing a game where basicaly two opponents will just beat on eachother, with neither really having any ability to defend (precise strikes remove defensive armor, and parries wont stop enough points, and dodge will still allow minimum damage, which will be boosed with bladesharp type spells). It'll end up coming down to who has more total attack options, and who can grind down a location faster then the other.
Feels too much like D&D. Which may be the objective. But I play RQ because it *isn't* about wearing down HPs (whether locations or total isn't really that much of a change). I want combats to be tests of the skills and magic of the two fighting, not just a process of attrition, with the guy with the higher HPs and/or Dex winning. And it's looking to me like higher end combats will end up being just that.
Sigtrygg
Emperor Mongoose
Attrition?
I once ran a (RQ2) combat between two rune level characters in a Balazar arena.
They both had all the spells, the armour, familiars etc. and skills at 90%+
After three hours they gave up - that's real time not game time.
MRQ looks like it may be more suited to situations like that.
I once ran a (RQ2) combat between two rune level characters in a Balazar arena.
They both had all the spells, the armour, familiars etc. and skills at 90%+
After three hours they gave up - that's real time not game time.
MRQ looks like it may be more suited to situations like that.
Actually with a point buy system you could rule that Dex costs twice as many points as everything else.
What if all stats started at 8 . You then have 32 pts to spend on your 6 stats on a 1 for 1 basis (with Dex being 2 for 1).You will then have to spend 16 points to have a 16 Dex (half your alloted points) and a whopping 20 points if you want an 18 Dex.
I think that would work to something like Dex 18 and all else at 10.
What if all stats started at 8 . You then have 32 pts to spend on your 6 stats on a 1 for 1 basis (with Dex being 2 for 1).You will then have to spend 16 points to have a 16 Dex (half your alloted points) and a whopping 20 points if you want an 18 Dex.
I think that would work to something like Dex 18 and all else at 10.
It's better to fix the problem then come up with a set of workarounds.
Your suggestion does not "fix" the core issue. That dex has an abnormally high impact on combat effectiveness. It's not just a stat to stat issue. It's a skill to stat issue as well. Everything else being equal, an extra CA is equivalent to increasing all of your combat skills by 25-33% of their actual values.
There is simply *no* balancing point to that. All characters will work their dex up to 19 as quickly as possible. Any that don't will find themselves outmatched by those that do. Ultimately, it becomes either something that doesn't matter because everyone's got 4CAs, or is a huge problem for anyone who doesn't.
Your suggestion does not "fix" the core issue. That dex has an abnormally high impact on combat effectiveness. It's not just a stat to stat issue. It's a skill to stat issue as well. Everything else being equal, an extra CA is equivalent to increasing all of your combat skills by 25-33% of their actual values.
There is simply *no* balancing point to that. All characters will work their dex up to 19 as quickly as possible. Any that don't will find themselves outmatched by those that do. Ultimately, it becomes either something that doesn't matter because everyone's got 4CAs, or is a huge problem for anyone who doesn't.
A
Archer
Guest
Well, my Combat Experience skill look better all the time.
Combat Experience Dex + Pow
Advanced Skill
This skill measures a characters experience of being in real life-and-death combat, not just mock combat or training. It determines how good he is at keeping a level head in the heat of battle, when to act, and use what he has learned to the best of his advantage.
For every 25% the character has in this skill, he gains another Combat Action beyond the first basic one available to all characters. And for every 5% in the skill, he gains a Strike Rank modifier of +1.
q
Special Rule - Training: Combat Experience are not increased as normal skills, but instead it increases by 1 point for every battle, skirmish or combat the character participates in, in which the opponent or opponents actively are trying to kill him.
Each month of military training increases the skill by 1% until the skill has reach 30%, at which point only real experience can further increase this skill.
Special Rule - Fear/Psychological Stress:Any time the character suffers psychological stress during battle, which may cause him to falter and flee, he may use this skill as a reaction to stand his ground and keep his calm. Depending on what causes the psychological stress, the roll might be an opposed skill check, or it might be a straight roll with suitable modifiers applied by the GM.
That takes care of both those problems. Now give combat oriented professions and culture some % each in this skill.
Combat Experience Dex + Pow
Advanced Skill
This skill measures a characters experience of being in real life-and-death combat, not just mock combat or training. It determines how good he is at keeping a level head in the heat of battle, when to act, and use what he has learned to the best of his advantage.
For every 25% the character has in this skill, he gains another Combat Action beyond the first basic one available to all characters. And for every 5% in the skill, he gains a Strike Rank modifier of +1.
q
Special Rule - Training: Combat Experience are not increased as normal skills, but instead it increases by 1 point for every battle, skirmish or combat the character participates in, in which the opponent or opponents actively are trying to kill him.
Each month of military training increases the skill by 1% until the skill has reach 30%, at which point only real experience can further increase this skill.
Special Rule - Fear/Psychological Stress:Any time the character suffers psychological stress during battle, which may cause him to falter and flee, he may use this skill as a reaction to stand his ground and keep his calm. Depending on what causes the psychological stress, the roll might be an opposed skill check, or it might be a straight roll with suitable modifiers applied by the GM.
That takes care of both those problems. Now give combat oriented professions and culture some % each in this skill.
I think maybe flurry should just be disallowed if it truly is too powerful of a move. I don't know yet. I hope to have a couple of battles, one basic without flurry and one with flurry and see what kind of a difference it makes.
As far as Dex being too powerful I think it depends how you view it and if your players are munchkins or want to have a fancy miniature battle game. If your games are not so much about playing a 'role' and more about lets just fight then the DEX issue may be a problem. If you want to play a game and really get into a role irrespective of whether you are a kickbutt warrior then the DEX issue is not so bad. If you have a high Dex then that is explained by the fact that you are an experienced fighter. The only way to get a high DEX is by adventuring so if you start with a high Dex (lucky roll) then congratulations, your character starts experienced. If you didn't get a lucky roll then you have to build up to that level of experience.
How in the world are all of the characters going to have high Dex to start with with random rolls?
As far as Dex being too powerful I think it depends how you view it and if your players are munchkins or want to have a fancy miniature battle game. If your games are not so much about playing a 'role' and more about lets just fight then the DEX issue may be a problem. If you want to play a game and really get into a role irrespective of whether you are a kickbutt warrior then the DEX issue is not so bad. If you have a high Dex then that is explained by the fact that you are an experienced fighter. The only way to get a high DEX is by adventuring so if you start with a high Dex (lucky roll) then congratulations, your character starts experienced. If you didn't get a lucky roll then you have to build up to that level of experience.
How in the world are all of the characters going to have high Dex to start with with random rolls?
I really like Archer's Combat Experince skill and plan on trying it out in my next game.
One thing that I havnt seen mentioned yet on this thread is that impact of CAs on Spell casting. The game seems to be balanced around an averge of 2 CA's per character. Doing anything to the system that drasically changes this number will cause mages with rapid fire spells atthe high end and magic worthelss atthe lowend.
The nice this about the Combat Experince skills is that itis pretty easy for every one to start with 2 CAs and over time it will grow allowing for faster spell casting and more melee attacks.
One change I would recommend is that rather then getting 1 point every battle it might make says that you would just get a free advance roll for Combat Experince as part of the regular rewards handed out after an advanture.
One thing that I havnt seen mentioned yet on this thread is that impact of CAs on Spell casting. The game seems to be balanced around an averge of 2 CA's per character. Doing anything to the system that drasically changes this number will cause mages with rapid fire spells atthe high end and magic worthelss atthe lowend.
The nice this about the Combat Experince skills is that itis pretty easy for every one to start with 2 CAs and over time it will grow allowing for faster spell casting and more melee attacks.
One change I would recommend is that rather then getting 1 point every battle it might make says that you would just get a free advance roll for Combat Experince as part of the regular rewards handed out after an advanture.
A
Archer
Guest
I tried flurry in a battle between a barbarian farmer (2H Hammer 62%) and a Brown bear from the rulebook. Both the farmer and the bear flurried at -20%. I can safely say that flurry is only for the most skilled characters. Both the barbarian farmer and the bear ended up missing alot when they flurried.
Though, I must say, flurry is a good thing to get combat moving fast. A round is over pretty fast when both opponents flurries
Though, I must say, flurry is a good thing to get combat moving fast. A round is over pretty fast when both opponents flurries
Instead of having Combat Experience determine CAs, why not have Combat Experience (Advanced) Skill produce a bonus to the SR roll?
Options:
1) with a successful skill roll add 1/10 rolled amount to SR.
2) just add 1/10 skill % to SR.
3) 1/10 skill is minimum on d10 roll (treat any lower roll lower than 1/10 skill as if it had rolled that amount)
4) with a successful skill roll add 1d10 to SR, 2d10 on a crit.
I'd want to combine this with the "Roll 1d10 plus strike rank, 1st CA at SR, 2nd CA at SR - 5, etc, till 0" method.
Options:
1) with a successful skill roll add 1/10 rolled amount to SR.
2) just add 1/10 skill % to SR.
3) 1/10 skill is minimum on d10 roll (treat any lower roll lower than 1/10 skill as if it had rolled that amount)
4) with a successful skill roll add 1d10 to SR, 2d10 on a crit.
I'd want to combine this with the "Roll 1d10 plus strike rank, 1st CA at SR, 2nd CA at SR - 5, etc, till 0" method.
A
Archer
Guest
algauble said:
If you check my suggestion above, you will find that it does both.
Archer said:
Am I understanding your suggestion correctly that a character who hasn't taken the Combat Experience Skill would have 1 CA and roll 1d10 for SR (not adding average of (dex+int) or anything else)? ie you're replacing both dex as determiner of CA and (dex+int)/2 as determiner of strike rank with Combat Exp. Skill determining both?
A
Archer
Guest
algauble said:
Correct. But, you could still use INT+DEX/2 as basis for Strike Rank you wish, since there are no upper limit on that scale, and all it does is determine in which order the characters act, and then have the Combat Experience skill add a bonus to that Strike Rank base (+1/5%).
Don Allen said:
You can re-assign randomly rolled valued between characetristics (that are geenrated the same way), so if I roll 16 DEX and 12 CHA, I can swap them. With 5 stats being roled using 4D6 drop lowes, one of thsoe rolls is highly likely to be a good roll and if you want to play a fighting type, why would you not do that?
Characetrs with high DEX get mroe actions, which means from a story point of view they get more limelight. They also upstage the other characters by acting first. Even purely from a roleplaying point of view, why would anyone not choose to have a more prominent, interesting and also co-incidentaly more successful character?
That one way to look at it. Yes of cousre some players might choose to play 'the common man' types, or non-fighting characters, or whatever and that's fine. I loathe GURPS because it's so hugely oriented about minimaxing obscure interactions and synergies between advantages, disadvantages, skills and such. However in RQ it's a very simple system and it's perfectly obvious to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the mechanics that a high DEX is hugely useful, so frankly most players are likely going to do it.
Minimaxing itself isn't a bad thing, it's just players trying to have characters that will be fun to play and able to contribute to the story. It's realy just building the character you want. Where it gets damaging is when it's obtrusive either by leading players to a down a certain apth by the nose (characters with high DEX are hugely better at fighting), or by complicating the ssytem to the extent that it's nolonger fun or interesting (GURPS, IMHO). It's not as if non- or low-minimax systems are hard to write or anything, there are plenty of them.
Simon Hibbs
What I meant was that if using the "random" method of determining stats (that is, not assigning them...just rolling and taking what you get) it is unlikely that Dex is even going to be an issue since everyone will probably roll fairly average DEX.
It doesn't seem that a high Dex makes you hugely better at combat. You get 3 Combat Actions for even a 13 Dex (pretty average rolling 4 dice and dropping the lowest) and that doesn't go up until you get to 19.
If using the roll and swap method I would never put a Dex lower than 13 anyways if I were making a character that has any sort of physical aptitude or fighting skill.
All in all I don't think that Dex is too powerful. Most characters will have 3 CA per round to start and it will be a while before increasing that to 4 (by increasing DEX to 19)
It doesn't seem that a high Dex makes you hugely better at combat. You get 3 Combat Actions for even a 13 Dex (pretty average rolling 4 dice and dropping the lowest) and that doesn't go up until you get to 19.
If using the roll and swap method I would never put a Dex lower than 13 anyways if I were making a character that has any sort of physical aptitude or fighting skill.
All in all I don't think that Dex is too powerful. Most characters will have 3 CA per round to start and it will be a while before increasing that to 4 (by increasing DEX to 19)
Don Allen said:
That is exactly the problem. Everyone will do that, making it meaningless (except for the one guy who "screws up" and doesn't do it of course). Are you that constrained with any other stats? If not, then Dex is grossly overpowered. I should say "grossly overimportant", since as you point out everyone will make sure to start with enough Dex to get 3 CA, so it's not an issue of power, but one of "must have" importance.
It's just that coming from earlier versions of RQ, which I've played for a long long time, I'm used to a players actual skill with the weapon he's using determining how many times he can use it during a combat round. Replacing that very clear skill based process with one that just gives all characters the same number of actions, regardless of skill level, and regardless of experience, based almost entirely on rolls on startup (and as you point out, likely meaningless at that), just seems like a step in the wrong direction.
Yeah. I'm sure the combat system will work. I'm sure that with the new combat actions you can use that require subtraction of skill to gain extra effects, it'll wash out somewhat. But I still think it's "wonky"...
Oh, I see. I was wondering why some were having a problem with the new Runequest. Now I see it's mostly those who have played it in the past a lot and are comparing it to those previous editions and how it was done in those. Whenever I make a d20 character I make sure STR and DEX are my high stats if I am a fighter type and coming from that perspective it is totally normal.
I see now that it's not an problem with the game itself (the game seems to work fine with CA derived from DEX) but a problem with how it is different (and in your opinion worse) than previous editions.
I see now that it's not an problem with the game itself (the game seems to work fine with CA derived from DEX) but a problem with how it is different (and in your opinion worse) than previous editions.
Don Allen said:
Yeah. RuneQuest has always been about skills, not stats. I could take a character with "crappy" stat rolls, and give him high skills and he'll totally destroy a character with 18s across the board with "crappy" skills, assuming everything else is even.
I guess what's really confounding to me is that in MRQ they actually lessened the importance of most of the other stats even more then they already were in earlier editions of the game. There used to be "stat rolls", which were kind of a "everyman skill" type thing. If you needed to lift something, you rolled your STR versus the SIZ of the object on a resistance table. Often the GM might call for a "DEX times 5" roll to see if you slipped on something slippery for instance. Stats were used to determine basic environment versus player kind of things (and some player versus player stuff like STR v STR, and POW v POW rolls). In MRQ, those have been replaced with skills. But then the importance of DEX (and really DEX alone) has been vastly increased.
It's just strange is all. So in MRQ, I don't determine the victor of a lifting contest by rolling against our relative STR stats, but instead use some kind of Athletics skill. And at the same time, instead of using my skill with my sword to determine if I'm good enough to attack multiple times in a round, I determine that by looking at my DEX stat? That just seems backwards to me...
Heck. Even D&D determines the number of attacks you get per round based on your skill (Base ToHit value, which effectively means level and class, but those are intended to be measures of skill, right?). Again. I'm sure the system works. It's just odd is all. I understand that they decided to go in a different direction with the combat system, making numbers of attacks pretty flat, and focusing on quality perhaps (blowing percentages to do extra stuff basically). I just think that the balance really only works well if the opponents have the same CA values. And at that point, why bother with the DEX thing at all? Why not just let everyone act 4 times a round and be done with it? DEX is already going to be significant in terms of strike rank, giving the higher DEX fighter more choices in combat (can't really delay if you already go after the other guy, can you?). If CAs are the same, everything works. If they are different, then the guy with more CA's has a huge advantage. There's simply no way to get around the math of it.
Well there is also the fact that with RQ, swapping usally has it problems. You see in RuneQuest, particularly inGlorantha you don't really have a "straght-classed fighter" or a "single-class Wizard" like you do in other games. It all intergrates. Hence yyou will se the old vets use terms like "Battle Magic".
With the way Glorantha works (or at least worked, since we haven't see n the new book yet or the companion with the other magic rules). ensuring a high STR and DEX by swapping might leave you vulnerable in another improtant area. Not likein D&D where the fighters can put high stats into STR, DEX, CON and use the other stats to dump low rolls. In RQ a low stat anyway could be trouble. For example, alow CON in RQ hurts you far more than it does in D&D. Even with swapping, the average result is less than 13, so a player will have some tough coices on where to put the good rolls.
What has some people concered is that a player who does rol an 18 and puts in to DEX could quite quickly train up to a 19 and get 4 attacks vs. a guy with a 12 DEX who gets two. THis is a tremedous advantage, and probably offsets a big discrepancy in skill, as the 19DEX character will be getting two undefended attacks each round, even if the other character was much, much more skilled.
With the way Glorantha works (or at least worked, since we haven't see n the new book yet or the companion with the other magic rules). ensuring a high STR and DEX by swapping might leave you vulnerable in another improtant area. Not likein D&D where the fighters can put high stats into STR, DEX, CON and use the other stats to dump low rolls. In RQ a low stat anyway could be trouble. For example, alow CON in RQ hurts you far more than it does in D&D. Even with swapping, the average result is less than 13, so a player will have some tough coices on where to put the good rolls.
What has some people concered is that a player who does rol an 18 and puts in to DEX could quite quickly train up to a 19 and get 4 attacks vs. a guy with a 12 DEX who gets two. THis is a tremedous advantage, and probably offsets a big discrepancy in skill, as the 19DEX character will be getting two undefended attacks each round, even if the other character was much, much more skilled.
