[HOUSE RULES] Combat

[Hyborian]

Here are the rules I plan to playtest next saturday.

Combat is resolved with the Updated combat matrix, but is not an opposed roll.

Each time a character gets a Combat Action he also gets a Reaction. A character may only use one reaction per combat action.

Each time a defender uses his reaction to dodge/parry and succeeds wheras the attacks fails his attack roll, the defender spares his reaction and may use it later during the same Combat Action.

A character with no Reaction left may sacrifice his next Combat Action to get an extra Reaction during the current Combat Action. This means that during his next Combat Action, he will only be able to react (no action).

 

[gamesmeister]

A character with no Reaction left may sacrifice his next Combat Action to get an extra Reaction during the current Combat Action. This means that during his next Combat Action, he will only be able to react (no action).

I've toyed with this idea, but combined with my variable CAs approach found it lengthened the life of a combat because characters who have less combat actions will often use this, going very "defensive" for a turn.

Perhaps it will be better with fixed CAs

 

[zozotroll]

Some places it is called turttleing up. It is very hard to hit somebody who wont open up to attack. Sounds like a great option for somebody who is temporarily oytnumbered, or who is badly outclassed. Say a runecaster vs a dedicated swordsman.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Each time a character gets a Combat Action he also gets a Reaction. A character may only use one reaction per combat action.

This is meaningless, unless you radically change the definition of a reaction. Reactions are used during your opponent's Combat Action, not your combat action. A character can have zero combat actions in a round due to fumbles or a previous wound or whatever and still be able to react during his foe's Combat Action.

Furthermore, what happens when you have two CAs and your foe has three, and he attacks you only on his third CA? If I understood your explanation well, you cannot react because you do not have a third CA, and the reactions "tied" to your two CAs were not used at that time.

A character with no Reaction left may sacrifice his next Combat Action to get an extra Reaction during the current Combat Action. This means that during his next Combat Action, he will only be able to react (no action).

Doesn't it just mean "he loses his next CA"? Or simply that he decreases his CAs (possibily to zero) to gain more reactions?

 

[Hyborian]

This is meaningless, unless you radically change the definition of a reaction. Reactions are used during your opponent's Combat Action, not your combat action.

I didn't change the definition of a reaction. I just used the tem Combat Action to say "the time between the current combat action and the next". I should probably rename it "segment" or "turn" or something like that.

Furthermore, what happens when you have two CAs and your foe has three, and he attacks you only on his third CA? If I understood your explanation well, you cannot react because you do not have a third CA, and the reactions "tied" to your two CAs were not used at that time.

See above.

 

[RosenMcStern]

But this is not the definition of a CA that is in the rules, so you must explain it well before describing the house rules. Furthermore, there is no such thing as a "segment" in MRQ, so you are basically modifying the whole system in a fashion similar, but not equal, to the old SRs.

You did not answer my second question. What happens on the third CA (or "segment") in that case?

 

[Hyborian]

I won't follow you this way, RosenMcStern. I can understand that you feel frustrated that your own rules weren't acclaimed, but you don't need to be aggressive.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Personally, I would feel frustrated if a product, that sells for money, was acclaimed more than my own. Houserules, I get no income for. I leave the "glory" to you, if this has some importance.

I am still waiting for your answer to my question #2. If this has some importance.

 

[gamesmeister]

Some places it is called turttleing up. It is very hard to hit somebody who wont open up to attack. Sounds like a great option for somebody who is temporarily oytnumbered, or who is badly outclassed. Say a runecaster vs a dedicated swordsman.

I think I would insist that the PC must convert an unused CA to a reaction before he can do this, as an action i.e. he can't just state that he's using a CA whenever he needs to.

What I mean is, let's say a PC has 2 CAs, and is facing two foes, both of who attack before him. During the first combat step, the player uses both of his Reactions to defend himself. On his CA he can then convert the CA to a reaction, so he now has 1 Reaction left. Moving on to the second set of combat actions, his first foe attacks, and he uses his newly acquired Reaction. When his second foe attacks, he can't convert his remaining CA to a Reaction at that point - he's simply not quick enough to defend against both of them. He will have to take the hit, and then perform his second CA if he's still standing.

 

[Hyborian]

I am still waiting for your answer to my question #2. If this has some importance.

The answer was in my first statement : he loses his next CA (which could be his first CA during the following round).