House rule:Strike Rank priority

[zanshin]

At present if people are tied on the same strike rank priority is determined by DEX , and if their DEX is the same they act together. Just as a bit of chrome I suggest the following to be used to split ties. DEX is already an important component in determining strike rank so I suggest the following change

Strike Rank Priority

When characters are acting on the same strike rank who goes first is determined first by checking weapon length - the longer weapon acts first
Longest Lance, Longspear, Glaive , Missile weapons
LongBill,Great Axe,Great Hammer,Great sword,Halberd, Military Flail, Quarterstaff, Shortspear,War Maul
MediumBall and Chain, Bastard Sword, Battleaxe , Heavy Mace, Light Mace, Military Pick, Rapier, Shortsword, War Hammer, War Sword
Short Club, Dagger, Knife, Hatchet , Martial Arts, Natural weapons.
Shortest Shield Bash, Unarmed

If the weapon length is tied compare SIZ (reach) , highest SIZ has priority. If a missile weapon is being used by either party ignore this step.
If SIZ is tied compare DEX, highest has priority. If DEX is tied...they act simultaneously.

Comments appreciated.

 

[Mikko Leho]

This would mean more book keeping but it would not be necessary more realistic. For instance a short sword has an advantage over long spear in short distance. More realistic solution would require taking in account the fighter's distance from each other, their weapon's reach, range in which weapon is used effectively and possible other modifiers. This would be too detailed for me, so I will leave it to that.

BTW Shield bash should cover more distance than knives or daggers when using the shield's side.

 

[zanshin]

Yes you could have a two range system as per Traveller to reflect that someone with a longspear is backing off against someone with a shortsword for even more bookeeping
This system reflected the rules from previous RQ's that gave SR weighting to long weapons.

My experience with Martial arts and LARP is that the initiative is with the person with the longer weapon, they can punish attempts to close range , or launch attacks from further away in more safety. The shorter person/person with the shorter weapon has to expose themselves to more risk (ie an attack) as they close to strike. Skill and speed can override this, hence this is only for tied strike ranks.

Shield bash longer than a dagger ? tenuous IMO. A dagger is about 12-18" long, whats the radii of a buckler or target shield? Also the edge tends to be used at very close range, almost like an uppercut, most shield strikes are slams with the shield or shield boss with the body behind it. I could be convinced to move shield slam to 'short' , but no more than that. These are broad categories - a bit of chrome for people who like their crunch

 

[zanshin]

Oh and the only bookkeeping needed is to note weapon length - you already have a record of SIZ and DEX.

 

[Mikko Leho]

My experience with Martial arts and LARP is that the initiative is with the person with the longer weapon, they can punish attempts to close range , or launch attacks from further away in more safety.

This is true to a point. After a fighter with a short weapon has gained optimum range, he or she is not likely to move away to give longer weapon an edge. Bigger weapons are always at an advantage as shorter weapons need most of the time come through them, but this does not mean the situation is always static.

Shield bash longer than a dagger ? tenuous IMO. A dagger is about 12-18" long, whats the radii of a buckler or target shield?

Yes but shields also consists beasts of this size: http://www.digitalnorseman.com/bcvsp/images/SHIELD01.JPG. Maybe if there was distinction between bigger and smaller shields...

 

[zanshin]

This is true to a point. After a fighter with a short weapon has gained optimum range, he or she is not likely to move away to give longer weapon an edge. Bigger weapons are always at an advantage as shorter weapons need most of the time come through them, but this does not mean the situation is always static.

No absolutely true, which is why it can be difficult to model close combat. However , given room to maneuver the person with the longer reach/weapon will be adjusting their distance to their optimum range as well, by backing up or pushing their opponent away. Watch any of the Ali/Frazier fights - Ali backs off and keeps Frazier at bay with his jab, Frazier succeeds when he breaks through the jab and unloads with hooks.

You have to decide on the level of complexity you want. I am happy to leave weapon length as a tie breaker rather than modelling optimum battle distance, but if you produce a system for it i'll be happy to critique it. At the moment weapon length is of no importance , whereas it once was, and i liked that level of detail.

 

[simonh]

One approach would be for long weapons to give a Strike Rank bonus. This would make MRQ somewhat more similar to previous versions of RQ, with a total SR listed next to the weapon on the character sheet, but of course the mechanics are different.

Yes it's possible to close with a shorter weapon, but many long weapons are also at least usable, if not quite as effective at shorter range. hafted weapons can bash like a staff, or greatswords can still cut, or pummel with the pommel.

Ok so maybe technicaly the damage should be different but IMHO it's not realy worth the effort. Frankly longer weapons are more effective, and it's reasonable to let the rules reflect this. SR bonuses would be very helpful in this area, and you can always add closing rules as an option if you realy want to.


Simon Hibbs

 

[zanshin]

Sure, you could go Longest = + 4, Long +3, Medium +2, Short +1. Its another valid way of doing it.

I wont be because of my other house rule for combat actions - you wouldnt logically get more attacks from using a longer, heavier weapon. But the above works perfectly well for the MRQ rules.

 

[Mikko Leho]

No absolutely true, which is why it can be difficult to model close combat. However , given room to maneuver the person with the longer reach/weapon will be adjusting their distance to their optimum range as well, by backing up or pushing their opponent away. Watch any of the Ali/Frazier fights - Ali backs off and keeps Frazier at bay with his jab, Frazier succeeds when he breaks through the jab and unloads with hooks.

The problem with your example is that Ali and Frazier are both using their fists and are roughly the same size. I am talking much more imbalanced situation like fighting two handed sword with a dagger. The only way the dagger wielder is going to walk alive out of the fight is to move close as possible and keep the distance so that the sword can't touch him or her, while doing nasty things with the knife. If the sword wielder manages to increase the distance so that he can use his sword effectively, the knife handler is dead. This is true in all possible scenarios as long as there is significant difference between fighters' effective attack range.

 

[zanshin]

Sure and unless they start out at very close quarters there is a massive advantage to the one with the greatsword. Whereas at the moment the 'only' advantage is that the one with the greatsword does considerably more damage.

You have a choice of 3 levels of combat modelling weapon size as i see it

First as per MRQ - you ignore it

Secondly you give an advantage to longer weapons , as most of the time it is an advantage to outreach your opponent.

Thirdly - you create a sophisticated model for combat ranges and closing/retreating.

I've done the second . You show me a model for the third and i'll very happily look at it.

And finally Ali/Frazier shows what a great difference a few inches of reach makes, how much more significant it is in the scenario you outline.

 

[Mikko Leho]

I've done the second . You show me a model for the third and i'll very happily look at it.

I have no need for a more complicated model. In fact I am still not convinced that MRQ combat will be fluent enough for me. My general oppinion of house rules are that more than othen they make games too complex. Make games simpler is my motto.

And finally Ali/Frazier shows what a great difference a few inches of reach makes, how much more significant it is in the scenario you outline.

Yeah, while reach is important at such ranges in boxing, it becomes imperative in deadlier games. Shorter boxer can win over a taller opponent even with keeping his or her distance, but with weapons this distance is a matter of life or death.

 

[zanshin]

sure , I have no problem with people arguing they want simpler resolution systems, it really is a matter of taste - for me crunch adds to game flavour, and if i can implement it with minimum difficulty I will.

It just seemed you were arguing that the model i created was not sophisticated enough, which is fair enough, but i cannot see a way to easily model the next step without an unnacceptable level of complexity.