New to Rune Quest and wondering...

[Arlaten]

I have played Runequest 2 in the early years and Runequest 3 for many, many years. I have played Mongoose Runequest recently with a group. Mongoose Runequest is different and plays different. Character creation is easier. However, character creation in Runequest 3 is very realistic. In addition, most characters gets a wide spread of useful adventuring skills in Runequest 3, plus most characters get magic spells to begin with. Characters receive a less well-rounded skill set in Mongoose Runequest. Less characters receive some kind of spell. Characters are more varied, but not necessarily more useful (to begin with) in terms of overall game play.

In addition, in Runequest 3 Spirit Magic (Rune Magic in MRQ) is gained at the player’s decision by going to a shaman and paying to receive a spell. In MRQ, the player must depend on the GM to give him Rune spells through treasure, or by making them available through game play. In addition, a shaman in Runequest 3 has a fetch with a lot of interesting features. Fetches can protect his body while he goes wandering around on the spirit plane and they can be used to bind spirits to the shaman. This is good because in Runquest 3 many spirits are essentially the spells, themselves. Plus, whenever you enter into spirit combat to bind a spirit to you, you have the opportunity to increase your POW. MRQ can give the frustrating feeling of having to depend on the GM to give you things…which is similar in feel, IMO, to Dungeons and Dragons. I always liked Runequest 3 because, if you knew the rules you could do quite a bit…and the GM was more like a referee than a provider.

MRQ combat can be incredibly slow compared to RQ3. For instance, you must go through what used to be one round for every strike rank. This makes battle technically 10 times longer. There are advantages to this. There is more opportunity to interfere with other combat actions…get to dying characters (something very, very important in RQ), and mess up spellcasters who are trying to cast their spells. Also, there are no total hit points in MRQ. Each character/monster has hit points per location. Imagine this. You are fighting a fairly well armored giant. You take out one arm. Then you take out a leg. Then you take out another arm. You keep hacking and hacking at the poor giant and he just never seems to die. We experienced this in a game. You can use precise attack to bypass armor. Ehhhh…okay…but no cigar. I have always thought RQ3 combat was elegant, thoroughly thought out, and reflected real world combat without unnecessary detail. Even before I think of something new to do, there is already a well thought out rule governing that action. It seems very hard to ‘break’ or even to improve the RQ3 combat system IMO.

Sorcery is an entirely different matter. Sorcery can be rather disappointing in RQ3. Sorcerers are much more powerful in MRQ that they are in RQ3. On the other hand sorcerers in RQ3 potentially start with more spells (it depends on how well you roll for age, in this case).

In the end, if I were to merge the two systems, I would simply use the MRQ character creation rules, but I would allow for a few hobby skills at low percentages, and more opportunities for magic (especially magic users).

I would just use the combat system from RQ3, period. There are a few advantages to using MRQ for combat, but for the most part, they do not seem to outweigh the disadvantages.

I would use the Spirit Magic system from RQ3 and retain rune investment through the use of Rune Items (but not make them necessary for casting or learning spells). Rune investment would be a requirement to join certain cults.

I would use both divine magic and sorcery as detailed in MRQ, but it would cost at least one point of POW (or one Magic Point) to cast a sorcery spell.

I would use the RQ3 experience system.

If I did not want to mess around with combining rules, I would not use the MRQ system, but I would certainly use all of the excellent resource materials available for gaming in the Second Age, and for Elric. I would use the RQ3 system for all game mechanics and creature statistics.

If you have played a lot of RQ3 there could be a tremendous amount of difference in feel of play between RQ3 and MRQ. Also, converting characters over from RQ3 to MRQ can be disappointing. This seems to say something right off the bat. However, if you have been playing D&D and you want a better system…I would definitely say go with MRQ. MRQ has a more D&D feel to it and it will probably feel more comfortable and more familiar than playing RQ3 would. By the way…I like the d20 system, have played it, it’s cool…but I like RQ better.

By the way, if Steve Perrin is reading this by any chance, good job...you were way, way ahead of your time, and thank you for an excellent system.

 

[Zipp Dementia]

Since MRQ is my first d100, I can't really personally compare it to the other RQs. But that's why I started this thread, to gather opinions like this.

In the course of this thread I've heard people swear by every edition except RQ1 (probably just too old) and MRQ (though it's gotten praise).

I think if you put back in total health, combat in MRQ becomes quite fun (and certainly more interesting than D20 combat). I've yet to delve into it extensively, however.

I have always thought RQ3 combat was elegant, thoroughly thought out, and reflected real world combat without unnecessary detail. Even before I think of something new to do, there is already a well thought out rule governing that action. It seems very hard to ‘break’ or even to improve the RQ3 combat system IMO.

Interesting statement, I'd like to know more. What were the major differences between combat in RQ3 and MRQ that make you say this?

 

[Halfbat]

For instance, you must go through what used to be one round for every strike rank. This makes battle technically 10 times longer.

Not if you're playing by the rules as written. The Round/SR relationship has effectively been reversed.

A round in MRQ normally has only 3 cycles, 4 if using hi-DEX creatures or characters want to use their off-hand weapons/shields, very rarely 5. In cycle, combatants act in "SR" order only if they have actions left. Cycles 3,4 and 5 have progressively less and less combatants involved. Due to this inversion, SR in MRQ is far more similar to D20 Initiative than RQ's traditional Strike Rank.

With the older 12/10 step Strike Rank system, characters and opponents normally had (at most) 3 actions, taking actions on the strike ranks they could, depending on the creature and it's weapons.

We find that the actual length of the battle itself in real terms is about the same, depending on the injuries (as you described! :roll: ).

 

[Arlaten]

By the way...to say that battle technically takes 10 times as long is an unfair statement. I should have qualified that. Actually battle seems to take us 3 times as long as it did with RQ3. A battle that would only take 30 minutes with RQ3 takes about 90 minutes for us now. In addition we are used to the RQ3 rules and not totally used to the MRQ rules, yet. I merely meant to say that running through the initiative order every strike rank slows things down., but it does give more opportunities to do things.

 

[Arlaten]

A round in MRQ normally has only 3 cycles, 4 if using hi-DEX creatures or characters want to use their off-hand weapons/shields, very rarely 5. In cycle, combatants act in "SR" order only if they have actions left.

Yes, this is why what I said was unfair. Combatants act in SR order only if they have actions left...We still find that combat takes longer...perhaps because combat is more tactical...perhaps because we are just not used to the system.

 

[RosenMcStern]

In MRQ, the player must depend on the GM to give him Rune spells through treasure, or by making them available through game play.

Tihs unbalance is somehow fixed by cults of Glorantha. That said, I think the physical rune system is the real bad mistake that the designers did with MRQ. The rest can be easily amended if you do not like it.

 

[Arlaten]

Interesting statement, I'd like to know more. What were the major differences between combat in RQ3 and MRQ that make you say this?

I am not trying to avoid this question. However, I am tired, and it is not good for me to tackle it right now. I will try to respond to it in the next day or so...it is a fair question.

The big basic difference is in the Strike rank system, but there are some other differences, too.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Interesting statement, I'd like to know more. What were the major differences between combat in RQ3 and MRQ that make you say this?

I can answer your question, as Arlaten's point is very clear to me. The RuneQuest melee round looks complicate the first time you look at it, but in fact it is very simple and realistic. You just attack at a pre-determined Strike Rank with a known percentile. Your weapon is not ready? Add 3 to strike rank. You must close to your target? Add 1 to SR per 3 meters you move. You want to flee? Go all out defense for one round and then you can escape. That's it.

It takes some time to "grok" it, but once you master it there are absolutely no home rules needed. Of course there are many advanced rules you can use (charges, knockback, opportunity attacks, aimed blows, etc.) but all you need to start are the simple rules I explained above.

MRQ is different. More tactical, but requires more decisions to be made during a single combat round. And it has the advantage of being easier to explain to newbies.

 

[Rurik]

In the course of this thread I've heard people swear by every edition except RQ1 (probably just too old) and MRQ (though it's gotten praise).

RQ1 and RQ2 are identical in almost every way, except RQ2 has a lot of errata and clarifications to the first edition, so people just refer to RQ2. I know people who still play RQ2.

RQ3 was a continuation of the same rules, and so was a very refined and complete product. The biggest complaints were Sorcery (though it worked well enough in my games) and a record keeping heavy Encumbrance/Fatigue system - ignored by many. MRQ's Encumbrance is actually much closer to RQ2 than RQ3.

IN RQ2/3 Every one had 1 attack and 1 parry (if your skill was over 100 you could split it into two attacks or parries at 1/2 skill). Strike ranks were fixed, with lower being better. Reach was abstracted as part of your strike rank. Your characters base Strike Rank was based on DEX (speed) and SIZ (reach), and each weapon had a Strike rank value based on its length (reach again). Each round everybody acted in their strike rank order.

Weapon attack and parry were different skills, so you could have a broadsword attack of 75% and parry of 50% and a shield attack of 34% and parry of 68%.

Skills were more numerous (such as listen and spot hidden in RQ2/3 which are combined into perception in MRQ) and grouped into categories (such as Perception Skills and Knoeledge Skills). You had a category bonus or penalty based on your stats. For example if you had a good STR and DEX you would get a bonus to all weapon skills.

Weapons had different fixed based skill ratings. For example a Poleaxe has a base chance of 5% (+ attack modifier) while a club has a base chance of 25%. So the club is much easier to pick up and use than the Poleaxe. The Poleaxe, however, Rocks.

So as you can see RQ 2/3 is a bit more detailed. Chargen takes probably twice as long for example.

MRQ is a very different beast than RQ2/3, so is not as refined seeming as RQ3. Perhaps when we are discussing MRQ1 vs. MRQ2 with some newcommer to the MRQ3 system MRQ will be as well oiled a machine as RQ3 is.

 

[Loz]

Going back to the origins of RQ and similarities with D&D, this link from RPG.net is of some interest.

http://www.rpg.net/columns/briefhistory/briefhistory3.phtml

 

[Arlaten]

Interesting statement, I'd like to know more. What were the major differences between combat in RQ3 and MRQ that make you say this?

Rosen McStern put it much more eloquently than I did, here. What I have presented are some BASIC examples of why I think RQ3 combat more eloquent and intuitive and MRQ. These are not all of the issues, but they are the most basic ones I can think of.

Strike Ranks
RQ3
The melee round is divided into 12 seconds, enough time to make a tactical decision, carry it out and see the results. The gamemaster counts out the strike ranks, starting with melee strike rank one and concluding with melee round strike rank ten. Players give a statement of intent at the beginning of the round. They are not allowed to act until their Dex Strike rank (which is detemined by DEX – 01-04= DSR 4, 10-15 = DSR 3, 16-19 = DSR 2, 20+ = DSR 1, and modified by Size (if your arms are longer…you extend the range of your weapon…and thereby strike faster). This becomes Melee Strike Rank

On your Melee strike rank you can begin to move, attack with a ranged weapon, or cast a spell. If you want to attack with a melee weapon, you must add weapon SR modifiers to your DSR. This is because it takes time to ready the weapon for a swing. Ranged attacks do not require this additional SR modifier because they are assumed to cover a lot of distance quickly, so they can reach an opponent sooner than a melee weapon could. A short melee weapon adds +3 SR to your Melee SR because it is short. For instance, two people sparring, one with a spear and one with a dagger, the designers felt that the spear would have a better chance of hitting the opponent with a dagger before the opponent with the dagger could hit the other. However, there was a ‘slip’ rule for getting into the opponent’s space that could be implemented to get inside the range of a longer weapon, rendering the longer weapon useless. A medium weapon is +2 SR and a long weapon is only +1 SR.

In addition, you had essentially one strike and one parry per round (if you had a weapon that you had not used previously during the round…or a shield. However, you could exchange your strike for another parry if you wished, or make two attacks and not parry at all. The decision to make two attacks was dangerous, because in RQ3, if you had no ‘parries’ to use and you got hit, you only have dodge as a defense. This forces characters to be really good at dodging or to carry another weapon or to bring a shield, which makes combat more realistic IMO. Rather than going through the initiative sequence every strike rank, characters had to wait three strike ranks before they could take another action. If they wanted to change their minds about an action, they had to abort their action and wait another three strike ranks before they could make their next action. Of course you could take other actions, like mounting a horse or giving first aid. You don’t get a set number of actions per round, you are rewarded with more actions if you make good tactical decisions (use a longer weapon, do not change your mind as to what you are going to do, etc.)

This was all easy for me to remember because it was intuitive. You get one strike per round and one parry per round…but you could shift things around to make other tactical decisions with the time you had. But, your tactical decisions were limited by realistic factors. If I make two attacks, I have to give up a parry. If I make two parries, I must give up an attack. If I use my parrying weapon to attack then I will be defenseless (well, you can dodge) If you go above 100 in a skill, you may now divide your attack/parry evenly between two attacks.

Combat Actions

In MRQ you have a number of Combat Actions based on Dexterity. This never changes, just as in RQ3 your strike rank never changes, but the results of the mechanic are different. A character with a DEX of 12 always has 2 combat actions. A character with a DEX of 3 always has 3 combat actions. What is different is when you can begin in the round. This changes from round to round. You are no longer rewarded for making good tactical decisions. And because spells are based on combat actions. If you have a higher DEX, you can cast more spells in a round. This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

Let’s look at the extra work involved. You have to roll for initiative every round, whereas in RQ3 you didn’t. That’s an extra roll for everyone (including each monster or opponent). You have to mentally monitor or track SRs every ‘second’ of combat. In RQ3 you only monitored them once per round. You could, if you wished prepare a list or a deck of index cards and go through them in order every round. If you wished to do this in MRQ you would have to change the list every second of combat.

Defense

If I want to parry in MRQ…no problem. I have an number of Reactions equal to my Combat Actions. I do not have to ‘give up’ an attack to make a parry. If I rolled good on my DEX, I get 3 Combat Actions and 3 Reactions. That is equal to ‘six’ actions in the RQ3 during a round. Each one of those actions takes up time to resolve. Gamers who say that you can approximately three combat actions in a round in RQ3, are oversimplifying things. You must parry with a shield or weapon that has not been used for an attack previously in the round (many times your character is caught without shield or an extra weapon to parry with). Although you may take other actions during a round in RQ3 (giving first aid, mounting a horse, etc.), your basic actions are attack and parry (if you meet the requirements). In addition, if you are heavily armored or encumbered in RQ3 you must take a round to rest, once in a while, giving a realistic penalty for wearing heavy armor.

MRQ has Dodge/Parry tables. I like these. They add an element of interest to the game. They would be ideal to use in smaller combats. However, it takes time to roll and consult the tables, and you are doing this all the time, second per second of combat. This can make a battle drag. RQ3 rules do much of what the combat tables in MRQ do without all of the extra rolls. MRQ dodging also does not seem designed with the player in mind. If you are successful at dodging in RQ3, you simply do not get hit. However, you may only dodge one chosen opponent per round. If you are successful at dodging and the attacker is successful as well in MRQ, you take damage. I understand the logic behind this, but the game should be fun. Opponents already have an advantage in that they start out fresh with full hit points where the player characters do not. RQ3 game designers seemed to recognize this and they favored the defender (which is often times what the player characters become…defenders). MRQ doesn’t seem to account for this in the rules, other than the fact that sometimes it is extremely difficult to kill things...but this seems to favor large monsters more than it does the player characters.

Now put it all together. In MRQ, you roll each round for initiative, whereas in RQ3 you do not. In MRQ you have a set number of actions each round and an equal number of reactions. In RQ3 you have basically two attack actions per round (somewhat similar to D&D) if you meet the right requirements. With one weapon you can make one attack or one parry. Otherwise you have only one weapon, you can only make one attack or one parry during the round. (Note that there is a way you can make more than one attack or parry per round if your skill exceeds 100%, but I am not going to go into the rules for that here).

When you parry and dodge in MRQ you must roll on a table. MRQ is designed to give players as many defense actions as attack actions, so rolling on the tables is going to take up some time even if you have the tables memorized. If you have the tables memorized you still have to take the time to make the rolls. In the end you cannot do much more with MRQ combat than with RQ3 combat, but RQ3 combat takes less time and runs more smoothly, and reflects the logic of realistic combat tactics better than MRQ, IMO.

Spell Casting

In MRQ it is difficult for a fighter to stop a spellcaster. It was pretty balanced in RQ3. Warriors had a hard time stopping relatively small rune castings (small numbers of hit points involved) but they had a chance to stop larger or more potent rune castings, because the seconds necessary to cast the spell was equal to the POW or Magic Points used in casting the spell. If an NPC begins chanting and waving his arms around, PCs better get over there and stop him. This encourages spell casters to use tactics…a novel idea compared to many other RPGs. I always thought this was a good thing. If you are casting against large numbers of fairly good fighters…you needed to use less powerful spells, and more of them. You had to think about what you were doing. Spellcasting in MRQ seems to be much more like in D&D, which is okay…but it is not an improvement over RQ3, IMO.

Running the game

I have not run MRQ combat, but I am thinking that it could be a nightmare to run. I am much more likely to play in an MRQ game than to run one. In addition playing in an MRQ game does not seem as much fun as playing in an RQ3 game. The little tactical decisions go a long for me in making me feel that I am actually on that battlefield facing these nasties I am fighting. MRQ has gone a bit in the direction of D&D in the sense that much of it is more abstract than before, except for the added detail for parries and dodges which I can take or leave.

If I was looking for a more abstract and smoother running combat system, I would be more likely to go in the direction of giving players a Defense to overcome as a threshold, and two combat actions/move actions per round that they take at the same time (as in D&D), rather than introduce more dice rolling to combat. RQ combat was a little bit longer than combat in other RPGs, but the benefits seemed to outweigh the extra time involved. I do not think that this is the case with MRQ. The Stormbringer/Elric system by Chaosium also seems to be a viable alternative, but I haven’t played it, so I cannot say.

 

[Arlaten]

Sorry, in the example above, I said that in MRQ, a character with a DEX of 3 has 3 combat actions. I meant to say the character with a DEX of 13 always has 3 combat actions...sorry I should have proofread this a bit more carefully before I submitted it.

 

[weasel_fierce]

It can take longer but there's also more going on each round and more chances to act

 

[atgxtg]

In the course of this thread I've heard people swear by every edition except RQ1 (probably just too old) and MRQ (though it's gotten praise).

RQ1 and RQ2 are identical in almost every way, except RQ2 has a lot of errata and clarifications to the first edition, so people just refer to RQ2. I know people who still play RQ2.

The key world is almost . There are some reworking of some the magic spells, and skill potions were dropped. I used to game with a Guy with a RQ1 book. He once got caught horribly flatfooted in a torunament due to the change in the Shield spell.

Few things leave quite so vulnerable as thinking that you have DETECT ENEMIES up...

 

[frogspawner]

Rosen McStern put it much more eloquently than I did, here. What I have presented are some BASIC examples of why I think RQ3 combat more eloquent and intuitive and MRQ. These are not all of the issues, but they are the most basic ones I can think of...
<lots of good stuff snipped - see above>

Many thanks to Arlaten for such a detailed and well-thought-through examination. I too prefer RQ2/3 combat over MRQ, and this helps me see why. As well as the constant initiative re-rolling and complex CA-counting of MRQ, the ideas on RQ2/3's attack/parry swapping and spell-casting tactics are very interesting and thought-provoking. Thanks again for the work you obviously put in!

 

[Zipp Dementia]

Wow, quite extensive analysis there, thanks for posting that. I'd have to see the RQ3 rules in full to fully appreciate it, I think. Anywhere to get them online (I believe they are out of print at this point)?

I haven't delved much into the system yet, and haven't done any spellcasting, so I can't speak to that. I can say that battle defenitely got a bit cluttered with keeping track of how many actions everyone had left. And I can't speak too much for tactics, as this was just one on one (and therefore basically a rolling fest). I do know MRQ provides bonuses and penalties based on where you're standing in relation to your opponent, so I can see tactics making an entry.

I didn't know you had to reroll strike rank every round... if so, we just did away with that roll, and will probably continue to do so.

My current assesment is that it's a lot more fun than D and D's combat system (which comes down, basically, to which group has the higher average level).

 

[weasel_fierce]

A solution Ive used a bit is to roll initiative once. If you have a crap roll, you can spend an action to reroll, but otherwise it stands throughout the combat

 

[Lakritsploppen]

I also think that MRQ is faltering in the spell department, but (among other things) i downloaded GORE from goblionoidgames.com, your find more spells
there.. (its free)..
Talking combat systems i really liked Elric! it worked fine in large fights.

just my 2 öre..

 

[kintire]

The melee round is divided into 12 seconds, enough time to make a tactical decision, carry it out and see the results.

I admit, I always had trouble with this. One attack and one parry every twelve seconds? It felt like 300 style slo mo...

In addition, you had essentially one strike and one parry per round (if you had a weapon that you had not used previously during the round…or a shield. However, you could exchange your strike for another parry if you wished, or make two attacks and not parry at all

Again, this always felt very ponderous.

If you have a higher DEX, you can cast more spells in a round. This doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

Comabt actions are the new rounds. Its just that slow people miss a round now and then. Its not that different really... although I do miss the weapon length corrections I must say.

You have to mentally monitor or track SRs every ‘second’ of combat. In RQ3 you only monitored them once per round. You could, if you wished prepare a list or a deck of index cards and go through them in order every round. If you wished to do this in MRQ you would have to change the list every second of combat.

I'm not sure what the problem is here. RQ3 initiative also regularly changed as weapon SR modifiers came and went, depending on whether you were spellcasting or not. All that happens now is that the GM counts down instead of up. And deos it really matter that a round is shorter in game time?

That is equal to ‘six’ actions in the RQ3 during a round. Each one of those actions takes up time to resolve.

No its not. Its equal to three RQ3 rounds.

MRQ dodging also does not seem designed with the player in mind. If you are successful at dodging in RQ3, you simply do not get hit. However, you may only dodge one chosen opponent per round. If you are successful at dodging and the attacker is successful as well in MRQ, you take damage. I understand the logic behind this, but the game should be fun. Opponents already have an advantage in that they start out fresh with full hit points where the player characters do not. RQ3 game designers seemed to recognize this and they favored the defender (which is often times what the player characters become…defenders). MRQ doesn’t seem to account for this in the rules, other than the fact that sometimes it is extremely difficult to kill things...but this seems to favor large monsters more than it does the player characters.

Now here I am right with you. Add parrying as well...

When you parry and dodge in MRQ you must roll on a table. MRQ is designed to give players as many defense actions as attack actions, so rolling on the tables is going to take up some time even if you have the tables memorized. If you have the tables memorized you still have to take the time to make the rolls. In the end you cannot do much more with MRQ combat than with RQ3 combat, but RQ3 combat takes less time and runs more smoothly, and reflects the logic of realistic combat tactics better than MRQ, IMO.

MRQ combat feels much better to me than RQ3. When learning fencing, I learn't how to fence. It ALWAYS felt deeply strange to me that parry was a seperate skill. You just don't learn to fight that way. Also, parrying is part of attacking, not a replacement for it. Fencing actually forces you, through the rules, to make a more distinct parry than is efficient, and even then the parry/riposte motion is a fluid, single motion (or should be!). The whole concept of being unable to parry if you have attacked, or vice versa, just felt bizarre to me. On the other hand, I did prefer RQ3 dodges and parries. the latter did have the silly APs thing, but at least you got a reasonable number of them.

Spellcasting in MRQ seems to be much more like in D&D, which is okay…but it is not an improvement over RQ3, IMO.

RQ3 spellcasting... ahhh yes. I agree, I did like the spell times, but the rest of the magic system was a mess. Sorcery simply didn't function as written. You just couldn't have both enough spells to do anything useful, and enough Free Int to function.

Divine magic was useful if you were rune level, but for initiates it verged on madness. You spent points of POW... POW, the game's most useful and important stat, bar none, to gain slightly shiny spells that you could use once ever. I mean, did anyone actually do that? ever? Actually, there were just a few that were useful... Guided Teleport for example. Well worth it, for those moments where Still Being Here=Death. But 99% of the spells were just not worth it. Essentially, you ended up being a cut price spiritist with a reduced list. And if that list didn't include Protection and Heal... well you sucked.

And then there was spirit magic, which rocked. It had variety, flexibility save or die spells available to starting characters, and you got to become a shaman, which was just the best. Spirits at your disposal! Volleys of five or six Befuddles! the good old Spirit and physical attack at the same time tactic! you ruled the world.

Except you didn't. Your cultures were the primitive and weak ones. Odd, I always felt.

MRQ magic is much better. Sorcery works, Divine magic is worth taking, and spirit magic...

Okay, MRQ magic is MOSTLY much better!

 

[RosenMcStern]

I admit, I always had trouble with this. One attack and one parry every twelve seconds? It felt like 300 style slo mo...

It is just that the attack/parry roll is an abstraction for a complex sequence of maneuvers.

Comabt actions are the new rounds. Its just that slow people miss a round now and then. Its not that different really...

Well, it is not this way. Use missile attacks to make the comparison. In RQ3 you could fire 1.5-2 arrows per round, depending on your DEX. Now you can fire 1-1.5 arrows per round, depending on your DEX. This means that the comparison is between RQ3 rounds and MRQ rounds, not RQ3 rounds and MRQ CAs. It is just that in RQ3 you had one melee attack per round and multiple missile attacks, while in MRQ you have one missile attack and multiple melee attacks. More realistic, assuming 1 attack = 1 blow, which was not the case in RQ2-3.

Incidentally, I stopped complaining about the overpowered longbow when I realized this. The average damage delivered per round is lower than with a sword, if you consider everything carefully.

That is equal to ‘six’ actions in the RQ3 during a round. Each one of those actions takes up time to resolve.

No its not. Its equal to three RQ3 rounds.

Yes it is. It is just that the old RQ3 attack actually represented more than one blow. This is why RQ3 combat was more deadly: you were not finishing your enemy with a single blow, in fact, but as the final effect of a combination of combat actions.