Any change to the Experience system?

[burdock]

UROX WROTE

Clearly you tried to Parry for the skill check!

For the character-building experience. character-building experiences are good for us :x

 

[HyrumOWC]

Feasible from a rules persepctive, certainly. Enough of the numbers match up to make the games semi-compatable. Feasible from a liscencing issue-no. I doubt Chasoium would let the Lovecraft liscence go.

IMO, I'm noty sure if there is much reason to. I mean evenif someone prefers MRQ to CoCBRP, CoC is probably, of all the Chaosium settings, the one where the rules matter the least. None of the rule changes are going to amount to much if you are up against a Shoggoth. Getting a minimum damage result for a dodge against Cthulhu probably tranlates to your corpse being in one piece.

Unfortunately, Chaosium has very little say in whether or not someone publishes Lovecraft in an RQ game. Most of Lovecraft's stories are in the public domain and are therefore free to use. You'd be limited to just work done by HPL, as almost everything else done after him by Derleth, etc. are held in copyright by Arkham House.

The only CoC rule you're missing is Sanity, and that's now OGL via WotC publishing the d20 version in Unearthed Arcana.

RQ OGL + OGL Sanity Rules + Lovecraft PD = Cthulhu adventures not done by Chaosium.

Hyrum.

 

[wartorn]

THe "no wiff" idea, would have ruined the combat system. A Troll with a maul going to be able to smash down skilled fighter with a showrdsword & shield, since 2xParry AP would not have offset 2D6+2D6 damage

Dodge!

 

[atgxtg]

Unfortunately, Chaosium has very little say in whether or not someone publishes Lovecraft in an RQ game. Most of Lovecraft's stories are in the public domain and are therefore free to use. You'd be limited to just work done by HPL, as almost everything else done after him by Derleth, etc. are held in copyright by Arkham House.
Hyrum.

Yeah, that is unfortuantely. Especially if so much of the mythos stuff by other authors is still held by Arham House.

OGL is a double edged sword. It allows third party companies to produce some great supplmenets. It just doesn't ensure it. It is just as likely (and much easier) for s third party to produce poor supplments. THe d20 system has illustrated that point.

One interesting thing though is that as MRQ and BRP have so many similarities in stats, it would seem to be easy to run a supplement written for one system with the rules from the other without much difficulty. Much the way that you can port CoC characters over to Elric or RQ, or even Privateeers & Gentlemen. Running a Second Age RQ3 campaign, or an MRQ Corum campaign would seem fairly easy to set up.

 

[atgxtg]

THe "no wiff" idea, would have ruined the combat system. A Troll with a maul going to be able to smash down skilled fighter with a showrdsword & shield, since 2xParry AP would not have offset 2D6+2D6 damage

Dodge!

Indeed. Why bother to learn to parry at all? Dodge would have been superor to parrying, completely elmionating the reason for shields.

 

[wartorn]

I think the editorial error in the combat matrix isnt so bad......you could read it like this: there is no sensible reason to defend against an unsuccesful attack.....BUT.......if you WERE stupid enough to throw yourself in front of a moving weapon in order to parry it then the table shows the results of such an unlikely action. Fair enough?

If some guy was swinging a sword at you, you'd be stupid not to try and defend. If you wait to see if the weapon's going to hit, you'd be far too late to defend a successful blow, too.

This is some strange kind of metagaming thinking that is very common and, IMO, comes from initiative systems where person 'A' does his complete action, then 'B', and so on. The reality is that it all happens more or less at the same time (which is why I like the old SR system better than the new).

By definition, the parry must happen in the same instant as the attack for the two weapons to connect. There is no time to think about whether it's worth parrying or not.

I agree - and think the combat chart should be left as is and everything else made to match it. Sadly however, there are three references in the text (identified by halfbat) that completely contradict our view.

Even if you didn't choose to defend against an attack, every attack you can see provokes a reaction - you don't dispassionately catalogue the quantity of dandelions in your vicinity while someone is flailing chunks of metal or wood about in your vicinity - you have to at least observe them in case they get close. In other words, the time is lost even if you don't do anything.

After we've all been playing for a month with various iterations we'll have a better idea of what actually works.

 

[atgxtg]

I think the editorial error in the combat matrix isnt so bad......you could read it like this: there is no sensible reason to defend against an unsuccesful attack

THere is no sensitble reason according to game mechanics. There are sensible reasons to parry a "failed" attack in real life. These usually invlve deflecting the attacking werapon in order to create and opneing that you can exploit. Also, you can deflect the attack in such a way to to damage the attacker's weapon, such as catching the halft of a polearm on the blade of your axe. And yeah, it is possible to turn a miss into a hit, I saw that happen in a real life practice once. I did a diagonal cut that was supposed to miss off the left shoulder. My opponenet defended with a circular parry and mocved my blade to the right side, causing me to connect right where his neck connected with his right shoulder blade. Good thing we were using shinai. (Unsuccessful attack vs. fumbled parry).

The big thing about a parry is that is is not just sticking your weapon/shield in the way to take the hit, but it involves striking the attacking weapon from the side in order to defelct it. This is why it is possible to parry greatacxes with daggers, or even barehanded.


IMO expanding the combat matrix to allow for ripostes, or attacker off balance, or attacker pushed back results would have made a nice addition to the combat matrix for successful parry vs. unsuccessful attack.

Maybe that is in the text?

 

[wartorn]

THe "no wiff" idea, would have ruined the combat system. A Troll with a maul going to be able to smash down skilled fighter with a showrdsword & shield, since 2xParry AP would not have offset 2D6+2D6 damage

Dodge!

Indeed. Why bother to learn to parry at all? Dodge would have been superor to parrying, completely elmionating the reason for shields.

Precisely - when Fighting a Troll!

In a land beset by monstrous hulking brutes I believe the combat styles of man would be more Cirque De Soleil than Viking

 

[atgxtg]

Dodge!

Indeed. Why bother to learn to parry at all? Dodge would have been superor to parrying, completely elmionating the reason for shields.

Precisely - when Fighting a Troll!

In a land beset by monstrous hulking brutes I believe the combat styles of man would be more Cirque De Soleil than Viking

Why learn against anyone? From a game standpoint, if dodgeing is as easy to do as parrying. and stops an attack completely, then parrying becomes an inferior form of defense. People would just choose to dodge everything, and not bother to learn how to parry at all. RQ3 kept this from happening as it was more difficult to dodge crtical and special success attacks.

 

[waiwode]

Indeed. Why bother to learn to parry at all? Dodge would have been superor to parrying, completely elmionating the reason for shields.

Two factors:

1) We no longer have a parry skill. Somewhere around here someone stated that your weapon or shield skill is used for attack & parry. In the case of a fencer (and rapiers are on the equipment list ... but I volunteer to be the last guy to fence with the troll!) that leaves you with only one skill to worry about in melee.

2) Dodge may be more "all or none" than Parry. If you Attack successfully and Parry successfully you're good. I'm not sure the rules will support two opponents being able to Attack successfully and Parry successfully. This may be a case where the more successful person counts as a success.

The 10% Throw trollkin throws a rock and rolls 10%. A hit! The 60% Dodge RuneLord laughs and dodges ... and rolls 9%!

Here is a case where the Blackjack mechanic you dislike so much may have an effect. Or may not. I can only point out that the table is called the Attack/Parry table, not the Attack/Defense table.

Doug.

 

[andakitty]

To get a riposte!

Anyway, I wasn't accusing you of being negative so much as teasing you about sounding negative, atgxtg.

Well, I guess we either houserule or wait for an official clarification. Sigh. I don't want to houserule any more.

 

[Urox]

1) We no longer have a parry skill. Somewhere around here someone stated that your weapon or shield skill is used for attack & parry.

The character sheet in the downloads section also indicates this.

2) Dodge may be more "all or none" than Parry.

Does anyone have the exact details on how Parry, Dodge and Block differ?

Trying to make sense of what people are saying, it seems that:

Block: Uses shield, stops the most damage
Parry: Uses weapon skill, stops less damage, chance for riposte
Dodge: Avoids all damage, requires rolling lower than skill AND opponent's roll

Note that there may an intrinsic imbalance here -- increasing Weapon Skill increases both offense and defense, giving you a two-for-one for each awarded skill check.

Say the GM awards you two skill checks, isn't the character who takes both on a weapon going to quickly outclass the character who takes 1 in weapon and 1 in block?

 

[atgxtg]

Indeed. Why bother to learn to parry at all? Dodge would have been superor to parrying, completely elmionating the reason for shields.

Two factors:

1) We no longer have a parry skill. Somewhere around here someone stated that your weapon or shield skill is used for attack & parry. In the case of a fencer (and rapiers are on the equipment list ... but I volunteer to be the last guy to fence with the troll!) that leaves you with only one skill to worry about in melee.

Yeah, but we do have a shield skill. THere has to be some reason for Sword & Shield to be aw worthwile as sword & dodge. Else no one would carry around a shield.

2) Dodge may be more "all or none" than Parry. If you Attack successfully and Parry successfully you're good. I'm not sure the rules will support two opponents being able to Attack successfully and Parry successfully. This may be a case where the more successful person counts as a success.

The 10% Throw trollkin throws a rock and rolls 10%. A hit! The 60% Dodge RuneLord laughs and dodges ... and rolls 9%!

Here is a case where the Blackjack mechanic you dislike so much may have an effect. Or may not. I can only point out that the table is called the Attack/Parry table, not the Attack/Defense table.

Doug.

I can't fault your thinking here. It may or maynot make a difference, depending on what else in in the system. Likewise, the same effects could be worked in without the blackjack mechanic. I just don't want to see the 09% dodge roll being better than the 09% parry without the 09% parry being superior in some situations.

The old shiled cover rules could help here, creating situations where the target is hit, due does not need to defend as he was struck on the shield. Giving shields a bonus to parry would be nice too, making them more useful to character as they start out.

But at this point it is all speciulation. We will have to wait and see how thing are written in the book, and if dodging makes parrying obsolete or not.

In a way, this reminds me of a flaw that a player noticed in the old SWORDBEARER rpg. In that game you had a parry skill, and a speed skill for your weapons and shields. A character only needed to make a roll if the attack was faster than the character's parrying weapon. THis sounded good, but in practice fell apart, as it made sense to just concentrate on improving shield speed as opposed to skill and eliminate the need to roll a parry.

 

[andakitty]

Another question. Do you have to attack a weapon to damage it, or is that worked into the resolution mechanic so that it can happen during combat without specific intent? I assume that normally damage after the weapons' armor points are deducted pass to the combatant.

 

[atgxtg]

Another question. Do you have to attack a weapon to damage it, or is that worked into the resolution mechanic so that it can happen during combat without specific intent? I assume that normally damage after the weapons' armor points are deducted pass to the combatant.

I am wondering if special effects like this are now part of the critical system. I have another RPG that puts, implaes, stuns, knockdowns, and all that in with the critcal system. Generally, if you get a critical you get to select effects from a list based upon what weapon you are using and what sort of abilities you have.

THat might be the case with MRQ, since we haven't seen ahow they work criticals yet.

 

[wartorn]

Why learn against anyone? From a game standpoint, if dodgeing is as easy to do as parrying. and stops an attack completely, then parrying becomes an inferior form of defense. People would just choose to dodge everything, and not bother to learn how to parry at all. RQ3 kept this from happening as it was more difficult to dodge crtical and special success attacks.

Another factor is encumbrance (which I'm assuming is modeled in some fashion in MRQ) - Dodging is (should be) affected by wearing armor (and carrying a shield) while Parry/Block is not. If the average attack of your most enountered foe will be absorbable by 2x AP of your weapon/shield of choice you're much better off armoring up and using parry as a defense. When the Troll appears though, I advise you to get nekkid quick.

 

[HyrumOWC]

1) We no longer have a parry skill. Somewhere around here someone stated that your weapon or shield skill is used for attack & parry.

The character sheet in the downloads section also indicates this.

2) Dodge may be more "all or none" than Parry.

Does anyone have the exact details on how Parry, Dodge and Block differ?

Trying to make sense of what people are saying, it seems that:

Block: Uses shield, stops the most damage
Parry: Uses weapon skill, stops less damage, chance for riposte
Dodge: Avoids all damage, requires rolling lower than skill AND opponent's roll

Note that there may an intrinsic imbalance here -- increasing Weapon Skill increases both offense and defense, giving you a two-for-one for each awarded skill check.

Say the GM awards you two skill checks, isn't the character who takes both on a weapon going to quickly outclass the character who takes 1 in weapon and 1 in block?

Block and Parry are the same thing. You parry with weapons and shields.

Parries with weapons allow you to reposite, while Dodge doesn't.

Dodge allows for the attacker to be Overextended, and for the person Dodging to be forced to Give Ground.

Overextended gives a negative modifier to the attacker, while Giving Ground forces the defender to move their full movement away from the attacker.

 

[HyrumOWC]

Another question. Do you have to attack a weapon to damage it, or is that worked into the resolution mechanic so that it can happen during combat without specific intent? I assume that normally damage after the weapons' armor points are deducted pass to the combatant.

I am wondering if special effects like this are now part of the critical system. I have another RPG that puts, implaes, stuns, knockdowns, and all that in with the critcal system. Generally, if you get a critical you get to select effects from a list based upon what weapon you are using and what sort of abilities you have.

THat might be the case with MRQ, since we haven't seen ahow they work criticals yet.

Knockback is seperate from Crits. It happens whenever someone gets hit with more damage than their SIZ, before calculating armor.

Hyrum.

 

[atgxtg]

To get a riposte![/qoute]

Not considering that you have a 10:1 ratio of getting hit for it. Heck if we are going with the fencing model, most successful parries should have a riposte. Come to think of it the -40% to bypass armor rule would be nice as a -40% to parry to get a riposte.

Anyway, I wasn't accusing you of being negative so much as teasing you about sounding negative, atgxtg.

No problem kitty. It is just hard to interet tone and meaning from text. A lot of people are very postive about MRQ, so I tend to look negative by default. My point of view is more netral. Basically it boils down to wondering just what is in MRQ that will make me want to play it rather than some other RPG.

Well, I guess we either houserule or wait for an official clarification. Sigh. I don't want to houserule any more.

I don't mind doing a little houseruling. THere is a point, however where I'll just use something different. Then again, I have something like 50-75 RPGs, so I have lots of options.

In ten days we won't have to guess and speculate as much.

 

[Urox]

Block and Parry are the same thing. You parry with weapons and shields.

Parries with weapons allow you to reposite, while Dodge doesn't.

Dodge allows for the attacker to be Overextended, and for the person Dodging to be forced to Give Ground.

Overextended gives a negative modifier to the attacker, while Giving Ground forces the defender to move their full movement away from the attacker.

I'm sure glad combat got streamlined in MQ -- I'd hate to see it if they decided to add complexity!

So, are shields the be the red-haired step-child of MQ? They consume valuable XP... err... GM awarded skill checks.

Maybe the Min/Maxers will figure out that the best weapon *is* a shield, and will just go around bashing and blocking all day...