Dropping CAs
- Thread starter Grimolde
- Start date
danskmacabre
Mongoose
So just one action a round?
I suppose you could say one move action and one combat action per turn (Like in Pathfinder).
For me it would take a lot of the flavor of the CMs away from the game.
Doing that works in PF but I think would cripple teh game in MRQ2.
I suppose you could say one move action and one combat action per turn (Like in Pathfinder).
For me it would take a lot of the flavor of the CMs away from the game.
Doing that works in PF but I think would cripple teh game in MRQ2.
danskmacabre
Mongoose
I would make attacking and parry awkward as well.
I.E. can you only attack once and parry once per round? what happens with multiple opponents?
I guess you could go back to the old RQ rules and say you can parry additional attacks at -20 (or something like that).
I think it would take a LOT of houseruling.
I.E. can you only attack once and parry once per round? what happens with multiple opponents?
I guess you could go back to the old RQ rules and say you can parry additional attacks at -20 (or something like that).
I think it would take a LOT of houseruling.
One of our players doesn't like MRQ2 because of the combat. In particular, the CAs.
I was thinking of going with:
A character has one attack and one defence (parry or evade) option per round
Actions beyond this incur a -20 penalty. Once you roll a negative total, you cannot act again that round.
I was thinking of going with:
A character has one attack and one defence (parry or evade) option per round
Actions beyond this incur a -20 penalty. Once you roll a negative total, you cannot act again that round.
Deleriad
Mongoose
Grimolde said:
That's relatively similar to one version of BRP. Generally in that version you get one attack per round and as many parries/evades as you want but at a cumulative -30%. (Attack, Parry, Parry-30, Parry-60 and so on). It's a popular system. You would need to come up with a different system for timing spells and also for how you might want to handle non-combat actions.
It would negate the value of being agile and smart, and increase the value of being strong and big.
It might also make sorcery incredibly powerful, but also take forever to cast with any manipulations.
Those are just my initial thoughts as pertain to combat without actually trying it.
It might also make sorcery incredibly powerful, but also take forever to cast with any manipulations.
Those are just my initial thoughts as pertain to combat without actually trying it.
danskmacabre
Mongoose
Off the top of my head:
I think for starters it kind of screws up the logic of the CMs somewhat, which assumes you have more than one CA per round.
As mentioned previously you’d already have to houserule for Parrying,
What about multiple attacks per round? Attacking more than once at -20?
What about the Parry Riposte, allow that as well on top of the houseruled additional parry?
How about moving and attacking, parrying?
You’d need to have another look at the charging rules as well, as they are a little different than normal actions.
Also casting time for spells will need to be looked at (magnitudes).
I’m sure there’s more, but that’s all I can think of for now.
I think for starters it kind of screws up the logic of the CMs somewhat, which assumes you have more than one CA per round.
As mentioned previously you’d already have to houserule for Parrying,
What about multiple attacks per round? Attacking more than once at -20?
What about the Parry Riposte, allow that as well on top of the houseruled additional parry?
How about moving and attacking, parrying?
You’d need to have another look at the charging rules as well, as they are a little different than normal actions.
Also casting time for spells will need to be looked at (magnitudes).
I’m sure there’s more, but that’s all I can think of for now.
danskmacabre
Mongoose
Dan True said:
That in itself complicates thing, to DnDify it means you'd need to consider DnD has Atttacks of opportunity AND the various classes get more attacks per round as they level up.
Plus all the feats which allow ways of getting around action limitations.
For the most part spells in DnD take a standard action (I know there a fair few exceptions to this), the time taken in MRQ2 varies a LOT what with magnitudes.
Khamulcalle
Mongoose
I think the Combat system that MRQII use, with these CM is great fun but it's also very leathal, which means your Adventures might back away, or do it in another way or even wanna try to resolve it by talking (if possible) ..maybe players will think twice before they rush into combat CAUSE it WILL HURT!! hehe!
/K
/K
danskmacabre
Mongoose
Grimolde said:
I will be honest and say when I first started reading the MRQ2 rules the CAs annoyed me as it kind of messes up timings IF you want to run combats in the same way that PF / DnD precisely times round/actions etc.
In MRQ2 a round is 5 seconds but what you can do in 5 seconds is much more fluid.
After actually playing it out in test sessions, it made more sense to me and I really like it now.
It was important for me to get out of the DnD mentality and the play MRQ2 NOT DnD.
Maybe that's the issue this particular player of your's is having.
I would rather drop the player than ruin a good system... 
If the player can't set aside his/her dislike of some rule, and as the result the whole system needs to be reworked or even abandoned altogether, then I'd say you have a problem player in your group? Ask the player, if his/her dislike of the rules is so important that he/she doesn't care about ruining the game for others, and suggest he/she concentrates on enjoying the roleplaying and having fun with his/her mates. If that's too much to ask, then the conclusion is obvious.
If the player can't set aside his/her dislike of some rule, and as the result the whole system needs to be reworked or even abandoned altogether, then I'd say you have a problem player in your group? Ask the player, if his/her dislike of the rules is so important that he/she doesn't care about ruining the game for others, and suggest he/she concentrates on enjoying the roleplaying and having fun with his/her mates. If that's too much to ask, then the conclusion is obvious.
To be fair to him, he said he'd play it with us but his heart wont be in it.Verderer said:I would rather drop the player than ruin a good system...
If the player can't set aside his/her dislike of some rule, and as the result the whole system needs to be reworked or even abandoned altogether, then I'd say you have a problem player in your group? Ask the player, if his/her dislike of the rules is so important that he/she doesn't care about ruining the game for others, and suggest he/she concentrates on enjoying the roleplaying and having fun with his/her mates. If that's too much to ask, then the conclusion is obvious.
So, enough time and opportunities to convert him.
Besides, we have two other GMs and if he continues to refuse playing it, then that's fine by me. I don't have anything else I'm itching to run so I'll just be a player. It really doesn't bother me either way in the long run.
danskmacabre
Mongoose
It seems a very Mulish sort of attitude to say "I'll play but won't have my heart in it".
It's just a game at the end of the day, why is one aspect of an RPG such a big deal to him that it disheartens him?
Even RPGs that have mechanics I don't like at all are enjoyable if I happen to get invited to play.
The only difference is I won't knowthe rules as well and I'll just focus on playing the game rather than running it
For example I don't like the GURPS rules, but I've played in gaming sessions where someone was running it and focused on the roleplay side and had a great time.
I run Pathfinder regularly, but I'd prefer to be running MRQ2.
I still have a great time with PF tho, it's just I'd have MORE fun with MRQ2.
It's just a game at the end of the day, why is one aspect of an RPG such a big deal to him that it disheartens him?
Even RPGs that have mechanics I don't like at all are enjoyable if I happen to get invited to play.
The only difference is I won't knowthe rules as well and I'll just focus on playing the game rather than running it
For example I don't like the GURPS rules, but I've played in gaming sessions where someone was running it and focused on the roleplay side and had a great time.
I run Pathfinder regularly, but I'd prefer to be running MRQ2.
I still have a great time with PF tho, it's just I'd have MORE fun with MRQ2.
Loz
Mongoose
If you houserule that every character has one attack and one parry, that translates into 2 CA, even though they're not termed as such.
If making multiple attacks or parries - more likely the latter - when facing multiple foes, then you will need to impose a negative modifier, as Deleriad pointed out, which effectively penalises skill.
If you want to do something else during combat, such as use a skill or evade, then you need to formulate some rules to govern that.
Really, CAs help make things far more manageable. Removing them will give you more headaches than keeping them. It sounds to me like the player that doesn't like CA probably needs a bit of time and coaching to get used to them, see the common sense, and realise the benefits. Might take a little time but always worth persevering..
If making multiple attacks or parries - more likely the latter - when facing multiple foes, then you will need to impose a negative modifier, as Deleriad pointed out, which effectively penalises skill.
If you want to do something else during combat, such as use a skill or evade, then you need to formulate some rules to govern that.
Really, CAs help make things far more manageable. Removing them will give you more headaches than keeping them. It sounds to me like the player that doesn't like CA probably needs a bit of time and coaching to get used to them, see the common sense, and realise the benefits. Might take a little time but always worth persevering..
