Immunity To Trollkin "feature" - any comments

[Rurik]

As I mentioned before the higher starting skills and armor penalties are somewhat linked in my view. The higher skill offsets the penalty, just ditching the armor penalty leads to more powerful starting characters IMHO.

Subtracting ENC of armor worn rather than AP may be a workable compromise. I plan on using the rules as is for a while before modding this one. If it works well enough in practice I would rather not deal with too many rule changes.

 

[atgxtg]

As I mentioned before the higher starting skills and armor penalties are somewhat linked in my view. The higher skill offsets the penalty, just ditching the armor penalty leads to more powerful starting characters IMHO.

Subtracting ENC of armor worn rather than AP may be a workable compromise. I plan on using the rules as is for a while before modding this one. If it works well enough in practice I would rather not deal with too many rule changes.

I don't think that there is a link. Starting characters are not going to be able to afford enough in armor to get that big of an armor penalty. By the time they can afford enough armor for a 30 or 40 point penalty they are far from being starting characters anymore.

Plus character are only good with a coupl of weapons. For tall the rest they are down around the 20-25% range like before.

:idea: As a player, I'd probably would rather go with leather armor, protection 5 and bladesharp 5. It costs about a third of the price of plate, gives better protection when you need it, any combat penalty for armor is more than offset by the +25% from Bladesharp, and +5 damage ain't bad either. Not to mettion the +1STR, CON, SIZ and Damage for being intergrating the Metal and Earth runes. You even had a few grand left over to blow on stuff like POW crystals.

Ouch! :shock: Does that look as vicously nasty to everyone else.?


Oooh, has anyone considered the effects of Bladesharp and Bludgeon will have on parries and dodges? If someone doesn't have a shield, they are toast, and even then they are going to be taking some serious hits.

 

[Dort Onion]

While we seem to have gone past the initial trollkin subject - it is worth noting that trollkin have gotten weaker (3 less str than RQ2).

A RQ2 Trollkin could only get a damage penalty by rolling minimum on both Str and Siz whereas a MRQ trollkin needs to average 5 on his d6's to avoid one.

This would have a fairly major effect on Rainbow Mounds I'd think. (Tho i cant find my copies - think i have at least 3 copies of apple lane somewhere....)

Having a quick flick thru shows a lot of stat changes from RQ2/RQ3 for some creatures - some minor - some huge - (i.e. Dwarves losing a d6 dex will severly limit them due to the #actions system)

As an irrelevant aside - Any Elf/Dwarf war in MRQ will go very badly for the dwarves cos of this - 40+% of the dwarves have 1 action, the rest 2 - elves have 2 (9%), 3 (63%) or 4 (26%) - the elves have almost twice the number of actions of the dwarves - the dwarven +1dam and +1-2hp's aint going to compensate for that....

Cant see a general theme behind the changes (like RQ3's switch to 2d6+6 Siz/Int) other than a complete switch to d6's (not sure why).

There may be reasons for this - but i rem Dwarves being underpowered and underplayed in RQ2 - this wont help. But Mr Stafford's well know dislike of them may be behind it.

Not sure how any of the changes will run - I'm waiting for the rules (i.e. the companion) before I even think about running MRQ.

 

[t-tauri]

As an irrelevant aside - Any Elf/Dwarf war in MRQ will go very badly for the dwarves cos of this - 40+% of the dwarves have 1 action, the rest 2 - elves have 2 (9%), 3 (63%) or 4 (26%) - the elves have almost twice the number of actions of the dwarves - the dwarven +1dam and +1-2hp's aint going to compensate for that....

Iron will though. Plus big guns. Plus armour. The elves might be hitting more but they won't be doing much damage. They'll have the same problems as the trollkin.

 

[atgxtg]

As an irrelevant aside - Any Elf/Dwarf war in MRQ will go very badly for the dwarves cos of this - 40+% of the dwarves have 1 action, the rest 2 - elves have 2 (9%), 3 (63%) or 4 (26%) - the elves have almost twice the number of actions of the dwarves - the dwarven +1dam and +1-2hp's aint going to compensate for that....

Iron will though. Plus big guns. Plus armour. The elves might be hitting more but they won't be doing much damage. They'll have the same problems as the trollkin.

2d8 longbow plus multimissle. I'll put my money on the elves.

 

[t-tauri]

2d8 longbow plus multimissle. I'll put my money on the elves.

No chance of a 2d8 longbow in any Gloranthan game I'm running. It's more dangerous than a .45 Magnum with those (stupid) stats.

 

[Rurik]

2d8 longbow plus multimissle. I'll put my money on the elves.

No chance of a 2d8 longbow in any Gloranthan game I'm running. It's more dangerous than a .45 Magnum with those (stupid) stats.

The Elf Lonbow in the creature stats for elves has a d10 for damage (and the average elf has a -1d2 db).

 

[t-tauri]

The Elf Lonbow in the creature stats for elves has a d10 for damage (and the average elf has a -1d2 db).

That's what I was basing my "Dwarfz for teh w1n!" assertion on. :wink:

 

[atgxtg]

2d8 longbow plus multimissle. I'll put my money on the elves.

No chance of a 2d8 longbow in any Gloranthan game I'm running. It's more dangerous than a .45 Magnum with those (stupid) stats.

.45 Magnum?
Now I'm not sure if you mean a .44 Maginum, .45 Colt, >45 ACP, or .454 Cassul?

In any case, as we haven't seen the new damage tables for firearms we don't know. Maybe a .44 mag does 3d10?. Who know?

Firearms will be problematic as guns need to take out a location to kill somone.

 

[t-tauri]

.45 Magnum?
Now I'm not sure if you mean a .44 Maginum, .45 Colt, >45 ACP, or .454 Cassul?

Now if you're going to play smartarse you'd do better without quite so many typos. What's a Maginum? :lol:

Basically the point is that the longbow damage is better(IIRC) than Mongoose's new greatsword. I really can't see a longbow taking limbs off, especially through armour. I don't care what the MRQ gun stats are. I can play CoC or Ringworld for that.

My concern is that the combat system and damage have been mucked up in MRQ, and rather badly so far as I can see with only half the rules available.

Where's the fumble table? Where are the armour ignoring crits? Where have all the specials gone?

 

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

Basically the point is that the longbow damage is better(IIRC) than Mongoose's new greatsword. I really can't see a longbow taking limbs off, especially through armour. I don't care what the MRQ gun stats are. I can play CoC or Ringworld for that.

My concern is that the combat system and damage have been mucked up in MRQ, and rather badly so far as I can see with only half the rules available.

Where's the fumble table? Where are the armour ignoring crits? Where have all the specials gone?

(1) Agree on longbow damage - however you will note that all missile damage has increased compared to RQ3 and armour values are often lower. Absent a dodge then they will tend to penetrate armour (excluding magic effects of course). The additional damage is offset in part by the lesser effect of wounds. Whether you like that approach is a different matter.

(2) Fumbles - see p19. No table - it is a GM decision. I don't have an issue with this - you can craft a table if you want.

(3) Armour ignoring crits. If I recall an earlier post correctly this was pecifically not included in order to increase survivability . Likely to be covered in a S&P re more gritty combat. In the basic rules use precise attack.

(4) Specials. If by specials you mean 1/5 effects then this was intentionally deleted. There are arguments both ways but it's a design decision.

I think if you are looking for MRQ to be an updated RQ3 (or even RQ2) then it is not. If you prefer the RQ3 (or RQ2) approach then there are a few ideas for house rules in MRQ but it is not a replacement system.

From my perspective I am testing a combat situation with RQ3 and MRQ. This is underway, in that I've solo run the RQ3 version and am about to do the MRQ.

Regards

 

[atgxtg]

.45 Magnum?
Now I'm not sure if you mean a .44 Maginum, .45 Colt, >45 ACP, or .454 Cassul?

Now if you're going to play smartarse you'd do better without quite so many typos. What's a Maginum? :lol:

No, I just was't quite sure if you were going for the .45 round or the .44 Magnum for you comparison or one of the other exitic rounds. Comparing MRQ to RQ/BRP a 2d8 bow is the equvalent of a M-16, and so superior to any of the possiblities. I knew you thought it was bad, I just didn't know quite how bad you considered it.


Basically the point is that the longbow damage is better(IIRC) than Mongoose's new greatsword. I really can't see a longbow taking limbs off, especially through armour. I don't care what the MRQ gun stats are. I can play CoC or Ringworld for that.

My concern is that the combat system and damage have been mucked up in MRQ, and rather badly so far as I can see with only half the rules available.

Where's the fumble table? Where are the armour ignoring crits? Where have all the specials gone?[/quote]

Greetings! Welcome to the "old guard". I for one am in agreement with you. There is some good news though. Apparently critical tables, fumble tables, and some alternate weapon damage tables are all expected in the future. Some of us have been pushing for special success to make a return as well.

I think bow damage got bounced to offset the new implae rules. That most arrows are now able to punch right through plate is the effect. One good archer with a longbow and 3 to 4 shots per round is gonna be a terror. Toss in a couple of magnitudes of multimissle and we have the functional equivlant of a 5.56mm Squaf Automatic Weapon.

That arrows (and other implaing weapon) give knockback is another concern. I hope that was just an oversight.

 

[t-tauri]

Absolutely. A longbow with those stats and a good archer behind it will be able to take down tens of well armoured swordsmen before they get close enough to stick him.

 

[atgxtg]

Absolutely. A longbow with those stats and a good archer behind it will be able to take down tens of well armoured swordsmen before they get close enough to stick him.

I am working on a bow chart that ties damage to the "pull" of the bow. Damage bonus won't apply (unless someone is overbowing in which case the get the skill peanalty for lack of STR and the db penalty to damage too for not being able to putt the string all the way back).

With the guidelines I'm using for my bow tables a 2d8 longbow would have around a 55kg/120 lb pull and require a STR of 21 to use. A STR 13 lonbow would have around a /25kg55 lb pull and do 1d8. How does that sound?

Anyone interested?

 

[HyrumOWC]

Absolutely. A longbow with those stats and a good archer behind it will be able to take down tens of well armoured swordsmen before they get close enough to stick him.

Well, there was the Battle of Agincourt....

Hyrum.

 

[iamtim]

Anyone interested?

Actually, yeah.

 

[atgxtg]

Anyone interested?

Actually, yeah.

I'll convert you yet!

I'll start a new thread when the tableis done. I got a working model for STR, pull and damage. Need to factor in range, cost and a few other tings.

Probably will need to put some upper limits on things too. Depends on how much peiople want their pysics to hold up. A giant with a STR 50, seqoia wood bow with a 2-ton pull doing 100d6 or some such might be possible, but probably not feasable.

 

[Archer]

I think 2d8 are quite reasonable for a longbow. Especially after having seen test shooting with a longbow, and different arrow heads on the arrows, on different materials, from blocks of ballistic gel, melons, and a square of 5 mm thick steel.

While it depends very much on the arrow heads when it comes to penetrating metal, it has enough force to go through a human body, which is why I think 2d8 is reasonable.

The most realistic approach to damage would be a basic damage from the bow, with damage depending on pull, and finally adjusted according to arrowhead.

 

[Dort Onion]

Bows may have gotten more damagey but they are much slower now -

RQ2/3 you could get 2/3 arrows off per round - and only one melee attack (or 2 with 2weapons)

MRQ takes 1 action to fire and 1 to load a bow - so 0.5-2 arrows per round when melee's are getting 1-4 attacks....

Think 2d8 is ok considering that.

 

[Gnarsh]

We just used a simple system to implement bows with specific "higher" pulls.

We left the normal bow damage untouched, and made a "generic" bow do just normal bow damage. Anyone could use it, but it did just normal damage all the time. If a bow has a higher pull, it allows one to use their strength bonus with the bow. But *only* that bonus. This actually works a bit better with with MRQ since there's a lot more granularity in terms of strength bonus.

The idea was that higher pull bows would be more rare and typically require some customization. Unless you have a specific corps of bowmen in your military (like Welsh Longbowmen for example) who are selected for height and strength (ie: high bonus) and trained to use high pull bows, you're generally not going to have higher pull bows made. It's just more efficient to make a "one size fits all" type bow, so that's what's usually going to be found/available.

It's another thing that can give PCs and edge that's relatively subtle, and also non-arbitrary. They're "experts" and will spend the money for better quality weapons. That gives them an advantage. It's also a pretty easy mechanism to use and does not require that someone come up with new tables and such.