Basic Combat Question....

[kwinland]

Howdy,

I have a few questions about the new MRQ combat system... (I have run/played RQ II/III for 25 years, so I am having a little trouble getting used to some of the new concepts!)

1. Are y'all using the rule where if the attacker misses and the opponent fails their dodge/parry, the attack succeeds?

2. Is anyone using the armour penalty to Dex/Combat skills? Seems a bit steep at first glance.

3. How are things working without general Hit Points?

Thanks,

Ken

 

[GoingDown]

1. Are y'all using the rule where if the attacker misses and the opponent fails their dodge/parry, the attack succeeds?

We are playing so that if the attack misses, you don't need to dodge/parry. And thus, we are not using that line at all. At first, we tried to use two-roll combat method, but our players didn't like the extra roll.

2. Is anyone using the armour penalty to Dex/Combat skills? Seems a bit steep at first glance.

We houseruled this so that armour penalty is halved for combat skills.

3. How are things working without general Hit Points?

It works quite well. In some fights we had problem with some guys still fighting when they had two limbs chopped off... from ground and with steep penalties, but still. So, now when you are injured so that you need to do resilence rolls, resilence rolls are done after every combat action. And for multiple injuries, multiple resilence rolls are required. Also we are giving penalties for the resilence rolls (-5%) for every combat round.

Thanks,

Ken[/quote]

 

[weasel_fierce]

1. Are y'all using the rule where if the attacker misses and the opponent fails their dodge/parry, the attack succeeds?

The defender doesnt have to declare if they dodge or parry untill after the attackers roll.

2. Is anyone using the armour penalty to Dex/Combat skills? Seems a bit steep at first glance.

I only use them for things like swimming and climbing

3. How are things working without general Hit Points?

It makes characters a bit more survivable, and big monsters very scary


Enjoy!

 

[kwinland]

Howdy,

One of the questions that I missed...

Is *anyone* using the -40% called shot to avoid armour? That seems like a real combat-breaker to me on first pass...

Ken

 

[weasel_fierce]

Why do you feel that ?

 

[Loz]

Howdy,

One of the questions that I missed...

Is *anyone* using the -40% called shot to avoid armour? That seems like a real combat-breaker to me on first pass...

Ken

Remember, it's not just to avoid armour. A precise attack can be used to disarm, strike a specific location, or bypass armour by finding a suitable opening or weakness. But you can't combine all of these options into a single attack, so it's a case of choosing your tactics and strategy carefully, and weighing the risks against the rewards.

It's a realistic situation. Even the best armour never provides 100% coverage and there are always weakspots at the joints. A good strike (and -40%, or even higher replicates that) can get through. Think Bard aiming for the vulnerable underside of Smaug.

Certainly not a game-breaker at all. In fact, against some opponents, it might even be essential to gain anything like a fighting edge.

 

[Itto]

Howdy,

One of the questions that I missed...

Is *anyone* using the -40% called shot to avoid armour? That seems like a real combat-breaker to me on first pass...

Ken

Also if you look in the Companion you can get finely crafted armour that gives a -80% modifier to avoid. I really like these two rules combined as it allows for really good Knight/Hero plate armour (-80%) and the kind of armour that guards/soldiers would wear(-40%). They both stop 6 points of damage, but one is far better than the other.

 

[RosenMcStern]

It's a realistic situation. Even the best armour never provides 100% coverage and there are always weakspots at the joints. A good strike (and -40%, or even higher replicates that) can get through. Think Bard aiming for the vulnerable underside of Smaug.

Certainly not a game-breaker at all. In fact, against some opponents, it might even be essential to gain anything like a fighting edge.

This has been discussed before on these boards. A naked mand and a plate-armored man, both with 60% or 80% skill, meet on the battlefield. The armored guy is -42% to all attacks, parries and dodges. The naked guy takes a -40% penalty for a precise attack and TOTALLY IGNORES HIS OPPONENT'S ARMOR. Result: both have no protection against damage, but the naked guy has a penalty to his attack only, and he is very likely to win the fight against the equally-skilled man in armor.

The combination of bypass armor and armor penalty is the second most unrealistic rule in the RPG panorama (D&D armor class is still unsurpassed ). It is clear that a rule that makes armor bypassable is needed, for no suit of armor is free of weak points, but the old rule of "Critical bypasses armor" was waaaaay better to represent this.

Another person on this forum also suggested to decrease the actual die roll from the armor value in case of a critical, which is even more realistic as it allows partial bypassing of armor and gives an edge to more skilled characters who get criticals with 9 or 10, and not just the 1 or 2 of lucky newbies.

All this IMO, but most other forumers have already expressed a similar opinion, so I know I am not alone.

 

[Loz]

I agree that the skill penalties to armoured characters are far too restrictive. I know plenty of SCA people who spend entire weekends in their suits of plate and chain and, rather than decreasing their skills, they develop techniques to use their armour to their benefit. They're no less mobile on the battlefield or at tourney than those without.

Armour is heavy, though, so fatigue can be expected, although a good warrior is generally strong and fit, and so better able to deal with its rigours.

So I agree: penalties for armour are unrealistic, although the chance to bypass armour by using a precise blow isn't.

Another debate for my files, methinks...

 

[Rurik]

Here are my observations based on a good number of combats run specifically to test things like high skills, armor penalty, bypassing armor, etc. These assume NO houseruling.

1) Shields Rock. A shield parry cannot be bypassed and weapon AP's are so low as to often not matter in bypass armor attacks. So butt naked with a really big shield is not an all bad strategy (300 anyone?).

2) In the Armor Penalty vs. Bypass Armor approach if both characters have a 90 skill the advantage does kinda go to the guy with no armor (in that his parry is at full while the armored guy's parry is at -42%), but there are other advantages to armor - such as when your reactions run out or you are ambushed. The Naked guy is in some trouble there. And not everyone has the skill to bypass armor, so some creatures will choose not to. A trollkin with a 50-60% skill pretty much has to against full plate, while a dark troll with a maul and damage bonus is likely better off just swinging away.

2b) Back to the trollkin - a character in full plate (or even chain) faces six trollkin. They do 1d6 damage but have a damage penalty of 1d2 and skills of 50%. They CANNOT hurt the character EVER without using bypass armor attacks - even on a crit. So we have a bunch of trollkin attacking at 10%. Sooner or later they will get lucky and bypass armor. The net result is that the character is subjected to dozens of attacks and none of them ever strike his armor - they either miss completely or strike an unarmored location.

3) After the first successful bypass armor attack, if it does not disable the target outright, it is often better to target the wounded location than go for another bypass armor attack. A character with a high resilience can fight on with many wounds spread across many locations. If you strike a location with bypass armor, it is often better to try to get a couple more points through the armor to the same location than to hit a whole new location.

I think realistically both the RQ2/RQ3 and the MRQ systems have merits. There should be a lucky chance to bypass armor (RQ2/3) but also a way to specifically try to as well (MRQ). I have been pretty critical of some of the decisions made in MRQ in the past, and while I think the RQ 2/3 rules are overall a better simulation of combat, the MRQ rules have worked well and feel pretty good in practice.

 

[Rurik]

Now specifically to the OP's questions:

Howdy,

I have a few questions about the new MRQ combat system... (I have run/played RQ II/III for 25 years, so I am having a little trouble getting used to some of the new concepts!)

1. Are y'all using the rule where if the attacker misses and the opponent fails their dodge/parry, the attack succeeds?

There is a players guide pdf as a sticky at the top of this very forum that clears up some of the combat questions.

Normally you decide to parry after the attack is rolled - you never need to use a reaction on a failed attack. So that situation on the table should never come up.

History Lesson: Up until fairly late in development a two roll system was used where if the attack succeeded and the defender parried the parry was resolved as an opposed roll - the attacker rolled a second time opposing the defenders parry roll (some demo's were run this way and an example in the book uses it). This is why the attacker fails row results in a hit if the defender misses his parry - the initial attack roll was a success.

Pimp My Houserule Section: What I do is compare the parry roll to the attackers roll. If the parry succeeds and rolls better than the attacker's roll use the Attack Fails row of the table for parry or dodge. If the Parry succeeds but rolls worse than the attackers roll use the Attack Succeeds row of the table.

2. Is anyone using the armour penalty to Dex/Combat skills? Seems a bit steep at first glance.

Many people halve it. The other popular house rule is to apply armor penalty only to fatigue checks.

3. How are things working without general Hit Points?

It works pretty well. Sometimes you get into cases where a person takes a bunch of wounds to many locations and keeps fighting unhindered. It actually makes the game a bit more survivable. Aiming for a specific location is more important (work the already wounded location).

Very often though, it is one good hit that does a poor soul in, just like RQ 2/3.

Thanks,

You're welcome.

Ken

Rurik

 

[Vagabond]

I agree that the skill penalties to armoured characters are far too restrictive. I know plenty of SCA people who spend entire weekends in their suits of plate and chain and, rather than decreasing their skills, they develop techniques to use their armour to their benefit. They're no less mobile on the battlefield or at tourney than those without.

Armour is heavy, though, so fatigue can be expected, although a good warrior is generally strong and fit, and so better able to deal with its rigours.

So I agree: penalties for armour are unrealistic, although the chance to bypass armour by using a precise blow isn't.

Another debate for my files, methinks...

Yeah, I liked Stormbringer's take on armour penalties - Ken and Steve just
assumed that a warrior was trained to wear armour at just about all times,
and thus would have already adapted. Hence, no explicit penalties other than
swimming. Though I could see reason for extreme conditions (heat for
example).

-V

 

[Loz]

And, of course, armour vulnerability is built into the Stormbringer set-up because all armour has a dice roll rather than a fixed value.

Problem is, it becomes unwieldy with hit locations!

 

[gamesmeister]

Armour is heavy, though, so fatigue can be expected, although a good warrior is generally strong and fit, and so better able to deal with its rigours.

So I agree: penalties for armour are unrealistic, although the chance to bypass armour by using a precise blow isn't.

Definitely agree with this. The precise attack vs naked man debate is a result of the flawed armour skill penalties, not the precise attack (which becomes very important as characters weapons skills reach progressively higher levels).

I only apply armour penalties to fatigue rolls, swimming, and acrobatics.

 

[Rurik]

In all fairness, RQ3 pretty much had a penalty for wearing heavy armor that was not insignificant. I don't have my RQ3 armor tables handy but I know for sure a 'tough dude' with STR 15 and CON 15 wearing full plate, carrying a couple of weapons and a missle weapon with ammo was going to start at negative fatigue points with a decent negative modifier, and lose an additional 1 point per turn to fatigue.

Of course lighter armor didn't have any penalty normally.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Armour is heavy, though, so fatigue can be expected, although a good warrior is generally strong and fit, and so better able to deal with its rigours.

So I agree: penalties for armour are unrealistic, although the chance to bypass armour by using a precise blow isn't.

I am 100% with you when you suggest to limit armour effects to the domain of fatigue. Unfortunately, the current ENC values of armor pieces do not allow this, as they do not take into account the actual weight but rather the difference in awkwardness between an armor suit and an object you are carrying - which is not a bad idea in itself, mind me.

A chance to bypass armor intentionally is, in fact, realistic. However, once a character is 140% or more in attack, he will simply ignore non-bastion armor, including 20-pt dragonskin. I think the real complaints about this will start in a few months, when characters in the current campaigns begin passing the 100% threshold consistently.

 

[weasel_fierce]

that, and in RQ3, dodging was, for most practical purposes, impossible.

 

[kwinland]

Howdy,

Interesting points....

I do think that the skill penalties associated with armour as it stands are a bit ludicrous. Visit Leeds, and re-enactors will do cartwheels in full plate kit. Some penalty for certain skills (swim, anyone?) make perfect sense, but the whole idea of armour is to protect one in combat without being TOO much of a hindrance. Back from my SCA days, I remember armour being heavy and hot, but I do not remember it getting in my way. I think some mechanism of fatigue would better handle this.

BTW, is it me, or do the encumberance and fatigue rules need to be better integrated? It does not seem like your Enc influences your fatique much.

As far as the precise blow penalty for avoiding armour, it looks to me like it is a tad too powerful. In RQ II/III, a critical allowed you to ignore armour, but you only had a 5%/skill chance of doing this. With only a -40% penalty, who WOULDN'T take this option EVERY time to avoid ALL armour?

Would removing this option of precise blows and instead adding the facet of ignoring armour to your critical hits solve this?

Ken

 

[Lost in Space]

Haven’t really thought this through, but would applying the armour penalty only to Dodge be more appropriate? So if you want a nimble swashbuckler type warrior who concentrates on Dodge for defence then only light or no armour is practical.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

In all fairness, RQ3 pretty much had a penalty for wearing heavy armor that was not insignificant. I don't have my RQ3 armor tables handy but I know for sure a 'tough dude' with STR 15 and CON 15 wearing full plate, carrying a couple of weapons and a missle weapon with ammo was going to start at negative fatigue points with a decent negative modifier, and lose an additional 1 point per turn to fatigue.

Which, given that "tough dudes" did wear heavy armour without collapsing in short order from exhaustion is why I always ignored the RQ3 fatigue rules...