Houserule: Parry/Evade at half skill when out of actions?

[EdgeOfDreams]

I just ran a small session of Runequest II for the first time tonight. Had a blast.

One of my players pointed out, however, that running out of actions to parry/evade with when the opponent still has actions left to attack with is almost a death sentence. The combination of high chance to hit with an automatic combat maneuver (Impale and Choose Location were popular at my table) means most of the actual knockout/killing blows seemed to happen when the target was out of actions. This also means focus-fire is very very powerful by way of forcing an opponent to waste all his actions on defense.

Is this much of a problem in your parties?

I am now considering a houserule that I expect will lengthen combats, but also provide a little more realism and satisfaction to my players who are concerned about this issue:

"Combatants who have no actions remaining in the round may continue to Parry or Evade attacks as normal with no cost, but at half of their normal skill level. For example, someone with a Sword skill of 80% could parry at 40% when out of actions."

Does this seem like a reasonable houserule? Has anyone else tried something similar?

 

[Mixster]

I like the rule, but I don't think it is necessary.

Clever combatants should make sure they can't be "focus-fired". If being hit by many archers, you need some armor and you need to use cover, and if in close combat with many opponents, you need reach and evade (to use the fighting against multiple attackers rule).

If your players are mainly using choose location and impale CMs, they are aiming for quick fights, and thus, focus firing is a big deal for them. I usually focus around Trip, Disarm, and Bleed CMs. This might bring my damage down a bit, but on the other hand my opponents will usually be out of the combat for a few CAs after each attack, thus, for me focus firing is not that important, since I'm trying to do a little damage and trade up in CAs.

 

[Dan True]

Hm, where are your players coming from, in game terms?

If what you desire is a little more realism (as mentioned in your own post) then your house rule certainly isn't the answer. In the real world you can't parry and evade infinitely when people are hitting at you at the same time - if the feeling of unrealism arises from "but why can't I parry.. I'm not doing anything else, as I'm out of actions", simply realise that all actions take place in a very short timespan (often less than 5 seconds).. so, if a character is surrounded and attack by 4 enemies and quickly burns out his actions on defense, it is not because he is parrying the first hits and afterwards cannot parry anymore - it is because all their attacks connect within a short timespan, so he simply cannot parry them all.

I think that instead of a house rule (at least not yet. When you played a few sessions and you have a feel for it, go ahead) you should simply try to let the game evolve and perhaps let your players see how they could themselves evolve their tactics.

Is the problem that a player feels sentenced to death, because he gets surrounded by enemies? ... well, if you get surrounded in a real fight, you are often pretty much dead meat. Remember that you can use the outmanouver action to limit the enemies ability to fight. Also remember that crowd controlling through trip, bash & bleed often is more efficient than direct killing-spree.

Is the problem that the players feel the game is too easy, because they can all focus on one NPC at a time?
Well, then the NPCs should take the lesson above, and perhaps the encounter needs scaling. If the players can comfortably gang up on an NPC and blow him to pieces, then either there are too few NPCs (i.e. their combined number of CA is way too low compared to the PCs), they are not using their full potential (if your enemies are simply lining up and running up a hill without armour, then they are deserving their death) or perhaps the NPCs would in a real-life situation simply yield, as he clearly is out of his league.

Remember that armour can also be very important. Having full plate armour on effectively means you can ignore some of the more meager attacks (simply soak them up) and then the CAs for hitting back.
Also, remember that the enemies should have fairly the same combined number of CAs as the party. CAs are the most important combat-resource you have, so it is one of the first areas you need to handle when scaling an encoutner - or have the monster/big baddy have some way of either negating actions (so high a armour that most attacks are wasted) or handling them (i.e. a high evade and an aggresive use of the outmanouver action).

It take some time to wrap ones head around the new system, as it is fairly different from what most other systems do. But as a medieval reenactor and competitive sword fighter, I must say that the system is the one most like a real sword fight I have ever seen.

One of my players pointed out, however, that running out of actions to parry/evade with when the opponent still has actions left to attack with is almost a death sentence.

In a real world fight most one-on-ones are also decided either because one fucks up (fails a parry/attack roll) or because one simply cannot keep up (too few CAs or ineffective use of ones CAs). So this is pretty much the desired effect.

But, don't get me wrong... if in a few sessions you wish to have more survivability and longer fights, then be my guest an make a house rule. Legend is good at doing gritty, dangerous and quick fights where evne major villains or PCs die fairly quickly (getting a sword through ones stomach tend to have that effect). If you wish for longer "duels across the catsle yard"-style fights, where the hero always manages to parry in the last minute - then your house rule might fit well. Remember however that such a house rule will make armour much less important.

Welcome to Legend Hope the post clarifies a bit.

 

[Mixster]

But, don't get me wrong... if in a few sessions you wish to have more survivability and longer fights, then be my guest an make a house rule. Legend is good at doing gritty, dangerous and quick fights where evne major villains or PCs die fairly quickly (getting a sword through ones stomach tend to have that effect). If you wish for longer "duels across the catsle yard"-style fights, where the hero always manages to parry in the last minute - then your house rule might fit well. Remember however that such a house rule will make armour much less important.

I seem to remember a certain major villain witch who got impaled by a crossbow in the first CA.

 

[Dan True]

I seem to remember a certain major villain witch who got impaled by a crossbow in the first CA.

Because that damnable assasin had been smart enough to sneak around the area and attack from behind AND made his sneak check AND critted AND was shooting at a mature lady

- Dan

 

[Lemnoc]

Also, spend some time developing the combat setting so players get used to thinking about how to use objects and elevations to their advantage. Even a heap of corpses can keep someone from circling around behind you.

An interesting house rule might be to declare a player may announce to choose to spend an entire combat round in defensive posture and gain half again (1.5x) as many CAs in that round that can be used for purely defensive actions/movement (with creative DCMs, maybe even a riposte, possible to get out of the jam). This would give time for other players to render aid or whatnot, and is not as subject to player abuse as infinite CAs at half value.

 

[EdgeOfDreams]

Thanks for the input, folks.

My players and I come from a background of D&D (which has no active defense, just passive Armor Class) and FATE-based games like Spirit of The Century and Dresden Files (which have active defense rolls, but you can make an unlimited number of defense rolls in a round).

I'll have to run a few more combats before I make up my mind about the houserule. In the ones I've run so far, the players either had a significant numbers advantage to begin with or they got lucky. For example, in a fight between the party (5 characters, around 16 CAs per round total) and a group of six orcs (20 CAs per round), two players charged the only two orcs with shields and took them out of the fight in the first attack each. That turned a 5-on-6 fight into a 5-on-4, and the players quickly mopped up the rest.

 

[DamonJynx]

In the first iteration of Runequest published by Mongoose, combatants had a number of CA (attack and move actions) and they also had the same number of reactions (defensive actions). While not a bad idea, I think the way legend does it currently is better as it forces PC's and NPC's to be more strategic.

I think a better house-rule, if you really feel it necessary, would be to go to the above, rather than have an unlimited number of defensive actions and impose a penalty on them something akin to the BRP situation where each parry/evade after the first in each round is subject to a -30% cumulative penalty. So a character with 3 CA could attack and defend 3 times. The 1st defensive action would be at their full skill value, their 2nd defensive action @ -30% and the 3rd defensive action @ -60%.

 

[soltakss]

What I often find when using a new system is that something that seems out of place after one combat normally doesn't after 20 combats. The more you use Legend combat the more you will get to know what works for you and your group and what doesn't.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

or perhaps the NPCs would in a real-life situation simply yield, as he clearly is out of his league.

And likewise, if not every fight needs to be to the death, then outnumbered players can yield and then ransom themselves, or gain the opportunity to escape, or be rescued in a subsequent adventure...

 

[EdgeOfDreams]

And likewise, if not every fight needs to be to the death, then outnumbered players can yield and then ransom themselves, or gain the opportunity to escape, or be rescued in a subsequent adventure...

Yeah, I totally agree with the "not every fight is to the death" philosophy, but when your campaign concept is "Adventures delve into an enormous epic dungeon in search of phat loot", it's a bit harder to justify player survival after a lost fight. The monsters and traps that don't kill you outright have a tendency to leave your mangled, unconscious body where something else likely *will* kill you before you wake up.

 

[DamonJynx]

You'll find there are quite a few D&D converts here on the forums, I'm one for a start. It can take awhile to get players out of the D&D mentality and adjust your style of GM'ing.

The thing that drew me to this game system was how it encourages roleplaying over "kick-in-the-door-kill-all-the-monsters-and-take-their-stuff" paradigms of other game systems. Once you get the gist of that and that Combat Actions are King, at least as far as combat goes, you'll find the system relatively easy to use and fairly intuitive. And let's face facts, if you're all newbies, who's going to care if you stuff up a rule here and there so long as everyone at the table is happy and having fun.

 

[Deleriad]

And likewise, if not every fight needs to be to the death, then outnumbered players can yield and then ransom themselves, or gain the opportunity to escape, or be rescued in a subsequent adventure...

Yeah, I totally agree with the "not every fight is to the death" philosophy, but when your campaign concept is "Adventures delve into an enormous epic dungeon in search of phat loot", it's a bit harder to justify player survival after a lost fight. The monsters and traps that don't kill you outright have a tendency to leave your mangled, unconscious body where something else likely *will* kill you before you wake up.

That does depend. Intelligent denizens almost certainly will keep a captured person alive because if a group seems like they might come back or be persuaded to part with riches then it's not a bad option. Even a trap might leave a dying a person which will be of interest to anything with smarts. Put it this way. Someone who is alive can be killed and looted for whatever it's carrying. Or it can be ransomed for more phat loot then maybe killed afterwards.

Also Legend does have hero points. They can be used in extremis for extra CAs or even as a plot device. "I spend a HP to hope that something turns up." Of course some players may simply have their PCs loot the body of their fallen comrade but note that most serious injuries and even some major injuries are not outright death. Players will often find that their comrade is incapacitated but likely to take several hours or even a day or two to die. That'll bring some players up short.

Finally, the point of different systems is that they produce different outcomes. To "get good" at Legend requires different skills, tactics and strategies than say d20/D&D, Savage or Fate. Rather than trying to turn Legend into a poor copy of one of those games, play it as is and challenge the players to get good at something new. There'll undoubtedly be casualties at first. if the players are up for a challenge, that'll be part of the fun...

 

[DamonJynx]

To "get good" at Legend requires different skills, tactics and strategies than say d20/D&D, Savage or Fate. Rather than trying to turn Legend into a poor copy of one of those games, play it as is and challenge the players to get good at something new. There'll undoubtedly be casualties at first. if the players are up for a challenge, that'll be part of the fun...

+1