Combat... limits your options a bit doesn't it?

[kintire]

When I see a combat system I want three things from it.

Exciting. Combat should be fun, and feel like action rather than number crunching. It should also be transparent, by which I mean that it should keep your attention on the action. If you are spending more time fiddling with dice or looking up tables than you are concentrating on the action, it fails for me.

Believable. I don't say "realistic" because many of the best combat systems are flamboyantly unrealistic, and all the better for it. Still, tactics that feel as if they should work, should work. Things that people throughout history favoured should be worth using. Things that people do in the source material should make sense in the game.

Varied. I am opposed to Clone Legion games. There should be the opportunity to explore a variety of different combat styles. Sword and board, dual wielding, two handed weapons, light skirmishing, rapier/scimitar and silk shirt swashbuckling. It isn't necessary for all styles to be equally effective in all situations, but each should have their niche.

So, how does Mongoose RQ stack up?

Exciting? Absolutely! fast effective transparent combat system. Top marks.

Believable? Essentially yes. I have a few issues here, but nothing too vital. High marks!

Varied? ... mmm.

MRP is unusual among RPGs in being very heavily biased towards attack. I've played in a few combats now, and my impression has been that once an opponent has successfully set his weapon moving in your direction, you will be hit and take damage regardless of what you do (I'm ignoring critical successes... they are too rare to rely on). With a successful attack roll all you can do is parry, in which case you get the AP of your weapon, or dodge in which case you take minimum weapon damage. But the APs of weapons are derisory compared to damage, and with a rolled damage bonus "minimum weapon damage" can still incapacitate a limb.

The only exception to this is a shield. At 8 or more AP, parrying with a shield actually starts to mean something. Even then, its a far from sure thing, especially against a two handed weapon, but there is at least some possibility that you might survive. With armour, the possibility becomes actually acceptable.

PCs will become involved in many many combats over their career. At some point, quite early I suspect, they will confront a successful attack doing 10-12 damage (d8+d4 lucky roll, or higher damage foe). As far as I can see, the only fighting type that will survive this is the heavily armoured warrior wielding 1h weapon and shield. Someone with a truly obnoxious Dodge, enough to still reliably dodge even in heavy armour, may also be a contender. Anyone else is going down.

I'm not totally content with this. I have a possible solution, but I would appreciate comments on how you think it would play. It involves two rules tweaks:

1) A successful Parry negates a successful attack. A successful dodge does the same.

2) Feinting: any one, at any time, can reduce their attack skill by any amount (multiple of 5?). This will reduce their opponent's defence skill by the same amount.

What do you think?

 

[RosenMcStern]

In some ways, RQ3 was almost more biased towards 1hweapon+shield combat, because anyone using a 2h weapon on the same SR that a two weapon user was unable to parry! The 2 weapon user had just to state "I strike back on the SR he attacks" and voila, the 1 weapon user could not parry on the same SR.

My opinions on your suggestions are:

1) the minimum + normal bonus rule for Dodge is a mistake and is easily houseruled away as "Minimum damage plus MINIMUM bonus". This way you usually get 2pts from normal weapons, 3pts from axes, which is not enough to bring you down in one blow.

2) do not forget that shield users and dodgers have lower skills compared to one weapon users, because they must train two skills instead of one. A one-weapon strategy is viable because it allows your character to reach 100% skill much faster. Do not forget that enchantments are easier in MRQ, so a sword with 6+ APs should not be so uncommon. Add leather armor and you can absorb the average 2H weapon blow. Sure, the ol' good iron bastard sword of the RQ3 Rune Lord (AP 18 ) was better, but we can live without it.

Let's see another example. Say I have a shield which I use at 40% skill and a sword I use at 80% skill. My opponent has a greatsword. On a normal roll, if I parry with my sword I will subtract 4 from his 2d8+bonus damage (avg. 10-11), which means that either I have armor or I go down in one blow. If I parry with my shield, the chances are lower, but with 8-10 points blocked I am probably safe. But if he criticals, he does 17+ damage in a blow, wich means a chopped limb or worse. In this case the sword parry is the best solution, because it negates the critical. Ok, I still get 2d8+bonus and only absorb 2 with my sword, but it is way better than getting maximum damage.

As for feinting, it could be resolved as a skill contest like it is managed in GURPS, or as a voluntary self-decrease of skill. But the feinter should lose more skill than the defender does. And it should be possible only with some fighting styles like rapier combat or kenjutsu.

 

[gamesmeister]

1) A successful Parry negates a successful attack. A successful dodge does the same.

There are a couple of problems with this

1) There will be no incentive to use shields, other than the additional react. The additional react is useful against multiple opponents, but a character attacking and parrying with the same weapon will see their skill progress at twice the rate of a character using weapon and shield.

2) Two characters have 95% weapon skill. That means on average, only one attack in 20 will ever do damage, assuming it can also penetrate the defenders armour. Your 'Exciting' measurement will drop considerably once that happens. N.B. This is partially offset by your feint suggestion.

How about just increasing the AP of weapons instead? You wouldn't need to increase them very much to make a considerable difference to the way combat plays out. Try adding a couple of points to see the difference it would make.

2) Feinting: any one, at any time, can reduce their attack skill by any amount (multiple of 5?). This will reduce their opponent's defence skill by the same amount.

What do you think?

Very good idea. I also posted some suggested rules for a Knockback manoeuver some time ago, and I've got a couple of others floating around which I'll post when I remember, but this is nice varient. I suspect I'll be using this, although I think there should be limits on just how much you can reduce your attack by.

 

[juhanfg]

I would say that you increase the weapons and shields AP. A common solution is increase it by 4AP but I would make it more realistic and add from 0 to 4 AP depending on the weapon, thus changing the fact that a dagger and a great sword have the same number of APs.

For dodging, I probably would agree with you in making an equal level of success for attack and dodge cancel the damage.

 

[Rurik]

I agree making the parry block all damage makes shields basically obsolete. Their high AP and extra reaction makes them worth an extra skill slot. I don't think the reaction alone would make them viable (especially as you could just use an off hand weapon and get the choice of an extra parry OR attack).

If you look at the combat table it has a row "Attacker's Roll Failure", which is normally unused - it is left over from a two roll system that was used in development and was left in the game. In that row parries block 2xAP and dodges avoid all damage.

What I do is if the attacker succeeds and the defender parries or dodges I compare the rolls. If the defender succeeds but rolls worse than the attacker use the 'normal' Attacker Succeeds row of the combat table. If the defender succeeds and rolls better than the attacker use the Attacker Fails row of the table.

So a Parry will block either AP or 2xAP and a dodge will take no damage or minimum damage depending on whether the defender beats the attackers roll.

 

[kintire]

Rosen:

In some ways, RQ3 was almost more biased towards 1hweapon+shield combat, because anyone using a 2h weapon on the same SR that a two weapon user was unable to parry! The 2 weapon user had just to state "I strike back on the SR he attacks" and voila, the 1 weapon user could not parry on the same SR.

Lord yes. That was madness!

the minimum + normal bonus rule for Dodge is a mistake and is easily houseruled away as "Minimum damage plus MINIMUM bonus". This way you usually get 2pts from normal weapons, 3pts from axes, which is not enough to bring you down in one blow.

It reduces the certain death factor, but I am still wary of inevitable damage.

do not forget that shield users and dodgers have lower skills compared to one weapon users, because they must train two skills instead of one. A one-weapon strategy is viable because it allows your character to reach 100% skill much faster.

I daresay, but the problem is that that doesn't matter, because parrying doesn't defend you whether your skill is 10 or 100.

Say I have a shield which I use at 40% skill and a sword I use at 80% skill. My opponent has a greatsword. On a normal roll, if I parry with my sword I will subtract 4 from his 2d8+bonus damage (avg. 10-11), which means that either I have armor or I go down in one blow. If I parry with my shield, the chances are lower, but with 8-10 points blocked I am probably safe. But if he criticals, he does 17+ damage in a blow, wich means a chopped limb or worse. In this case the sword parry is the best solution, because it negates the critical. Ok, I still get 2d8+bonus and only absorb 2 with my sword, but it is way better than getting maximum damage.

It isn't though. If you have say 5 hit points on the location, you can take 10 hits to it. Any more is irrelevant. an even slightly above average roll on 2d8+d4 -2 will deliver ten damage, and then you might as well have been criticaled. Even if he only gets 8 and doesn't quite manage a sever, you are still out of the fight.

As for feinting, it could be resolved as a skill contest like it is managed in GURPS, or as a voluntary self-decrease of skill. But the feinter should lose more skill than the defender does

I'm reluctant to add another skill contest to a combat round. It would slow it down too much. I'm not sure why the feinter should lose more skill though. Why would it be worthwhile?

And it should be possible only with some fighting styles like rapier combat or kenjutsu.

Huh? why? All combat styles use deceptive attacks to land blows. Its a fairly fundamental thing.

gamesmeister

Two characters have 95% weapon skill. That means on average, only one attack in 20 will ever do damage, assuming it can also penetrate the defenders armour. Your 'Exciting' measurement will drop considerably once that happens. N.B. This is partially offset by your feint suggestion.

Oh yes... you'd have to use both rules, otherwise high skill battles would get painful.

There will be no incentive to use shields, other than the additional react. The additional react is useful against multiple opponents, but a character attacking and parrying with the same weapon will see their skill progress at twice the rate of a character using weapon and shield.

Hmmm... that IS true. How about increasing skill in parry by say 20% for using a shield, and allowing parry defence against missiles?

Juhan

I would say that you increase the weapons and shields AP. A common solution is increase it by 4AP but I would make it more realistic and add from 0 to 4 AP

I'm not sure that would help much. Frankly, AP 3 or Ap 7 still isn't really enough to make parry reliable. It reduces the problem, but doesn't solve it.

As for realism, I believe my way is actually far more realistic. When you are parrying with a weapon, you alter the course of the incoming blow by striking it at (as close as you can get to) 90% to its course, altering its path enough that it misses. You don't lay your weapon across the impact point to act as armour! the whole APs thing seems wierd to me.

I mean, how do you visualise it? A hits B with a sword, B sticks his sword in the way. A is doing, say, 8 damage. B's sword has 3 APs. 5 damage goes through.

Whats happening here? is B's sword being knocked out of the way? Then why doesn't either party's strength affect it? Is the blow ploughing THROUGH the sword? but it isn't breaking... B can hit back with it just fine (if he survives the damage). How on earth does damage penetrate the APs of the sword and damage the parrier without breaking the weapon, and without knocking it aside?


aaanyway.

Rurik:

So a Parry will block either AP or 2xAP and a dodge will take no damage or minimum damage depending on whether the defender beats the attackers roll.

Not convinced. Dodge is better, but there is too much randomness in who rolls beeter, especially at higher skill levels. Parry still sucks. 2xap for the swashbuckling rapier user is still only 6. Any opponent with d8+d3 can blow through that, and as soon as heavier weapons arrive, you're toast.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

As for feinting, it could be resolved as a skill contest like it is managed in GURPS, or as a voluntary self-decrease of skill. But the feinter should lose more skill than the defender does. And it should be possible only with some fighting styles like rapier combat or kenjutsu.

A feint can be performed with any melee weapon. It is a question of misleading the opponent via body language and does not rely on the tool being used.

 

[Utgardloki]

I have not had a chance to play this game with actual players yet, but have a few house rules that I think might turn my game into "Dodge City"

The first is that a successful Dodge negates all damage from an attack. This is especially important in a setting like Iron Kingdoms, where PCs may very well go up against steamjacks and other opponents that can deal massive amounts of damage. NPCs are going down, but assuming that PCs have maximized Dodge, the NPCs will need to use tactics and strategy against them (such as forcing PCs to spend Dodge rolls against numerous opponents, and then hitting them with a steamjack).

Another rule is the use of specialization rules, as well as a "subtract" rule instead of the official "divide" rule for handling skill levels above 100%. This means that PCs will definitely want to specialize.

 

[vitalis6969]

I hate to bring up actual realism or anything, but there was kind of a reason that nearly all fighters used a shield...

That would be because in addition to whatever armor you were wearing, it also covers a lot of your body and can be moved easily to deflect shots...

Kinda goes with the whole reason that until the invention of the gun armor got heavier and heavier and shields kept on keepin on and never grew out of "fashion"...

They are two things that consistently work...

-V

 

[andakitty]

See Stormbringer 5. Any reason some of those rules couldn't be used with MRQ or incorporated into it?

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Kinda goes with the whole reason that until the invention of the gun armor got heavier and heavier and shields kept on keepin on and never grew out of "fashion"...

Actually, by the 15th Century the shield had in fact dropped out of fashion!

Plate armour became so good at protecting the wearer (full Maximillian or Italian for example) that it became proof against nearly all forms of melee and missile weapons. Thus the emphasis of armoured combat switched to the use of great weapons, such as the two handed sword or poleaxe. Even then it was neigh impossible to damage the wearer. Thus the shield became superfluous to those who could afford the epitome in personal protection, although it remained an integral part of jousting.

Of course the common foot troops didn't share the same standard of armour, but fighting tactics were changing by that time to the use of pike blocks and similar, in an attempt to protect themselves from the horse mounted tanks who were charging about.

When melee combat did occur, it was generally either the chopping down of fleeing troops, or the knocking/grappling of mounted knights to the ground and a carefully placed stab with a bollock dagger.

The open formation normally needed to fight with a shield was becoming a thing of the past, and close order formation replaced it. Then the personal firearm arrived and changed the face of war completely.

Thus historically the shield was initially superseded by both increasingly effective armour and a change in battlefield tactics... only to return as a 70's police tool against rioters!

However, since MRQ armour is pretty flimsy in comparison to its historical analogues, I don't foresee the shield going out of fashion anytime soon!

 

[andakitty]

Um, one of the reasons I have always preferred BRP as a system is that it does a better job of emulating Bronze Age or S&S fiction combat than anything else I could find. Besides, I can't see me being able to run any sort of fast combat with these matrices. Just not my style.

 

[Utgardloki]

I have decided, in large part in order to simply the combat system a bit, to include parry as a specialization of dodge. Thus, instead of choosing whether to dodge or parry, a character is assumed to be using his sword/shield/copy of the MRQ rulebook to help ward off blows.

Thus, PCs will want to carry shields if they have a free arm available to use them.