Converting from AH RQ3 to Legend

[Leatherneck]

Hello Gamers, I am going to switch my group from the Avalon Hill / Chaosium RQ3 to Legend and have a few things to clear up.

1. Strike Rank is reduced by Armor Points. Why not ENC? Is this done for simplicity and easy of play?
My old RQ3 mind wants ENC to also count for all the other gear some people insist on carrying.

2. Combat Styles …. This one is a pretty new concept to the old RQ guy. There are several questions/comments.
a. Would a two weapon user get the extra CA? Example are Two knife style, Net and Trident, Rapier and Main Gauche, two short swords…
b. Styles are more limited in weapon choices than RQ3. What I mean is if the PC knows 1 handed Broadsword, and pickup a Bastard Sword they are at -10%. So the Combat Style is the weapon, not the weapon category. RQ3 is skills separated as; 1 handed sword, 1 handed axe, 2 handed sword… Legend is styles separated as; Broadsword, Scimitar, Bastard sword (1H), Battleaxe (1H), Greats word, Bastard sword (2H).
c. It looks like defending (parrying) and Attacking use the same skill. Easy enough with the ‘style’ concept.

3. Does the play still have the ‘gritty’ feel that so many of the old RQ players love? I see some things that are gritty and some that is … ease of play…. playability (?)…

I’m leaving at this for now. I will probably have more as I digest more of Legend.

 

[Harshlax]

Hi Leatherneck,

Some people will probably explain this better but weapon styles are much broader in intent than is reflected in the written rules.

The intent is that 1 weapon style can incorporate a whole system of training with multiple weapons, thus saving on experience ticks for other things in a system where ticks are not awarded for successful skill use as in RQ3. An infantry mercenary soldier or roman legionnaire would have 1 weapon style top cover all their combat training so would include shortsword and shield, javelin, and spear and shield, a Gloranthan Babeester Gori axe maiden would have 1H axe and shield, dual wield 1 H axe, andd 2H axe, and thrown axe all within "Babeester Gori axe fighting". Hunters may have bow, staff and spear all within their combat style. The concept is that it is a coherent weapon set for the setting and background. their is a Signs and Portents article early in the life of MRQ2 discussing it, I would check it out issue 77. Article name: Cutting Edge.

 

[Darkholme]

I had the same confusion. Apparently in this area, the written text reflects the intent rather poorly.

Now that I know how it's "Supposed" to work, I'm not sure if I like it or not. I know I don't like the disconnect due to a lack of clarity in the rulebook; but I'm not sure how I feel about the mechanics - I think it makes 1w combat styles overpriced. Not such a big deal if a combat style incorporates a 2h style, a 2w style, and a 1w style, but if its just 1w styles it seems overpriced.

Its one of the few gripes I have with the game so far, and thus far the only gripe I have about how the rules work (I'm someone with 60 pages of houserules for Pathfinder, so having one gripe with the rules so far is pretty good).

I could use a few more Game-Aids to make it easier as someone new to the system, but I was lucky to stumble across a MRQII GM Screen; which helps. Wish the book had a decent index, but I think someone is going to be making one by hand, so I'll just have to put it with my GM Screen. Would have been nice if it had been in the rulebook though.

Careful with your book if you're using a hardcopy. In my experience that hyperglossy cover isn't as well attached as I'd have liked. Look into a slipcover for a journal if you can find one that fits, or make one for yourself.

 

[Dan True]

Hello Gamers, I am going to switch my group from the Avalon Hill / Chaosium RQ3 to Legend and have a few things to clear up.

1. Strike Rank is reduced by Armor Points. Why not ENC? Is this done for simplicity and easy of play?
My old RQ3 mind wants ENC to also count for all the other gear some people insist on carrying.

Enc will reduce your movement and strike rank if you get overloaded - until then, there's no disadvantage to carrying a backpack.
The Armour penalty is not to represent the weight of the armour (as it has Enc, that is handled there). Armour penalty represents the armour getting in the way, joints reacting slower etc.

Does the play still have the ‘gritty’ feel that so many of the old RQ players love? I see some things that are gritty and some that is … ease of play…. playability (?)…

I find it very gritty, yes. It could be more gritty by having wound tables for instance, but I feel it hits an appropriate balance between playability, speed of combat and grittyness.

- Dan

 

[camocoffey]

If you're converting your campaign, then I'd recommend rebuilding your characters from scratch; the rules are sufficiently different (especially for magic, and most especially for spirit magic) that you'd probably have great difficulty translating them directly. But I think it would be quite straightforward to keep the "essence" of your characters while incorporating the new qualities of the system. It just needs a bit of handwaving to say, "Of course, my shaman has always been manifesting his elemental spirits like superhero powers!" If your party are veterans, just apply the advanced adventurer rules from Legend Pg 26.

 

[Leatherneck]

Hi Leatherneck,
....An infantry mercenary soldier or roman legionnaire would have 1 weapon style top cover all their combat training so would include shortsword and shield, javelin, and spear and shield, [snip]

Thanks much. That makes scene with what I read. <Bing! light bulb turns on> I knew the old RQ3 mind set was not letting me understand. I will read the article I see two players having concept problems, but then again these two usually do. <Out old rules. Out I say>

- I think it makes 1w combat styles overpriced. Not such a big deal if a combat style incorporates a 2h style, a 2w style, and a 1w style, but if its just 1w styles it seems overpriced.

Is it possible to give a discount for the reduced combat styles? I need to reread that too.

(I'm someone with 60 pages of houserules for Pathfinder, so having one gripe with the rules so far is pretty good) .

I have promised to stop house rulling. But 60 pages of House Rules for Pathfinder? I thought it was perfect. [/sarcasm]

Careful with your book if you're using a hardcopy. In my experience that hyperglossy cover isn't as well attached as I'd have liked. Look into a slipcover for a journal if you can find one that fits, or make one for yourself.

PDF only for now. I will order the dead tree version if my players decide to play legend.

Enc will reduce your movement and strike rank if you get overloaded - until then, there's no disadvantage to carrying a backpack.
The Armour penalty is not to represent the weight of the armour (as it has Enc, that is handled there). Armour penalty represents the armour getting in the way, joints reacting slower etc.

Does the play still have the ‘gritty’ feel that so many of the old RQ players love? I see some things that are gritty and some that is … ease of play…. playability (?)…

I find it very gritty, yes. It could be more gritty by having wound tables for instance, but I feel it hits an appropriate balance between playability, speed of combat and grittyness.

- Dan

Yea, more old rules invading new rules armor concept. The grittiness is what they are looking for now. We’ve done the high action and storytelling systems, and now back to hit locations.

If you're converting your campaign, then I'd recommend rebuilding your characters from scratch; the rules are sufficiently different (especially for magic, and most especially for spirit magic) that you'd probably have great difficulty translating them directly.

Current RQ setting is Hyboria of Conan. Low magic. Only a few have any Spirit Magic and none have Divine or Sorcery. I plan on straight conversions where possible and any percentage points left over from combined or removed skills, they get to use them on skills as they see fit. Should take about an hour for everyone to convert their characters.

 

[Leatherneck]

I see where some of my confusion is coming from. The Previous Experience doesn’t have a good separation between the combat styles.
For Barbarian it lists them as; 2H Axe, 2H Hammer,2H Spear, Axe and Shield, Blowgun, Bow, Dagger, Hammer and Shield, Sling, Spear and Shield, Staff, 1H Sword, Sword and Shield, Unarmed

That led me to believe there are 13 styles separated by the commas.

If I have it right there are 5 Barbarian styles;
a. 2H Axe, 2H Hammer,2H Spear, Axe and Shield
b. Blowgun, Bow, Dagger, Hammer and Shield
c. Sling, Spear and Shield
d. Staff, 1H Sword, Sword and Shield
e. Unarmed

Do I have that right? If so then how about the other cultures?

Civilized
a. 2H Spear, 2H Sword, Bow, Crossbow, Dagger, Polearm, Rapier, Spear and Shield,
b. Spear, Sword and Shield

Nomad
a. 2H Axe, 2H Hammer, 2H Spear, Axe and Shield
b. Blowgun, Bow, Dagger, Hammer and Shield
c. Sling, Spear and Shield, Spear

Primitive
a. 1H Axe, 1H Hammer,1H Spear, 2H Hammer
b. Blowgun, Bow, Dagger, Sling
c. Spear and Shield

 

[caul]

I see where some of my confusion is coming from. The Previous Experience doesn’t have a good separation between the combat styles.
For Barbarian it lists them as; 2H Axe, 2H Hammer,2H Spear, Axe and Shield, Blowgun, Bow, Dagger, Hammer and Shield, Sling, Spear and Shield, Staff, 1H Sword, Sword and Shield, Unarmed

That led me to believe there are 13 styles separated by the commas.

If I have it right there are 5 Barbarian styles;
a. 2H Axe, 2H Hammer,2H Spear, Axe and Shield
b. Blowgun, Bow, Dagger, Hammer and Shield
c. Sling, Spear and Shield
d. Staff, 1H Sword, Sword and Shield
e. Unarmed

Do I have that right? If so then how about the other cultures?

Civilized
a. 2H Spear, 2H Sword, Bow, Crossbow, Dagger, Polearm, Rapier, Spear and Shield,
b. Spear, Sword and Shield

Nomad
a. 2H Axe, 2H Hammer, 2H Spear, Axe and Shield
b. Blowgun, Bow, Dagger, Hammer and Shield
c. Sling, Spear and Shield, Spear

Primitive
a. 1H Axe, 1H Hammer,1H Spear, 2H Hammer
b. Blowgun, Bow, Dagger, Sling
c. Spear and Shield

Yes after having read the suggested article above I am now confused about this as well. Why would my character take 2H Axe by itself as this seems to be very limited for a combat style.

Am I to come up with my own styles for my setting, and allow the barbarians of my setting to select three of them?

 

[Harshlax]

I see where some of my confusion is coming from. The Previous Experience doesn’t have a good separation between the combat styles.
For Barbarian it lists them as; 2H Axe, 2H Hammer,2H Spear, Axe and Shield, Blowgun, Bow, Dagger, Hammer and Shield, Sling, Spear and Shield, Staff, 1H Sword, Sword and Shield, Unarmed

That led me to believe there are 13 styles separated by the commas.

If I have it right there are 5 Barbarian styles;
a. 2H Axe, 2H Hammer,2H Spear, Axe and Shield
b. Blowgun, Bow, Dagger, Hammer and Shield
c. Sling, Spear and Shield
d. Staff, 1H Sword, Sword and Shield
e. Unarmed

Do I have that right? If so then how about the other cultures?

Civilized
a. 2H Spear, 2H Sword, Bow, Crossbow, Dagger, Polearm, Rapier, Spear and Shield,
b. Spear, Sword and Shield

Nomad
a. 2H Axe, 2H Hammer, 2H Spear, Axe and Shield
b. Blowgun, Bow, Dagger, Hammer and Shield
c. Sling, Spear and Shield, Spear

Primitive
a. 1H Axe, 1H Hammer,1H Spear, 2H Hammer
b. Blowgun, Bow, Dagger, Sling
c. Spear and Shield

Yes after having read the suggested article above I am now confused about this as well. Why would my character take 2H Axe by itself as this seems to be very limited for a combat style.

Am I to come up with my own styles for my setting, and allow the barbarians of my setting to select three of them?

I agree that integrating the intended flexibility of Combat Styles with Character creation as written is problematic, hopefully RQ6 will correct this foible. As an alternative, maybe reduce styles by 1 and offer an additional advanced skill to be opened. If Divine Magic is getting used, then ensuring every Barbarian has Lore (Deity) alongside their craft, musical or other Lore skill might make the whole thing work better anyway.

Re Barbarian weapon styles, if, in your setting, they all have to be able to fight as a tribe, having one set to those weapons (shield, 1H spear, 1H sword) and the other set to your own character's fighting schtick gives them some cultural flavour. In Glorantha the Orlanthi Barbarian tribes have a voting system that requires men to possess the equipment needed to join the fyrd, the shieldwall, before they can be involved in clan decisions. I would require an Orlanthi Barbarian character to have fyrd combat as one of his styles before he went on to define others, otherwise he is not a full member of the clan. Just an example of how to use multiple styles.

Thoughts?

 

[strega]

Take a look at what I posted here about Combat Styles in Lankhmar.

http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=50673

As Legend is setting neutral then setting up some Combat Styles can be a fun part of a group campaign development round table or done as part of the GMs campaign concept.

Take a look at S&P 77 for an article on Combat Styles,

 

[Leatherneck]

Take a look at what I posted here about Combat Styles in Lankhmar.

http://forum.mongoosepublishing.com/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=50673

As Legend is setting neutral then setting up some Combat Styles can be a fun part of a group campaign development round table or done as part of the GMs campaign concept.

Take a look at S&P 77 for an article on Combat Styles,

Sadly 3/5ths of my of my players don't find campaign setup enjoyable. So having them create combat styles for a campaign is a non-starter. That puts it all on me, and I don't have the energy for it. But it is a good idea.

 

[Leatherneck]

I have had a chance to reread the Previous Experience section. In the example for Alaric’s Tale, the three combat styles chosen for the Barbarian +10% bonus is; Spear and Shield, Dagger and Sling. The example then clarifies with Spear and Shield, and Dagger, as both Close Combat styles, while Sling is a Ranged Combat style.

That tells me the intent as I first thought. Each comma separates a combat style, thus the Barbarian has 13 styles. This is the way I will run it. Giving weight to it is my promise to some players to not House Rule.

Don’t get me wrong, I think it is great to have the combined weapons Combat Styles for anyone that wants to Legend that way. But, I have players that will be more comfortable with the narrower combat styles.

 

[Deleriad]

The rulebook is at times too terse for its own good. My take on it is that 'narrow' combat styles are used as a default in the rulebook but that broad ones can be used in campaigns in which they are more appropriate.

The easiest way to convert from RQ3 to Legend combat styles is to use narrow styles based on the weapon categories given in RQ3. So a combat style can include either:
one one-handed weapon category (e.g. 1H axe)
one two-handed weapon category (e.g. 2H axe)
two one-handed weapons wielded together (e.g. 1H axe and shield)
one range weapon (e.g. crossbows).

It's the most restrictive version of combat styles but it has the advantage of being easy to convert over from RQ3 because you can basically read across the skills. E.g. say a RQ3 PC has the skills
1h sword attack 73%, parry 65%
1h mace attack 61%, parry 53%
Shield attack 21%, parry 71%
Dagger attack 51%, parry 50%

Then you could read that as:
Sword & shield 73%, Mace and shield 71%, Dagger 51%
(Basically take the highest skill and apply it. However don't apply any skill to more than one combat style. In this case as the shield skill is better than mace then use the sword skill for sword and shield and the mace skill for mace and shield).

Note that RQII has some implicit 'weapon categories' in the cultural combat styles but that they're a bit inconsistently named. RQ3 is more consistent so I would use RQ3 weapon categories instead.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

If I have it right there are 5 Barbarian styles;
a. 2H Axe, 2H Hammer,2H Spear, Axe and Shield
b. Blowgun, Bow, Dagger, Hammer and Shield
c. Sling, Spear and Shield
d. Staff, 1H Sword, Sword and Shield
e. Unarmed

Seems a bit strange. I'd say
a. 2H weapons - 2H Axe, 2H Hammer, 2H Spear
b. Missile Weapons - Blowgun, Bow, Sling
c. 1H Weapons - Axe & Shield, Hammer & Shield, Spear & Shield, Sword & Shield, 1H Sword
d. Staff Weapons - Staff, 2H Spear (again, or instead of in a)
e. "Up Close" - Unarmed, Dagger

Do I have that right? If so then how about the other cultures?

Civilized
a. 2H Spear, 2H Sword, Bow, Crossbow, Dagger, Polearm, Rapier, Spear and Shield,
b. Spear, Sword and Shield

Again, I'm not sure of your logic here
a. "Personal" Weapons - Rapier, Dagger
b. "Militia" Weapons - 2H Spear, Spear & Shield, Spear, Sword & Shield
c "Big" Weapons - 2H Sword, Polearm (2H spear again?)
d Missile Weapons - Bow, Crossbow

And similarly for the other cultures.
Mind you, it's still open to interpretation. I imagine someone who is a skilled archer would be able to adapt to a crossbow relatively easily. I'm not sure the reverse is necessarily true (which is, of course why the crossbow was so popular...)

 

[strega]

I'll just pop in to comment about the ranged weapons bit at the end at the moment.

While a crossbow could be learned by anyone in a short time the use of a longbow required lots of training and continual practice to develop the shoulder muscles to allow a 120lb+ bow to be fully drawn. A short bow is much lighter draw weight and thus users more readily conscripted when you need troops. Crossbow and firearm troops don't need much training and their more costly weapons can be held centrally and distributed at a muster as needed.

In the reverse case it might take someone used to drawing a full weight bow and loosing at a 40 degree angle against a long range target a bit of time to adjust to the very much flatter trajectory of a heavy crossbow or an early firearm.

 

[Simulacrum]

I put a summary table of the Age of Treason Combat Styles up on the blog just now - maybe a useful talking point when thinking about how to break them out - it won't be everyone's cup of tea, but will appeal to some.