Alternative for Initiative

Size is perhaps easier to explain. A larger bulk is harder to move around (law of inertia). I think the cube-squared law also works against large guys, as the muscles get squared but the mass they have to move around get cubed. So a large creature might be expected to be a bit slower.

Strength was thrown in there to keep high-dex characters from having a negative SR too often. It's kind of stereotypical, I guess. Strength helps with speed, but speed means momentum and momentum is harder to shift around.

As noted, reach is good when somebody is approaching you, but once you are in combat, I don't think reach will help you.

(Unless I can find a way to implement something like the "Large And In Charge" feat from D&D, whereby a large character can keep a smaller character from approaching.)
 
Utgardloki said:
Size is perhaps easier to explain. A larger bulk is harder to move around (law of inertia). I think the cube-squared law also works against large guys, as the muscles get squared but the mass they have to move around get cubed. So a large creature might be expected to be a bit slower.

I can sort of see that but the reach factor should also play into this. And STR should offset SIZ.



Utgardloki said:
Strength was thrown in there to keep high-dex characters from having a negative SR too often. It's kind of stereotypical, I guess. Strength helps with speed, but speed means momentum and momentum is harder to shift around.

I think it would be better just to add a number to the SR calaulation rather than have STR worrk as a negative. Add 20 or 40 and you'd be safe from negatives.

Utgardloki said:
As noted, reach is good when somebody is approaching you, but once you are in combat, I don't think reach will help you.

Sure it is, becuase you might be in combat but he would be out of reach. THis could be a nice way to factor in the problems of fighting a guy with a spear when you have a shortsword. You could work it wout so that shorter weapons really need a good INIT score to get in close and attack.

(Unless I can find a way to implement something like the "Large And In Charge" feat from D&D, whereby a large character can keep a smaller character from approaching.)[/quote]


Actually instead of using 5 phases. Why not use 1 phase and just apply the modifers to the skill to determine the success chance. Then go in order of INIT.? Critcs beat non crits, then high to low.

You could even allow for stuff like fending by having someone with reach apply his modifer as a peanlty to the other character to make him fail and keep him at bay. You could even use this to factor in movement for combat. Pressing the attack could give a bonus to INIT.
 
Utgardloki said:
As noted, reach is good when somebody is approaching you, but once you are in combat, I don't think reach will help you.

In virtually every form of melee combat I've ever participated in, the concept of "reach" is critical. Most of the time, the two combatants will maintain a distance between them that is some function of their arm reach + weapon length. This is true whether we're talking about swords, large clubs, fists, or elbows. You "attack" by moving inside the reach range (no-mans land if you will) and attempt to get a hit on the other guy without getting hit in the process. The specifics of how that is done vary wildly depending on weapon and style of fighting, but all forms use the same basic concept. And once you're done attacking, you get the heck out of that reach range...

I've always felt that the idea that a longer weapon only gives an advantage on the first round (or not at all) is flawed. Many games use a mechanic like that, but it really does not accurately represent how people actually fight. The assumption they're working on is that once the shorter weapon weilder "closes" inside the longer guys reach, he's going to be at an advantage. That is true, but typically not for long. Barring weapons that are actually cumbersome to use at very close range, you're still just as vulnerable up close as you are at the edge of that weapons reach. And no one who wants to survive a fight spends a lot of time inside the effective reach of the opponent. You *will* get hit. Alot.

The benefit of size is *always* going to help. While you can argue that some weapons have a disadvantage when closed inside their normal reach, that simply does not apply to someone's size value. Longer arms is simply an advantage. You can hit close targets just as easily as someone with shorter arms, and you can hit targets farther away as well. I've always felt that the size SR aspect of RuneQuest was one of its strongest and best features, and one that should have been maintained somehow.

We've always used some house rules for closing that essentially involved inverting the weapon SR for weapons if someone closed (and with a roll involved in successfully closing in the first place). Basically, we assume that in normal combat, the opponents are standing at a distance outside eachothers effective attack range. If you wish to close, you have to make the choice to do so and make a roll to succeed at doing so (with the opponent having the ability to prevent you from doing so). This makes the whole "ignore size and weapon length" concept a special case rather then a standard combat feature. I just find that "closing" is not done as commonly as most game rule systems would suggest.
 
I think it would be better just to add a number to the SR calaulation rather than have STR worrk as a negative. Add 20 or 40 and you'd be safe from negatives.

Okay, there's some precedent. I can set the formulat to 10 + SIZ - DEX.

Actually instead of using 5 phases. Why not use 1 phase and just apply the modifers to the skill to determine the success chance. Then go in order of INIT.? Critcs beat non crits, then high to low.

I like my 5 phase system. It allows a fast guy to land a couple blows before a slow guy gets to react. I'm not sure if I need to make it more complicated with weapon speeds or not. I might see how well that works in playtesting.

You could even allow for stuff like fending by having someone with reach apply his modifer as a peanlty to the other character to make him fail and keep him at bay. You could even use this to factor in movement for combat. Pressing the attack could give a bonus to INIT

How about this idea: If a character has reach over another, she can make a weapon skill roll to keep an opponent from getting close to her. This would require spending one of her reactions when her opponent tries to close in, and then making an opposed weapon roll vs her opponent's Dodge. If she wins, he can't close in and loses his action.

I'll definitely have to write these ideas up in an organized format.
 
Utgardloki said:
How about this idea: If a character has reach over another, she can make a weapon skill roll to keep an opponent from getting close to her. This would require spending one of her reactions when her opponent tries to close in, and then making an opposed weapon roll vs her opponent's Dodge. If she wins, he can't close in and loses his action.


This I like. Just as long as it is worth it from a game point of view. I'd be concered about he character not making the roll and being short a reaction for parrying.

I think if you add the reach facotor tho the initiative or weapon skill roll for fending it helps, as it will give longer reach weapons a better chance of getting an extra action to defend or strike with.


Come to think of it, it you use weapon reaches in the game rather than apply in SR mod, it might be easier to implement. The the guy with the short weapon is forced to close in while the longer reach character can stand back and stab.

If you use the rules for attacks and movement, the longer reach guy is going to get some free attacks, until they get close, where the long reach guy is going to be vulnerable. It would turn in backpedal and press-very realistic.


I'll definitely have to write these ideas up in an organized format.[/quote]


It will help. ONce you have it all together in one spot it makes it eaiser to see how it all works as a whole. It also makes it easier to playtest.
 
I've always felt that the idea that a longer weapon only gives an advantage on the first round (or not at all) is flawed. Many games use a mechanic like that, but it really does not accurately represent how people actually fight. The assumption they're working on is that once the shorter weapon weilder "closes" inside the longer guys reach, he's going to be at an advantage. That is true, but typically not for long. Barring weapons that are actually cumbersome to use at very close range, you're still just as vulnerable up close as you are at the edge of that weapons reach. And no one who wants to survive a fight spends a lot of time inside the effective reach of the opponent. You *will* get hit. Alot.

I'm not sure if the initiative rules are the best place to model this. Perhaps the attack/defense rules would be better.

I've been thinking that there should be movement in combat. In D&D, if one warrior is holding a halberd and another is holding a short sword, what would happen would be that the halberd-wielder would get an AOA as the short sword wielder moved in, then the halberd-wielder would take a five foot step to step back to attack the short sword guy. Also, in D&D, positions are understood to be approximate, and warriors are assumed to be moving about constantly.

I'm thinking that in Runequest, if you're facing a competent opponent, once you run out of reactions, you're in deep trouble. Maybe it would work to give the attacker a penalty if the defender moves out of weapon range. Does 20% sound fair?

It does not quite model reality, but it is just a game. I'm open to suggestions.
 
atgxtg said:
Utgardloki said:
How about this idea: If a character has reach over another, she can make a weapon skill roll to keep an opponent from getting close to her. This would require spending one of her reactions when her opponent tries to close in, and then making an opposed weapon roll vs her opponent's Dodge. If she wins, he can't close in and loses his action.


This I like. Just as long as it is worth it from a game point of view. I'd be concered about he character not making the roll and being short a reaction for parrying.
I like it too. I'm reminded a bit of Cthulhu Dark Ages. Weapons have Reach, and to get inside of a longer weapon, you must make a Dodge roll - I don't think its opposed, though.
I think if you add the reach facotor tho the initiative or weapon skill roll for fending it helps, as it will give longer reach weapons a better chance of getting an extra action to defend or strike with.


Come to think of it, it you use weapon reaches in the game rather than apply in SR mod, it might be easier to implement. The the guy with the short weapon is forced to close in while the longer reach character can stand back and stab.

If you use the rules for attacks and movement, the longer reach guy is going to get some free attacks, until they get close, where the long reach guy is going to be vulnerable. It would turn in backpedal and press-very realistic.

I'll definitely have to write these ideas up in an organized format.


It will help. ONce you have it all together in one spot it makes it eaiser to see how it all works as a whole. It also makes it easier to playtest.

Also, the combatant with the reach disadvantage could try to use a parry to make the longer reach guy overextended, thus allowing him to get inside. Maybe you could have Precise Parry at -40% to force an Overextend.
 
Utgardloki said:
I've always felt that the idea that a longer weapon only gives an advantage on the first round (or not at all) is flawed. Many games use a mechanic like that, but it really does not accurately represent how people actually fight. The assumption they're working on is that once the shorter weapon weilder "closes" inside the longer guys reach, he's going to be at an advantage. That is true, but typically not for long. Barring weapons that are actually cumbersome to use at very close range, you're still just as vulnerable up close as you are at the edge of that weapons reach. And no one who wants to survive a fight spends a lot of time inside the effective reach of the opponent. You *will* get hit. Alot.

I'm not sure if the initiative rules are the best place to model this. Perhaps the attack/defense rules would be better.

I've been thinking that there should be movement in combat. In D&D, if one warrior is holding a halberd and another is holding a short sword, what would happen would be that the halberd-wielder would get an AOA as the short sword wielder moved in, then the halberd-wielder would take a five foot step to step back to attack the short sword guy. Also, in D&D, positions are understood to be approximate, and warriors are assumed to be moving about constantly.

I'm thinking that in Runequest, if you're facing a competent opponent, once you run out of reactions, you're in deep trouble. Maybe it would work to give the attacker a penalty if the defender moves out of weapon range. Does 20% sound fair?

It does not quite model reality, but it is just a game. I'm open to suggestions.


A couple of thoughts:

As far as reach goes one of thebest games for handling it is the new Usagi Yojimbo RPG. Reach plays a big factor, and the game has a lot of retreats in iit so combat is very modbile. You do get a lot of fighters stepping back to get withing striking range for reach weapons, but you also get people being driven back to prevent being hit.

If you put people who are out of CA at a singifincant disadvantage then DEX will be more important han skill. Just use up your foe's reactions and go to town on him. MAybe rather than the all of nothing of the current system, you could use something like a reaction parry where such character can still defend by at a penalty (half ability?).

Putting movement into combat somehow would be nice. Applying a penalty to the attacker might work. Especially if you are doing a lunge tye of attrack. Then the attacker could choose to move in or lust hand back and lunge.

In the old days this could work as a parry mod, but with the new parry rules (and spears having 2AP) a penatly to attack might be better. The only real problem I see is that, like precise attacks, once the character hit a certain point, the penalty won't matter.

Persoannly I like the step & backpedal approach. UY uses it, and also has a lot of feat like gifts that alter the nature of combat. For instance there is a gift called bo mastery (japanese staff) that allows someone to use a staff as either a close weapon or at reach. Stuff like that can rwally shake up the nature of the fight. Just like if someone is using a spear, rather than backpedal, they could use it as a staff. There is even a counterattack option that works wonders. One thing that might help movement wise, and something I've mentioned elsewhere is that in UY on tie rolls defenders can retreat to turn a hit into a miss. Sort of like how in GURPS characters can retrreat for a bonus to defense.

I was thinknig that we could up the parry mutlipler (1xAP to 2xAP, etc) if someone retreats.


I think adding mobility to combat will make it more dynamic and interesting. Especially when you consider what all those advance and retreats will due to the ranks of the combatants.


THe reach thing would be nice to incoprtate, as it is really one of the major advatges of some weapons. For example it is probably the main advatage of a spear over a sword. If moveing required the attacker to either attack the spear (use an action) or block the spea (use a reaction) it would help the spearman maintain his advantage.
 
Back
Top