Different Weapons
- Thread starter Grimolde
- Start date
I asked the same sort of thing a while back. The thread title is 'weapon style flexibility', last post was in July, I think.
The consensus seemed to be 'make up your own weapon categories if you must'....as if I don't already have old house rules I am happy with. Anyway there is some discussion there for what it is worth.
The consensus seemed to be 'make up your own weapon categories if you must'....as if I don't already have old house rules I am happy with. Anyway there is some discussion there for what it is worth.
Grimolde said:
What's wrong with that? There are those of us - usually the ones who started 30+ years ago - who prefer rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty (to quote DNA) or flexibility in other words.
In this case combat styles are very much culture specific and shouldn't be in the main rulebook. Personally I would have loved to have seen more detail on this (and all manner of other stuff) in the Glorantha book. However that would have been much more work resulting in a much longer book etc.
What's wrong is that is that there's no rule for it.andyl said:
Player 1: I just lost my 2 handed sword.
GM: Use your opponent's club - he won't be needing it any time soon.
Player 1: Ok, so what do I roll against?
GM: I don't know.
There's a guideline for what to do if you lose a shield or sword in a Sword & Shield combo, or if you lose a weapon in a 2 weapon combo, but nothing on losing your entire combat style. At least I couldn't find anything.
It's easy enough for me to house rule, I was jst expecting some kind of ruling for it that's all. Something like using a basic skill to default from an advanced skill. But I can't find anything.
Deleriad
Mongoose
Grimolde said:
The rule is quite simple. If you pick up a weapon that you don't have a skill for then you don't have a skill for it. Normally that means you would have to use your basic close or ranged combat style score. See bottom p12. Combat Styles are treated as common skills which means that you can pick up any weapon and use it at your base score.
Some people allow PCs who pick up a weapon that's quite similar to one they already know as part of a combat style to use it at a minus to that skill but that comes down to house rules and play style preferences.
Generally speaking, I tend to put a -20 on different weapons within a style (2H, wep & shield, dual weapon, 1 H wep), and base chance outside of that style.
I might give an extra -5/10 if the unfamiliar same style weapon is a flail, or exotic (you are not going to pick up those Nunchucks and swing 'em like your sword...or even an axe). But spear-and-shield to sword-and-shield, -20.
And -20 in MRQ2 is significant. All those 70 rolls turn into misses.
I might give an extra -5/10 if the unfamiliar same style weapon is a flail, or exotic (you are not going to pick up those Nunchucks and swing 'em like your sword...or even an axe). But spear-and-shield to sword-and-shield, -20.
And -20 in MRQ2 is significant. All those 70 rolls turn into misses.
Lord High Munchkin
Mongoose
It's true, the rules are clear.
One thing about MRQII is that the rules are carefully worded (except were there are errata of course). It is there... just sometimes being hidden in plain sight makes it less than obvious.
One thing about MRQII is that the rules are carefully worded (except were there are errata of course). It is there... just sometimes being hidden in plain sight makes it less than obvious.
At least two people here disagree, and I think the rules could be clearer in numerous other places as well. Problems also exist (esp.) in magic and skills. I still have to wonder how people new to the system are handling it.
Whatever. It's no skin off my nose. 8)
One other thing. Three out of four of the rest of my current group (playing CoC and Openquest) turned it down due to perceived complexity. Where there's smoke... :wink:
Whatever. It's no skin off my nose. 8)
One other thing. Three out of four of the rest of my current group (playing CoC and Openquest) turned it down due to perceived complexity. Where there's smoke... :wink:
Loz
Mongoose
mallard said:
No. If you have a sword combat style, it can be reasonably assumed that you've trained in several types of blade and can switch between bastard and broadsword with equal ease. If you use bastard sword 2 handed though - that's a very different technique and technically you'd drop to STR+DEX - although a common sense house rule would be to place your 2H sword skill at halfway between your sword style and base.
In hindsight we should have made the flexibility of styles a lot clearer. Pete actually wrote an article for S&P that clears up some of these questions - worth tracking it down on the Mongoose site. A combat style can encompass multiple weapons, you see: a gladiator, for example, might be trained in sword, spear, trident, net and buckler to a similar level so he would have the Gladiator Combat Style. Throw him a greataxe though, and he'd struggle against an opponent that's been fully trained in an Axe style.
languagegeek
Mongoose
andakitty said:
We're completely new to the system and haven't found anything overly complex. In fact, I've found the modularity of the MRQII system to be a breath of fresh air. For combat styles, we took the rules as written, played it a bit, and then have made some modifications to how we want to play. We are coming from d20 there is a bit of unlearning to do... but that happens with any new system.
IMHO, what is key with the RQ system is not every contingency has been explicitly accounted for. This lets us easily make judgement calls without getting into conflict with extant rules. I like to think of Combat Styles in the same terms as cults, they're culturally specific. Depending on where a character is from, they would have access to certain combat styles, e.g.: an arctic nomad might get spear/harpoon, but not polearm.
Maybe the combat styles section of the rulebook could have been a bit more detailed, which makes styles appear complex, but the system itself is simple, I think.
