New poster with combat and skills queries

[Farandar]

Hi all,

New poster here, and apologies in advance for what might seem like complaints in my first post. I have just finished reading through the main book the first time, and also done some wading through the lively discussions in the forum, and I have a few queries. I’m planning to run a test session in the next few weeks, and it’ll be interesting to see how the system works in play rather than just on paper. Chances are there might be more questions after that, too. For now, here my first two:

• Combat Effects tables: Even after the clarification by Matt in the Player’s Guide, there is still one thing that bugs me about the dodge and parry tables. As it stands, it seems that you need a critical parry/dodge to avoid a successful attack, as even a success could potentially harm you. Am I reading this right? It might be a more “realistic” way of dealing with combat, but to me it seems to give the attacker an extra advantage.
  
  Skill Ratings: I like the fact that skills are now directly based on stats, but I’m curious to some of the choices of what skills are based on two stats rather than one. For example, why does a beginning, un-developed character end up with a lower skill in Unarmed combat than 2H Sword combat? Surely it’s easier to punch somebody than hitting them with a greatsword (note: I have absolutely none, that is, zilch, experience of fighting techniques apart from watching an SCA duel ten years ago…)?

That’s all for now – if these have been answered/discussed before, I’m happy for just a pointer to that discussion!

Cheers,
Erik Nolander

 

[atgxtg]

Well, you are pretty much correct in your observations.

THe whole "wimping out" of parrying is an attempt to make dodging more appealing. Several people have debated back an forth as either for or against the rule.

There is supposedly some optinal combat rules that might alter this.

In the meantime, if you don't like the rule, you can use something else. I'd probably go with something like RQ3's weapons tables. THat way a 1xAP result might actually be able to stop an attack.


As for point #2, you are the first one to bring that up. I think it is a good point. Unarmed combat used to start higher in RQ. I think the reason for the lower starting value is that they changed martial arts from an ability that modfied Unarmed COmbat damage to a separate skill. Sktill, I would expect Unarmed COmbat to be inutitively easier, and so start off higher.

If you want to have unarmed skill higher like in the "old days", you could change the starting value to something higher, such as STR+DEX, or STRx2+DEX or STR+DEXx2, or even STR+DEX+SIZ.


One thing about the MRQ rules is that they are supposedly modular, meaning that you;ll be able to slected different rule "plugings" to match your own gaming preferences.

 

[simonh]

Combat Effects tables: Even after the clarification by Matt in the Player’s Guide, there is still one thing that bugs me about the dodge and parry tables. As it stands, it seems that you need a critical parry/dodge to avoid a successful attack, as even a success could potentially harm you. Am I reading this right? It might be a more “realistic” way of dealing with combat, but to me it seems to give the attacker an extra advantage.

This is one of those "what were they thinking?" things in MRQ. Actualy there are fewer of these than I orriginaly thought. Somethimes it turns out their thinking was very sound, but in this case I've yet to see what this is about. On the face of it it just seems obtuse. I mean who in their right mind is going to attempt to Parry a failed attack, when the vast majority of the time it will mean the attack at least partialy succeeds as a result.

I've yet to fully decide what to do about this. The rules mod I'd recommend for fixing skills over 100% doesn't realy address this at all. It's a seperate problem, and I'm not sure what to do about it.

Simon Hibbs

 

[HyrumOWC]

I mean who in their right mind is going to attempt to Parry a failed attack, when the vast majority of the time it will mean the attack at least partialy succeeds as a result.Simon Hibbs

I'd be willing to be that in the Legendary Heroes book there will be reasons for doing so. Plus you could always crit and get a reposite in.

Hyrum.

 

[Farandar]

Well, you are pretty much correct in your observations.

THe whole "wimping out" of parrying is an attempt to make dodging more appealing. Several people have debated back an forth as either for or against the rule.

For me, the biggest problem is actually with Dodging. The starting percentage of the skill, without adding any free points, is really low compared to some other skills (my totally average Farmer Mercenary starts with Dodge 22% and 1H Axe 45%) , and yet when I finally succeed in Dodging, I am rewarded with being hit…albeit with minimum damage, but it still is not what I would expect after a successful skill roll.
I know, my Mercenary could add 30 points to both skills and get a better chance, but I kind of assume that the free skill points is what disinguishes a starting hero from a "normal" NPC. This assumption could more than likely be wrong...

As for point #2, you are the first one to bring that up. I think it is a good point. Unarmed combat used to start higher in RQ. I think the reason for the lower starting value is that they changed martial arts from an ability that modfied Unarmed COmbat damage to a separate skill. Sktill, I would expect Unarmed COmbat to be inutitively easier, and so start off higher.

If you want to have unarmed skill higher like in the "old days", you could change the starting value to something higher, such as STR+DEX, or STRx2+DEX or STR+DEXx2, or even STR+DEX+SIZ.

This is something I'm considering, especially for some of the other skills. I find what skills is based on one rather than two stats to be quite random, especially when it comes to Advanced skills. For example, assuming I haven't chosen a profession that gives me these skills and average stats, if I buy Play Lute and Mechanisms for my free skill points, I am actually going to be better at picking a lock than strumming a tune on my lute. Hmmm....


Cheers,
Erik

 

[atgxtg]

I mean who in their right mind is going to attempt to Parry a failed attack, when the vast majority of the time it will mean the attack at least partialy succeeds as a result.Simon Hibbs

I'd be willing to be that in the Legendary Heroes book there will be reasons for doing so. Plus you could always crit and get a reposite in.

Hyrum.

Maybe the LH book will have something to explain. IMO they should have given a hint. I suspect that since Matt said the chart was wrong, we probably got the LH chart by mistake.

The "parry to get a riposte" idea doesn't hold up to well. You odds of getting hit are much much higher than your chance of getting a riposte. Over 10 to 1 in most situations. It's not worth it.

 

[atgxtg]

For me, the biggest problem is actually with Dodging. The starting percentage of the skill, without adding any free points, is really low compared to some other skills (my totally average Farmer Mercenary starts with Dodge 22% and 1H Axe 45%) , and yet when I finally succeed in Dodging, I am rewarded with being hit…albeit with minimum damage, but it still is not what I would expect after a successful skill roll.
I know, my Mercenary could add 30 points to both skills and get a better chance, but I kind of assume that the free skill points is what disinguishes a starting hero from a "normal" NPC. This assumption could more than likely be wrong...

I think we have similar attitudes towards parries and dodge. One of my pet peeves is that spears are practically useless for defense (worse than a knife?), and that the best defense against a greatsword is to cast fireblade on it.

THere are supposed to be several options coming out in future books. In the meantime I'd suggest using RQ3 AP scores. If you don't have RQ3, you can get a good approximation by using the Hit Points for APs.

Fair wanring though-I'm a big RQ2/3 fan, amd I am probably turning out to be the game's strongest critic, so most of my "solutions" to "problems" tend to be a reversion to the "Old ways" of doing things.

This is something I'm considering, especially for some of the other skills. I find what skills is based on one rather than two stats to be quite random, especially when it comes to Advanced skills. For example, assuming I haven't chosen a profession that gives me these skills and average stats, if I buy Play Lute and Mechanisms for my free skill points, I am actually going to be better at picking a lock than strumming a tune on my lute. Hmmm....

I agree. THe good thing is, the modular apporach to the game allows you to switch the starting forumlas around. You could rewrite the formulas, or even have skills start off at twice the the value listed.

 

[HyrumOWC]

Maybe the LH book will have something to explain. IMO they should have given a hint. I suspect that since Matt said the chart was wrong, we probably got the LH chart by mistake.

The "parry to get a riposte" idea doesn't hold up to well. You odds of getting hit are much much higher than your chance of getting a riposte. Over 10 to 1 in most situations. It's not worth it.

It might not be worth it, but I can see someone wanting to try in desperate situations. (And maybe blow a good deal of Hero Points in the process.)

Hyrum.

 

[Rurik]

All things considered Minimum Damage becomes a much more important stat. I forsee a lot of Great Axes and Great Hammers among party members.

Taking 4+rolled DB on a successful dodge hurts. Especially because most great axe weilding characters will have a D4 or more bonus.

And forget about dodging that Great Troll with the Great Hammer.

 

[Harshlax]

I mean who in their right mind is going to attempt to Parry a failed attack, when the vast majority of the time it will mean the attack at least partialy succeeds as a result.Simon Hibbs

I'd be willing to be that in the Legendary Heroes book there will be reasons for doing so. Plus you could always crit and get a reposite in.

Hyrum.

Maybe the LH book will have something to explain. IMO they should have given a hint. I suspect that since Matt said the chart was wrong, we probably got the LH chart by mistake.

The "parry to get a riposte" idea doesn't hold up to well. You odds of getting hit are much much higher than your chance of getting a riposte. Over 10 to 1 in most situations. It's not worth it.

Don't forget that while a success in this does lead to being hit, twice the AP of the parrying weapon are knocked off the damage roll. This can lead to no damage being taken if the weapons are similar so it may be worth the risk to parry and succeed a missed roll in the hope of getting a riposte.

 

[Halfbat]

All things considered Minimum Damage becomes a much more important stat. I forsee a lot of Great Axes and Great Hammers among party members.

'Twas always the way ... but they weren't always used because... :

And forget about dodging that Great Troll with the Great Hammer.

...of this! The main reason for going with the sword/shield combo was the help with parrying.

 

[Rurik]

With a high skill and a good blocking weapon it is pretty safe, and with a sheild very safe. If your opponent is a little guy with a Light Mace parry to your hearts content. Giant with a Great Axe, now that is a different story.

Does a riposte have to be with the weapon that parried? If I parry with my dagger can I riposte with my rapier? Can I parry with my sheild and riposte with my sword? I don't think the rules say either way.

 

[atgxtg]

Don't forget that while a success in this does lead to being hit, twice the AP of the parrying weapon are knocked off the damage roll. This can lead to no damage being taken if the weapons are similar so it may be worth the risk to parry and succeed a missed roll in the hope of getting a riposte.

Take another look at the APs for the weapons. IF the weapons are similar you could be toast. A spear can't stop much off another spear. If you both have greatswords, don't even think about it. About the only time where this tactic is useful is if you have a nice big shield and the opponent doesn't have a damage bonus.

 

[atgxtg]

With a high skill and a good blocking weapon it is pretty safe, and with a sheild very safe. If your opponent is a little guy with a Light Mace parry to your hearts content. Giant with a Great Axe, now that is a different story.

Does a riposte have to be with the weapon that parried? If I parry with my dagger can I riposte with my rapier? Can I parry with my sheild and riposte with my sword? I don't think the rules say either way.

I would expect that you get the riposte with the weapon that you parried with. Block & Counter vertainly makes sense though.

With rapier & dagger you usually parry with both weapons, crossing the blades to trap the enemy's sword. THat was sort of why I wrote up that Taden Weapon USe legendary ability that lets you combine weapon APs.

It does make me worrky about someone wielding two kite shields though...

 

[HyrumOWC]

It does make me worrky about someone wielding two kite shields though...

Just say no.

Hyrum.

 

[simonh]

All things considered Minimum Damage becomes a much more important stat. I forsee a lot of Great Axes and Great Hammers among party members.

In all versions of RQ, high damage weapons have usualy been the best ones to go for, even if you're at a significant skill disadvantage as a result. It's due to the way armour works, deducting from damage. Suppose your foe has 4 AP and your weapon does an average damage of 5.5 points of damage (e.g. a weapon doing 1D6+2, or 1D8+1). On average you'll do 1.5 points of damage per hit (sometimes more, sometimes less, obviously). Increase the average damage to 7 (e.g. 2D6) and your average damage will be 3, that's double. You'd have to double your chance of a hit, including bypassing you're opponent's parry/dodge, to get the same effect through skill improvement or a higher base attack chance.

This is why combat magic that improves damage is so crucial, it evens up the relative effectiveness of weapons (but is often countered by armour-type magic). In most RQ systems, damage is the deciding factor in most situations, with skill being a tie breaker.

That's not necesserily a bad thing, it's just a fact.

As a GM, the thing to look out for is that numerous NPCs with high skills but low damage will generaly be creamed by the PCs, who will still feel that they were stretched because their opponents were capable fighters. However throw in a troll with a low chance to hit, but a big weapon, high damage modifier and some Bludgeon or Bladesharp and you stand a good chance of killing a character or two. Oh the party as a whole will take them down, but it only takes one lucky hit and a high roll on the damage dice for Mr. Troll, and it's bye bye Mr. Player Character.

Just something to be aware of.


Simon Hibbs

 

[Rurik]

Actually, in older RQ a Trollkin could drop a runelord with a lucky shot. Trust me, I know.

And players always really liked poleaxes for some reason, even though it had a very low base chance. Not sure why. :wink:

But what I was specifically referring to was that a successful dodge still suffers minimum damage + rolled db against a simple success. Both the Great Axe and Great Hammer have a minimum damage of 4 (compared to 2 for a Greatsword) Taking 4+1d4 or worse for a successful dodge is pretty harsh. Of course the penalty for not dodging is pretty harsh too.

 

[atgxtg]

In all versions of RQ, high damage weapons have usualy been the best ones to go for, even if you're at a significant skill disadvantage as a result. It's due to the way armour works, deducting from damage. Suppose your foe has 4 AP and your weapon does an average damage of 5.5 points of damage (e.g. a weapon doing 1D6+2, or 1D8+1). On average you'll do 1.5 points of damage per hit (sometimes more, sometimes less, obviously). Increase the average damage to 7 (e.g. 2D6) and your average damage will be 3, that's double. You'd have to double your chance of a hit, including bypassing you're opponent's parry/dodge, to get the same effect through skill improvement or a higher base attack chance.
Simon Hibbs

Not really. There are a lot of reasons why this wasn't true:

1)In eariler version of RQ, parrying was probably more important than armor. A parry from most weapons stopped more damage than wearing plate armor. In fact, a parry ussually stopped all the damage from practically any weapon.

2) Special success/implaes and what not drastically increased the lethality of thrusting weapons in RQ. A shortsword, spear, rapier,or dagger could be just as lethal as a big chopping weapon. RQ2 had the max+rolled impales, and RQ3 had critical implaes double double max damage and bypassing armor!

3) Closing rules in RQ3 allowed someone with a small light weapon the option of moving in on someone using a big weapon and really putting them at a disadvantage.

4) Terrain and Situation Condtions often limited or restriected the use of the big weapons, Most require a good deal of space to be wielded effectively. A poleax in a narror corridor turns into a pooly balanced club or perhaps a lousy spear.


So, up to now, skill was far more important than weapon damage dice in RQ. Now the heavy weapons pretty much blow through the defenses.


One of thee house rule tweaks I am working on is a change to dodging. My idea is that id dodging means movingout of the way of a weapon, then the dodger should almost always have to move. This count range from just retreating a step to attemtps to get arond the side of an opponent. Maybe enven ducking under an attack and moving in close. Part of the idea would be to give the attacker some cotrol on how the defender can move, based on the skill rolls. THat way an attacker could try to trap a defender in a corner or up against a cliff.

I'm waiting for the companion though before I fiunsih this up.

 

[Rurik]

A poleax in a narror corridor turns into a pooly balanced club or perhaps a lousy spear.

Actually a poleaxe is very effective in a corridor. It is held close to the body and its long haft makes it excellent for parrying as it covers much of the length of your body. Think of it as long staff with an axe head. Attacking with it is a quick snap, using the excellent leverage from the long haft.

There is a reason Steve Perrin with his SCA experience made it a god weapon.

 

[atgxtg]

A poleax in a narror corridor turns into a pooly balanced club or perhaps a lousy spear.

Actually a poleaxe is very effective in a corridor. It is held close to the body and its long haft makes it excellent for parrying as it covers much of the length of your body. Think of it as long staff with an axe head. Attacking with it is a quick snap, using the excellent leverage from the long haft.

There is a reason Steve Perrin with his SCA experience made it a god weapon.

I'd still take a spear or shortsword & shield for narrow corridors. You can even trap the poleaxe with you shield and just slide up the shaft for some nice lopsided slaughter.

But I'd be real careful about making that "first" step.

Not that long hafter weapons can parry well in MRQ. Halberd vs. Halberd looks a lot like D&D now.