Fatigue rule strangeness

[cthulhudarren]

I know there is a simpler abstract fatigue system in the book (which I don't think is for me), but I think the regular rules are good except for one thing:

In combat you have up to your CON in combat actions before you risk getting tired. This seems really short to me. If you have a sword and board and end up with, say, 4 combat actions and a 12 CON, you have THREE rounds before you potentially get tired. Too soon IMHO.

I'd lean towards CON combat rounds before having to make a test. And then perhaps after each subsequent CON number of rounds you have to make resilience tests with a cumulative -10% each time.

Am I missing something?

 

[Jujitsudave]

From my group's experience, it seems that fights are over in about 3 to five rounds. Fatigue doesn't even become a factor unless the fight goes for a while. The fatigue rules are good as they stand, I think but it seems right to me even in realistic terms.

Even if you are in good shape, going at that level of intensity, carrying heavy objects that you are swinging without stopping will burn you out quick. In addition, you are also under quite a bit of stress. making you burn out that much faster. Finally, when your character makes a check for athletics, the more athletic people are likely to be able continuing at that frenetic pace without penalty. Furthermore, even if you fail your check, you are taking a penalty because you are wearing down, not necessarily getting exaughsted.

I think it's ok.

 

[Dan True]

I know there is a simpler abstract fatigue system in the book (which I don't think is for me), but I think the regular rules are good except for one thing:

In combat you have up to your CON in combat actions before you risk getting tired. This seems really short to me. If you have a sword and board and end up with, say, 4 combat actions and a 12 CON, you have THREE rounds before you potentially get tired. Too soon IMHO.

I'd lean towards CON combat rounds before having to make a test. And then perhaps after each subsequent CON number of rounds you have to make resilience tests with a cumulative -10% each time.

Am I missing something?

If you're missing anything, it's that this is only active combat. If you down an opponent in two rounds, then take it easy for a round before engaging a new opponent you start over. Also remember than many fights in RQ tend to end quickly.
With an average warriors Resillience of around 50-60%, you will probably succeed on the first resillience check, and fail the next. Therefore you have six rounds before getting tired - which I think is pretty realistic compared to my own experiences as an reenactor. Banging steel against steel is really tiring. Battles between individuals/pairs tend to take "breaks" once in a while, where the combatants circle each other before returning to new outbursts of violence.

But, your RuneQuest will vary. If you feel more comfortable by using CON rounds, then by all means - do it.

- Dan

 

[Loz]

A few rounds will help you work up a sweat, but probably won't exhaust you - unless its very hot or you're in a sustained combat (a battle, say). In practice most warriors will spar and train for far longer than in a real battle so they should be able to cope easily with the rigours of the real thing.

 

[cthulhudarren]

I know there is a simpler abstract fatigue system in the book (which I don't think is for me), but I think the regular rules are good except for one thing:

In combat you have up to your CON in combat actions before you risk getting tired. This seems really short to me. If you have a sword and board and end up with, say, 4 combat actions and a 12 CON, you have THREE rounds before you potentially get tired. Too soon IMHO.

I'd lean towards CON combat rounds before having to make a test. And then perhaps after each subsequent CON number of rounds you have to make resilience tests with a cumulative -10% each time.

Am I missing something?

If you're missing anything, it's that this is only active combat. If you down an opponent in two rounds, then take it easy for a round before engaging a new opponent you start over. Also remember than many fights in RQ tend to end quickly.
With an average warriors Resillience of around 50-60%, you will probably succeed on the first resillience check, and fail the next. Therefore you have six rounds before getting tired - which I think is pretty realistic compared to my own experiences as an reenactor. Banging steel against steel is really tiring. Battles between individuals/pairs tend to take "breaks" once in a while, where the combatants circle each other before returning to new outbursts of violence.

But, your RuneQuest will vary. If you feel more comfortable by using CON rounds, then by all means - do it.

- Dan

Doesn't the rules say you need HOURs to recover from any fatigue level? If it was measured in combat actions that would be better.

 

[cthulhudarren]

A few rounds will help you work up a sweat, but probably won't exhaust you - unless its very hot or you're in a sustained combat (a battle, say). In practice most warriors will spar and train for far longer than in a real battle so they should be able to cope easily with the rigours of the real thing.

But according to the rules, a few rounds can gain you a fatigue level around half the time

 

[Dan True]

Doesn't the rules say you need HOURs to recover from any fatigue level? If it was measured in combat actions that would be better.

I mean that you take the break before you get exhausted, so for example:

You have a CON of 16, 4 CAs and can therefore fight 4 rounds before testing. You have a resilience of 70%.

You fight for 4 combat rounds, you take a resilience test and succeed.
You then fight for 3 more combat founds. Then, feeling that you're beginning to tire, you get some distance to your opponent (who is probably also tiring now - if not, you'll be drawn into a battle of exhaustion.).
After circling each other for 1-2 combat rounds, you've caught your breath and return to the fray. It takes 4 combat rounds before you need to test again, because you rested for a few rounds.

However, I do find the hours needed to recover from fatigue quite extreme, at least for the first level of fatigue (I can agree to two hours of rest for tired and above, but not for winded). They might need some change I agree.

- Dan

 

[cthulhudarren]

Doesn't the rules say you need HOURs to recover from any fatigue level? If it was measured in combat actions that would be better.

I mean that you take the break before you get exhausted, so for example:

You have a CON of 16, 4 CAs and can therefore fight 4 rounds before testing. You have a resilience of 70%.

You fight for 4 combat rounds, you take a resilience test and succeed.
You then fight for 3 more combat founds. Then, feeling that you're beginning to tire, you get some distance to your opponent (who is probably also tiring now - if not, you'll be drawn into a battle of exhaustion.).
After circling each other for 1-2 combat rounds, you've caught your breath and return to the fray. It takes 4 combat rounds before you need to test again, because you rested for a few rounds.

However, I do find the hours needed to recover from fatigue quite extreme. They might need some change I agree.

- Dan

Yes, there needs to be a set amount of time to recover that is reasonable. I'm thinking each would be according to CON.

fatigue level : rest time needed to improve one fatigue level
1st fatigue level: CON combat actions
2nd fatigue level: CON combat rounds
3rd fatigue level: CON minutes
4th fatigue level: CON hours

etc

 

[taxboy]

From my group's experience, it seems that fights are over in about 3 to five rounds. Fatigue doesn't even become a factor unless the fight goes for a while. The fatigue rules are good as they stand, I think but it seems right to me even in realistic

Totally agree, that is one of the things I love about mrq2 (and hero for that matter), the fights are brutal, realistic and SHORT.

My own experience in my misspent youth is that fights are over very quickly, and I suspect adding a sword rather than fists would speed the fight even more.

It does however mean adjusting to the risk factor by players more used to online games or d & d combats (battle of attrition). My current newbies can't get it into their heads they can be maimed in less than a few soconds.

And in a belated return to topic, we don't use fatigue levels at all, mrq2 combat is way too dangerous already!!

 

[Jujitsudave]

I think that the fatigue as they stand are certainly worth using, especially in some tactical situations. If a few of your guys are facing down a higher skilled opponent with a lot of combat actions (4 or more), it makes sense for them to stay defensive and conservative to "wear him down". Tougher opponents become more manageable when they are tired.

You can't do that with CON rounds = fatigue.

 

[ThatGuy]

Also consider the guys who are NOT professional fighters. The thieves, wizards, merchants, priests...most of the population really.

They are NOT trained fighters and SHOULD tire out VERY quickly. Your average guys fist fighting- even in relatively good shape- will be sucking wind in about 2-3 minutes- the fatigue mechanic equivalent of level 3 or worse.

Maybe one solution is that trained fighters should get the benefit of a more beneficial time to fatigue ratio...although that is kind of what the athletics roll is supposed to simulate.

Still, another solution would be an athletics roll "bonus" due to training that would make the athletics roll for fatigue "easy" or "very easy."

 

[gran_orco]

I do not understand one thing. According to a past post from Loz or Pete (I do not remember), we should change combat actions in heavy activity to combat rounds. I have pointed it as an errata in the book, and I do not change anything if it has not been said by one of them. :?: :?: :?: :?:

EDIT: yes, I finally found it. You can see it here

 

[Jujitsudave]

Woah! Hmm....I like it as actions better. I won't change unless it comes to a party vote.

 

[Redcrow]

I like Fatigue rules, but some parts of the MRQ2 rules are a little unbalanced such as not all CA's being equal. For example, reloading an arrow is not as taxing/tiring as swinging a Two-Handed Sword yet each will tire you out at the same rate because they both cost the same number of CA's.

Although it wouldn't fix the above problem, I do think using Combat Rounds instead of Combat Actions would be better. I'm all in favor of short and brutal combats, but a Round is only 5 seconds long. I don't much like that the average character* could start feeling fatigued in around 15 seconds or less.

Using Combat Rounds would mean that the average character (CON 10) wouldn't start to feel fatigued until around 50 seconds (still under a minute) of combat.


*like the one I'm currently playing.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I do not understand one thing. According to a past post from Loz or Pete (I do not remember), we should change combat actions in heavy activity to combat rounds. I have pointed it as an errata in the book, and I do not change anything if it has not been said by one of them.

The reason it is Combat Actions in the RAW is that I based them on realistic armoured melee combat. In full contact armed fighting you do tire very quickly, in fact I'd go as far to say it is the most rapidly exhausting form of physical activity I've ever experienced save for swimming in white water.

The reason I supported a change to Combat Rounds is that it simply cuts down on overhead and allows a more heroic level of engagement if you literally want PCs to scythe their way through an army of massively out-skilled opponents.

 

[Dan True]

The reason it is Combat Actions in the RAW is that I based them on realistic armoured melee combat. In full contact armed fighting you do tire very quickly, in fact I'd go as far to say it is the most rapidly exhausting form of physical activity I've ever experienced save for swimming in white water.

I fully agree. However the rules does not take into account that you tire much quicker when carrying armour, then when not. But I guess you have to draw a line somewhere to generalise rules.

- Dan

 

[cthulhudarren]

I do not understand one thing. According to a past post from Loz or Pete (I do not remember), we should change combat actions in heavy activity to combat rounds. I have pointed it as an errata in the book, and I do not change anything if it has not been said by one of them.

The reason it is Combat Actions in the RAW is that I based them on realistic armoured melee combat. In full contact armed fighting you do tire very quickly, in fact I'd go as far to say it is the most rapidly exhausting form of physical activity I've ever experienced save for swimming in white water.

The reason I supported a change to Combat Rounds is that it simply cuts down on overhead and allows a more heroic level of engagement if you literally want PCs to scythe their way through an army of massively out-skilled opponents.

Too bad this didn't make the errata, or even as an optional rule. Thanks for finding this ruling, gran_orco. IMHO the RAW should say ROUNDS, but optional should be combat actions for a more realistic option. Then I'd add a cumulative penalty to the resilience roll each time you have to make the test.

 

[kurgan84]

The reason it is Combat Actions in the RAW is that I based them on realistic armoured melee combat. In full contact armed fighting you do tire very quickly, in fact I'd go as far to say it is the most rapidly exhausting form of physical activity I've ever experienced save for swimming in white water.

I fully agree. However the rules does not take into account that you tire much quicker when carrying armour, then when not. But I guess you have to draw a line somewhere to generalise rules.

- Dan

I use an house rule for this:

I use the armor's penality for Strike rank AND CON (only to calculate the frequency of fatigue roll)

EX: Bob have INT 13, DEX 15 and CON 15
He have SR 14
He can engage in medium activity for 15 minutes before risking Fatigue.
He can engage in heavy activity for 15 Actions (or rounds) before risking Fatigue.
He need to sleep after 25 (CON+10) hours of wakefulness
He can survive for 6O hours (CONx 4) before becoming chronically thirsty.
etc..

But, if Bob wear a chainmail all the time (Armour penality -5):

He have SR 9
He can engage in medium activity for only 10 minutes before risking Fatigue.
He can engage in heavy activity for only 10 Actions (or rounds) before risking Fatigue.
He need to sleep after only 20 (CON+10) hours of wakefulness
He can survive for 40 hours (CONx 4) before becoming chronically thirsty.
(don't wear heavy armor in a desert ! )

 

[cthulhudarren]

The reason it is Combat Actions in the RAW is that I based them on realistic armoured melee combat. In full contact armed fighting you do tire very quickly, in fact I'd go as far to say it is the most rapidly exhausting form of physical activity I've ever experienced save for swimming in white water.

I fully agree. However the rules does not take into account that you tire much quicker when carrying armour, then when not. But I guess you have to draw a line somewhere to generalise rules.

- Dan

I use an house rule for this:

I use the armor's penality for Strike rank AND CON (only to calculate the frequency of fatigue roll)

EX: Bob have INT 13, DEX 15 and CON 15
He have SR 14
He can engage in medium activity for 15 minutes before risking Fatigue.
He can engage in heavy activity for 15 Actions (or rounds) before risking Fatigue.
He need to sleep after 25 (CON+10) hours of wakefulness
He can survive for 6O hours (CONx 4) before becoming chronically thirsty.
etc..

But, if Bob wear a chainmail all the time (Armour penality -5):

He have SR 9
He can engage in medium activity for only 10 minutes before risking Fatigue.
He can engage in heavy activity for only 10 Actions (or rounds) before risking Fatigue.
He need to sleep after only 20 (CON+10) hours of wakefulness
He can survive for 40 hours (CONx 4) before becoming chronically thirsty.
(don't wear heavy armor in a desert ! )

Nice rule!

 

[gran_orco]

The reason I supported a change to Combat Rounds is that it simply cuts down on overhead and allows a more heroic level of engagement if you literally want PCs to scythe their way through an army of massively out-skilled opponents.

So, is not it an errata? Is it optional? Is Combat Actions the first intention?