Pete's Combat Rules from the Wiki
- Thread starter Rurik
- Start date
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
Wasnt there an "advanced combat" book rumoured a while back ?
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
Ahhh, thats a shame
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
well, if you're involved, Im sure its good 
Hi!
I'm not totally convinced with the whole opposed roll combat rule change.. I guess the point is to make fighting quicker but when so often higher roll decides the winner, it won't help much to have a high skill. Which means it's a game of having the biggest weapon and strongest armour.
Between low skilled fighters this sounds okay, whoever gets a good swing first is likely to deal damage, but I imagine that a match between skilled fighters would take a bit more cunning and several exchanges of swings and parries. The skill of surviving in combat is really in avoiding being hit rather than dealing them. Anyone can swing an axe but it's a lot harder to dodge one.
Pete's special effects are definitely a great invention though.
I'm working on my own variation inspired by Pete's rules which still try to respect the original combat resolution where only a successful attack triggers a Reaction.
in short: in case of successful attack, parry/dodge is rolled. If it succeeds too, it's compared to the original attack roll as opposed rolls. In case of Parry, this would mean that both the strike and the parry have succeeded... the opp roll tiebreaker would only affect the grade of the parry. If defender wins the tiebraker, it would mean a good parry with plenty AP, and slightly diverting attacking weapon (attacker suffers penalty enc*-5% to parry with the particular weapon against defenders next attack).
If he loses, it would still mean a reasonable but a perhaps a little sloppy parry, with the normal amount of AP. In sword and shield combat this is still enough but weapon parries against bigger opponents this would let some damage through.
As for the dodge, successful roll will always dodge a successful swing but
losing the tiebreaker would mean some penalty, let's say a penalty to the next dodge or losing the next Combat Action.
Defender can opt use a Reaction against a failed attack and roll to gain some advantage (diverting parry, etc.).
The problem with the old RQ3 rules was that high defence skills made it very hard to get any hits through. This could be tackled with adding flavour to combat with the special effects (critical successes) and rule for Fainting and Diverting parries to open opponents defence so that one could affect opponents defence roll and translate high skill to more formidable blows and parries.
I personally wouldn't go narrowing down the skills. Shield should give a clear defence advantage in combat over someone waving a two-handed axe and as such it should also require some skill point investment. Dodge should be a separate skill so that there's a difference between nimble, less armoured fighters and fully-plated knights. Parrying should suffer less from encumbrance than dodge to reflect this. At the same time dodge is the best defence because it avoids the attack completely.
Different limitations and penalties to defence rolls could encourage players into using different defences.
I'm not totally convinced with the whole opposed roll combat rule change.. I guess the point is to make fighting quicker but when so often higher roll decides the winner, it won't help much to have a high skill. Which means it's a game of having the biggest weapon and strongest armour.
Between low skilled fighters this sounds okay, whoever gets a good swing first is likely to deal damage, but I imagine that a match between skilled fighters would take a bit more cunning and several exchanges of swings and parries. The skill of surviving in combat is really in avoiding being hit rather than dealing them. Anyone can swing an axe but it's a lot harder to dodge one.
Pete's special effects are definitely a great invention though.
I'm working on my own variation inspired by Pete's rules which still try to respect the original combat resolution where only a successful attack triggers a Reaction.
in short: in case of successful attack, parry/dodge is rolled. If it succeeds too, it's compared to the original attack roll as opposed rolls. In case of Parry, this would mean that both the strike and the parry have succeeded... the opp roll tiebreaker would only affect the grade of the parry. If defender wins the tiebraker, it would mean a good parry with plenty AP, and slightly diverting attacking weapon (attacker suffers penalty enc*-5% to parry with the particular weapon against defenders next attack).
If he loses, it would still mean a reasonable but a perhaps a little sloppy parry, with the normal amount of AP. In sword and shield combat this is still enough but weapon parries against bigger opponents this would let some damage through.
As for the dodge, successful roll will always dodge a successful swing but
losing the tiebreaker would mean some penalty, let's say a penalty to the next dodge or losing the next Combat Action.
Defender can opt use a Reaction against a failed attack and roll to gain some advantage (diverting parry, etc.).
The problem with the old RQ3 rules was that high defence skills made it very hard to get any hits through. This could be tackled with adding flavour to combat with the special effects (critical successes) and rule for Fainting and Diverting parries to open opponents defence so that one could affect opponents defence roll and translate high skill to more formidable blows and parries.
I personally wouldn't go narrowing down the skills. Shield should give a clear defence advantage in combat over someone waving a two-handed axe and as such it should also require some skill point investment. Dodge should be a separate skill so that there's a difference between nimble, less armoured fighters and fully-plated knights. Parrying should suffer less from encumbrance than dodge to reflect this. At the same time dodge is the best defence because it avoids the attack completely.
Different limitations and penalties to defence rolls could encourage players into using different defences.
I'm almost done with the first version of my core rules for combat. I've borrowed and expanded Pete's special attacks for critical resolution, the deflection rule and also Simon Hibbs' multiple attack rule.
There's also an advanced but optional parry resolution using a new concept called "hit weight" that's simply a combination of weapon ENC and Damage Modifier category. Basically it means that parry works better against lighter weapons and opponents and vice versa.
Successful defense roll will always mean at least a partial success so good fighters won't fall to the first lucky Critical hit - but there are more penalties to defense and special effects to tip the balance.
Also weapons and shields are going to take damage a lot more often.
I'm trying hard to keep the core rules still as simple as possible.
There's also an advanced but optional parry resolution using a new concept called "hit weight" that's simply a combination of weapon ENC and Damage Modifier category. Basically it means that parry works better against lighter weapons and opponents and vice versa.
Successful defense roll will always mean at least a partial success so good fighters won't fall to the first lucky Critical hit - but there are more penalties to defense and special effects to tip the balance.
Also weapons and shields are going to take damage a lot more often.
I'm trying hard to keep the core rules still as simple as possible.
Hi everyone, and first of all, thank you Pete Nash for your wonderful work.
First, sorry for my bad english.
I have a question for Pete :
Pete, is your combat system a part of the Runequest OGL ?
If not, can a publisher use your work in a RPG game and sell it with no charge ?
Of course, credits would be respected. I suppose we must ask for your agreement first too.
In short, what about the legal aspect of the rules ?
Thanks a lot, and keep up the good work ! 8)
Alexis
First, sorry for my bad english.
I have a question for Pete :
Pete, is your combat system a part of the Runequest OGL ?
If not, can a publisher use your work in a RPG game and sell it with no charge ?
Of course, credits would be respected. I suppose we must ask for your agreement first too.
In short, what about the legal aspect of the rules ?
Thanks a lot, and keep up the good work ! 8)
Alexis
Mongoose Pete
Mongoose
Hi Alexis! No, my combat system is not an official part of the RQ OGL, although Arasmo (another member of this list) has liaised with me over the development of an alternate (and unofficial) French translation of the RQ SRD; substituting my combat system for the existing rules.alexflam said:
Since you asked nicely, I'd be happy to let you use them for nothing more than a nice large credit, and maybe a contibuter's copy of the final game if you can afford to post it!alexflam said:If not, can a publisher use your work in a RPG game and sell it with no charge? Of course, credits would be respected. I suppose we must ask for your agreement first too.
At the moment they are public domain. If people ask (and receive) my permission first and give me a proper credit, then they're good to go.alexflam said:
Cheers!alexflam said:
I've just double-checked (actually, triple-checked) and can download it with no problems.
You could check your level of Adobe and if it's 6 or below upgrade it.
Otherwise, send me a PM with your email and I can send it to you.
Direct link is http://mrqwiki.com/wiki/images/c/c0/Opposed_Roll_Combat_Rules_v2.4.pdf
You could check your level of Adobe and if it's 6 or below upgrade it.
Otherwise, send me a PM with your email and I can send it to you.
Direct link is http://mrqwiki.com/wiki/images/c/c0/Opposed_Roll_Combat_Rules_v2.4.pdf
