Preview is out

[Wulf Corbett]

I think it has a good idea, with the intensity, but poorly implementation on how to cast those spells. Rolling for three different skill, gives you a very low chance of success.

Actually, like all other combined skill rolls in RQ3, you only rolled once, the lowest skill limited success.

Wulf

 

[Archer]

I think it has a good idea, with the intensity, but poorly implementation on how to cast those spells. Rolling for three different skill, gives you a very low chance of success.

Actually, like all other combined skill rolls in RQ3, you only rolled once, the lowest skill limited success.

Wulf

Aha. Sounds like I really should sit down and read through my RQ3 deluxe box again, but somehow it sound rather futile with the new edition so close at hand.
I think I never actually used any combined skill rolls when GMing RQ3. It was a concept we were not used too, so I do not think we used it. Same went for impaling.

 

[t-tauri]

I think I never actually used any combined skill rolls when GMing RQ3. It was a concept we were not used too, so I do not think we used it. Same went for impaling.

If you've never tried to fight with a spear in the guts or an arrow in the arm you've never experienced the joy of RQ combat.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

If you've never tried to fight with a spear in the guts or an arrow in the arm you've never experienced the joy of RQ combat.

Impaling was the single most important consideration in RQ, it finally gave the proper position back to the Spear and Arrow, instead of the pathetic shadow of reality presented in other games.

As a matter of fact, I took up archery as a reaction to the pitiful rules in AD&D, and primarily supported RuneQuest as they did so much better!

Wulf

 

[Archer]

I think I never actually used any combined skill rolls when GMing RQ3. It was a concept we were not used too, so I do not think we used it. Same went for impaling.

If you've never tried to fight with a spear in the guts or an arrow in the arm you've never experienced the joy of RQ combat.

Hehe. Well, arms got loped of etc, that was good enough for us at that time.
I have however implemented the impale rule much later on, when running Stormbringer, because it felt right (mainly for arrows and spears). And as a player, I have experienced it in CoC, when my character got a dagger stuck in the back...

Hmm, I just had one of those moments of realizations, it is 18 years since I played RQ3 the last time, it just really sunk in. A lot of water has run under the bridges in that time, and an almost redicilous number of RPGs and other games have been played.

 

[Archer]

If you've never tried to fight with a spear in the guts or an arrow in the arm you've never experienced the joy of RQ combat.

Impaling was the single most important consideration in RQ, it finally gave the proper position back to the Spear and Arrow, instead of the pathetic shadow of reality presented in other games.

As a matter of fact, I took up archery as a reaction to the pitiful rules in AD&D, and primarily supported RuneQuest as they did so much better!

Wulf

I agree. Swords have been raised to the skies as the superior weapon by all too many fantasy games, and rules-sets. Same goes for the inadequacy of daggers.

Seeing that 1d4+1 for daggers in MRQ preview, it seems that this is a trend that will continue in this game. While the standard 1d4+1/1d4 dagger damage has been seen in many BRP based games, and are much deadlier there than in D&D, it is still quite pitiful compared what you can achieve with a dagger IRL.
The matter gets even worse when you have armour with a fixed Armour Point value. Plate 8AP. Is it impossible to penetrate plate with a dagger, no, not really.
Damage Bonus helps out a bit, but you have to be really strong to punch through plate in most BRP games, and you have to be extremely lucky.
But there seems this has also been considered in MRQ as Precise Attacks seems to allow you to make an attack that bypass armour.

The question is; Is bows any better of? as they generally in BRP games do not get to add a damage bonus. Is this issue taken care of in MRQ? a long bow should be able to propel an arrow with enough force to penetrate plate armour. But the normal 1d8 or 1d10 for bows in BRP (I use BRP because RQ3/BRP is what is most like MRQ) does not give you that much of a chance to succed in this either. And having to aim a Precise Shot with a bow seems rather far fetched just to penetrate plate armour.

 

[t-tauri]

Part of the attraction of RQ combat was the impaling weapons could take someone out in one hit, but the slashing weapons could damage an opponent's shield and weapons and take them down gradually. Crushing weapons with a damage bonus were most unreasonable.

I hope that kind of choice and implementation is preserved in the new rules.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

The question is; Is bows any better of? as they generally in BRP games do not get to add a damage bonus. Is this issue taken care of in MRQ? a long bow should be able to propel an arrow with enough force to penetrate plate armour. But the normal 1d8 or 1d10 for bows in BRP (I use BRP because RQ3/BRP is what is most like MRQ) does not give you that much of a chance to succed in this either. And having to aim a Precise Shot with a bow seems rather far fetched just to penetrate plate armour.

There's still intense debate among historians and re-enactors as to whether even a longbow could really pierce plate armour. As such, it suits me fine if they cannot. Also, in these rules, it doesn't matter if they only pierce by 1 point of damage - they still have a debilitating effect until removed!

Wulf

 

[Archer]

The question is; Is bows any better of? as they generally in BRP games do not get to add a damage bonus. Is this issue taken care of in MRQ? a long bow should be able to propel an arrow with enough force to penetrate plate armour. But the normal 1d8 or 1d10 for bows in BRP (I use BRP because RQ3/BRP is what is most like MRQ) does not give you that much of a chance to succed in this either. And having to aim a Precise Shot with a bow seems rather far fetched just to penetrate plate armour.

There's still intense debate among historians and re-enactors as to whether even a longbow could really pierce plate armour. As such, it suits me fine if they cannot. Also, in these rules, it doesn't matter if they only pierce by 1 point of damage - they still have a debilitating effect until removed!

Wulf

In RQ3, if I remember correctly, there was only a limited chance of impaling (you had to roll below X out of your Y% or something like that). Is that still the deal?

 

[Harshax]

RQ3 - Special Successes (Or criticals) with impaling weapons impaled. There was a chance, that the weapon would get stuck in the opponent, and combatant would have to take an action in subsequent rounds to remove the weapon.

 

[Archer]

RQ3 - Special Successes (Or criticals) with impaling weapons impaled. There was a chance, that the weapon would get stuck in the opponent, and combatant would have to take an action in subsequent rounds to remove the weapon.

Ah, yes. The 1/10 or 1/20 of your total % in that skill, I do not remember exactly how much of the skill it was.

In all % based BRP systems, I have always dropped the 1/X of % for critical success etc, and replaced it with the following and simple mechanic; Double roll (33, 44 etc.) under your % is a critical succes, a double over your % is a fumble.
Much simpler, much faster, and it still takes into account that it becomes easier to perform extraordinarily good when you get better, and less chance of fumbles too.

 

[t-tauri]

5% of your chance for a critical hit, ignoring armour, 20% for a special (impale, slash, crush) so if you had a 60% chance to hit then your crit was 1-3% and your impale 1-12%.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

In all % based BRP systems, I have always dropped the 1/X of % for critical success etc, and replaced it with the following and simple mechanic; Double roll (33, 44 etc.) under your % is a critical succes, a double over your % is a fumble.

I'd agree with that, and argued for it while I was actively playtesting.

Wulf

 

[Turloigh]

In all % based BRP systems, I have always dropped the 1/X of % for critical success etc, and replaced it with the following and simple mechanic; Double roll (33, 44 etc.) under your % is a critical succes, a double over your % is a fumble.

I'd agree with that, and argued for it while I was actively playtesting.

Wulf

And? Is it in the final rules? Any v1.5 playtesters reading this? :wink:

 

[Archer]

We can hope that is the case

 

[DreadDomain]

In all % based BRP systems, I have always dropped the 1/X of % for critical success etc, and replaced it with the following and simple mechanic; Double roll (33, 44 etc.) under your % is a critical succes, a double over your % is a fumble.

I'd agree with that, and argued for it while I was actively playtesting.

Wulf

And? Is it in the final rules? Any v1.5 playtesters reading this? :wink:

I remember Wulf and I debating about it quite a bit. On my side I much prefer the approach chosen by Mongoose in V1.5. I don't know what made it into the final version though.

The mechanic used in V1.5 was very simple and Runequesty. Aside from critical values, it was also used for other nice mechanics so it was well integrated in the system.

 

[Archer]

Well, that is also a very simple rule. But it lacks the elegant symmetry of doubles below, and doubles above.

However, if that is the rule that applies in MRQ, then it is very easy to use the double below method, without it changing too much.

 

[Turloigh]

Yes, that variant was in v1.4 too, IIRC...

Unfortunately, in a resisted roll such a critical would usually be beaten by a normal success. Was that still the case in v1.5?

Oh dear, I forgot. Are you even allowed to discuss this in an open forum? If you're not sure, please ignore the question.

EDIT: Quote removed.

 

[DreadDomain]

Yes, that variant was in v1.4 too, IIRC...

Unfortunately, in a resisted roll such a critical would usually be beaten by a normal success. Was that still the case in v1.5?

Oh dear, I forgot. Are you even allowed to discuss this in an open forum? If you're not sure, please ignore the question.

No it wasn't.

You are right, I edited my post accordingly. Could you please do the same?

 

[Turloigh]

You are right, I edited my post accordingly. Could you please do the same?

Done. Thanks anyway!