Rethinking CAs, Combat Rounds, and offensive maneuvers

[Nickbergquist]

Okay, my first game night with RQ2 went fairly well, but I ran in to a few obstacles that left me thinking of some house rules.

In the last edition of the game, one thing which tended to bog down combat was the rotation in the round by strike rank and CAs, counting down until we were at the bottom of the round and no more actions were forthcoming. I had more or less forgotten the issues I had with this, until Wednesday night, especially with some RQ newbies in the group, who found the process confusing. It also led to situations where slower characters were left inactive for longer periods of play while faster characters got a bit more glory. That might not be a bad thing in principle, but I definitely prefer something where everyone feels equally engaged.

My first thought was to do away with CAs somehow, but that seems unfeasible. Instead, I decided to do the following:

First House Rule, Combat Actions in One Shot:
To simplify rounds, combat actions will be declared all at once, in
order of strike rank. So if Mark the player is SR 18 first, he will spend his CAs at that time. This can include, "I use one CA to attack, and keep one for parrying later if needed. I use the third one to move after I attack." So you can reserve a CA at that time for parrying, another for evasion, and so forth. This basically treats CAs like a pool of points you spend on your turn. It means, theoretically, that a character with 3 CAs could decide to throw all three in to a vicious triple attack, but at the risk of having no opportunity for defense on subsequent rounds. I think this should be fine; he's basically getting three furious swings against an opponent who can still react (if he himself didnt already burn his CAs) with three parries if he wants, or an evasion. If two more foes move up and then attack...well, it's the risk he took using it all up without any planned defense.

My second problem involved the way manuevers actually work. I didn't think this would be an issue....I actually thought the maneuver system looked awesome on paper, until actual play. Having PCs decide on a maneuver after their attack proved to be somewhat disconcerting, and at odds with what struck me as more common-sense: usually one would try to make an attack for a specific effect, not the other way around (make an attack, then pick an effect) Reactive maneuvers make a lot more sense from a defensive perspective than an offensive perspective.

Because of this, I'm going to rule that the player pick a desired maneuver when initiating an attack. If he doesn't pick one and still gets one as a result of the way combat plays out (or even two) then he defaults to choosing location or one of the available maneuvers for his specific weapon (such as impaling with a spear). This will reflect that the attack really should have a bit of foresight in his intentions when attack. However, if he qualifies for the second maneuver then he can pick whatever he wants...it's a bonus, unintended effect as a result of a overpowering success. Defensive maneuvers will continue to work as-is, since by definition all defensive maneuvers are likely to be opportunistic and lucky results of getting an unexpected edge over your opponent.

I also had some issues with the bypass armor maneuver being for crits only. I liked the way it worked in MRQ and because armor is not something fighters normall would just hack through, it makes sense to me that this maneuver should be more common than a 1%-10% chance in battle. As such, I will implement the following:

New Bypass Armor Rule:
we'll keep combat maneuvers as-is, but you can still try to get certain
maneuvers that are otherwise difficult by declaring them before-hand.
Specifically, you can aim for the weak spot in a foe's armor with a -40%
penalty to your own skill; if you would have hit normally without the
penalty, you still hit, but you failed to get the weak spot. If you
would have succeeded by 40 more than you needed, then you nail the sweet spot between armor plates/joints/whatever. That said, bypassing armor also remains an option so long as you crit your attack.

 

[Nickbergquist]

One other thought on armor bypass, if I want to keep the house rule closer to a variable (not static) modifier in the spirit of RQII: make it an opposed skill test; if the attacker hits, and was intending to bypass armor but does not get a crit, then the opponent makes an evasion test oposed by the attackers weapon skill roll. If he fails to beat it, then the armor bypass happens. Hmmm....yeah, I like this one.

 

[Nickbergquist]

One other thought on the Pros of groupng CAs all at once in combat rounds:

If you think of the guy who goes first, he's got to plan a defense...keep an eye out on opponents who may attack, but he's moving a bit quicker than everyone, so he is, in fact, more likely to land a blow or two and maybe if he's not careful leave himself open. As such, a guy who acts first and spends all his actions hacking at someone will most definitely suffer for defense later.

Meanwhile, the guy who acts on the last strike rank hasn't had much time to do anything more than defend himself...heck, he may have exhausted all his CAs against the fast-acting character just putting up a defense. So his turn comes, and he may have done nothing more than protect himself. Of course, he could try to risk not parrying an attack to keep a CA in reserve for a quick thrust, but that could be risky.

One way to work around this situation (where the slow moving character suffers for no CAs being left on their turn) would be to make Evasion a free action....anyone can evade and it does not cost a CA. It would still prevent the next CA that character spends (presumably on his own turn) from being used to attack anyone he evaded, but it would make it possible for a target to dodge out of the way more often, if needed. This might also help to make up for the slightly lessened effectiveness of armor when coupled with the alternate armor bypass rule I am proposing.


Anyway, I will probably playtest these ideas next week and let you all know if they work or not...

 

[almightygm]

You'd need to be careful with the always able to Evade idea, especially if the characters have good Evade. Combat would be stretched out forever. You could implement the BRP dodge mechanic where every successive evade suffers a -30% penalty. If you don't do that, someone could be surrounded and simply evade their way to victory every time, which is unrealistic.

CAs insure that ganging up on a single target (aka teamwork) is rewarded as the target won't be able defend itself against multiple attackers (realistic) and it forces the characters to strategize so the same doesn't happen to them.

That said, I will agree that CMs and CAs are probably difficult for noobs.

The only thing I've considered adding is an "Aim for a specific location" mechanic where the character declares he wants to hit a specific part beforehand, suffering a minus to his skill rating and risking a defensive combat maneuver -- similar to your bypass armor idea.

 

[Loz]

First of all, thanks for sharing your experiences with us. Always good to get feedback and feelings.

I’ve a number of observations which may help in one way or another; either in formulating the ways you’ll use your proposed house rules or in making better use of the system as its described.

First-off then; declaring how you’ll use all your CAs instead of making a decision on a CA by CA basis. This does impose certain limitations, mainly in responding to manoeuvres that are levelled against you. For example, quite a few CMs require you to spend a CA to achieve an additional effect, such as removing an impaled weapon, or making a riposte. If you have to declare all your CA upfront, you do run the risk of short-changing yourself when a situation arises that requires a different course of action. You could fiat this by allowing players to change their mind, but then that kind of defeats the structure of the system which allows for tactical, informed decision making as the combat unfolds. If I have my 4 CA character declaring attack/parry/move/attack, how would I then respond to a CM that would benefit me if I were to spend a CA to achieve the effect?

Secondly, the Bypass Armour CM… we deliberately made it a Crit Only option because what’s likely to happen is that the Choose Location/Bypass Armour combo becomes all too prevalent and… well… dull and predictable. The way you suggest limiting the effectiveness of Bypass Armour would, of course, work; but it builds-in an extra layer of complexity that the way the system currently works aims to avoid. I may be wrong here, but I think that if you combine your CA Declaration Spend with improved chance of Bypass Armour, you’ll find characters declaring their entire strategies completely in advance – which, I think, defeats the nuances and fun of the combat system.

The overall question of CMs following a level of success advantage, versus a penalty to the attack roll (as per RQI) is one that we did carefully consider. Yes, its true that the way the system works may seem to be a little strange, but the application of a skill penalty to achieve a particular effect – like Bypass Armour or Choose Location – also has some, more serious, anomalies.

Let’s assume that a -40% penalty is the norm for a manoeuvre like Bypass Armour. Let’s now assume you have two fighters in battle; one at 80% and the other at 50%. The -40% penalty halves the 80% fighter’s ability to both hit AND achieve his effect. It reduces the lesser skilled fighter to a mere 10% chance of accomplishing the same thing. It also means that the lesser skilled fighter, if he succeeds in Bypassing Armour also has his chance of scoring a Critical Success reduced to a roll of 01; yet, in reality, he might fail to Bypass the Armour, but may still have a reasonable chance of Maximising Damage with a mighty blow (or impaling, or any other offensive CM). The -40% penalty suddenly becomes more than just a penalty to achieving a desired objective; it becomes a penalty to overall competence, too. Which, my friends (Mr Nash amongst them) who are skilled real-life close combat weapon fighters, tell me is unrealistic.

This is why we structured the CM system as its written. It rewards competence and excellence without imposing unrealistic penalties. It also simulates that narrow window of opportunity where a successful attack against a less-effective, or ineffective, defence creates a sudden opening that a cunning and skilful warrior will exploit.

I think that the idea of having characters state what manoeuvre they want to achieve, should they achieve it, may work: all you’re doing is shifting the decision point to before the attack roll is made. But, you may need to get the character to state what he’ll do in the case of a normal success and in the event of a critical success: remember, if he scores a crit and the opponent succeeds in defence, a CM for the attacker is still generated, but he has a wider choice of CMs than for a standard success versus a failure. In practice this is one more piece of information for you and the player to remember (on top of all the usual combat book-keeping) and it could run the risk of slowing-up the combat process. That’s only a suspicion, BTW; you may find it works well for you, so do try it.

All that said, I do encourage you to do two things. First, test your house rules in a few mock battles to see how they pan-out. Then do the same thing with the RAW. Compare the satisfaction levels. What we, and the playtesters, found was that CMs do take a little getting used to; but, after perhaps two or three combats, they become second nature. My own group (which includes Shotglazz, who’s commented on this subject elsewhere on the RQII forum) have become very canny with their CMs, and their use of CAs, very quickly – and they’re RQ newbies. I think that, with a just a little more play, you’ll find that the system works fluidly, encourages tactical thinking, and also encourages characters to think a lot more about what they’ll do before they get into a fight – and how they respond whilst in it. The most effective CMs are not always the obvious ones. Bypass Armour, Maximise Damage and Choose Location are the uber-choices; but effectively disarming an opponent, or pinning his weapon, forcing a surrender, can sometimes be the more satisfying and interesting outcome.
But good luck with your suggestions; I look forward to your next report!

 

[Antalon]

This is a very helpful discussion. I had considered some of the very same changes - but haven't yet got to grips with the RAW. As Loz says, keep us posted!

Antalon.

 

[algauble]

I was thinking of getting rid of strike rank/rolled initiative and dealing playing cards to everyone, one card for each CA (inspired by Savage Worlds). Then everyone acts from highest card to lowest. So you might get to take two or three CAs in a row occasionally, but it wouldn't be predictable since it would depend on the cards. I'd say you could save a high card for a defensive reaction or opportunistic CM generated reaction, or else use a lower card, if you had any remaining.

Anyone see any problems with something like this?

I'm thinking the cards themselves could be distracting on the table, esp. with larger combats.

Order of play would be random and not influenced by characters' stats - except their CA stat itself. Any thoughts on how to bring stats to bear? Maybe allow an extra card for high stats (ie, draw 4 keep 3, so the number of CAs remains unchanged)?

What about getting multiple CAs in a row itself? I don't think it should be a problem, since the RAW allow for similar sequences to occur.

 

[Deleriad]

I was thinking of getting rid of strike rank/rolled initiative and dealing playing cards to everyone, one card for each CA (inspired by Savage Worlds). Then everyone acts from highest card to lowest.

It's an interesting idea. Breaking the link with characteristics goes against the ethos of RQ as a 'physics based' game and also makes it more gamist. On the other hand it will make combat feel more dynamic.

I give players tokens to keep track of CAs so the cards would work well for that.

You would use lower cards to parry/evade with.

You could include jokers and give a bonus. Perhaps any attack, parry or evade using a joker lets you either gain a CM or reduce an opponent's CM.

The main mechanical issue is with the Armour Penalty. You would either have to integrate it somehow or come up with a different drawback for heavy armour.

Other than that, I don't see any specific issues. I don't use the armour penalty so it's not an issue for me.

 

[Nickbergquist]

Thanks for the discussion, Loz! Very helpful to consider the design/intent behind the mechanics.

What I am doing for tonight's session (the first since I posted last) is going to be based on the useful advice I have received here and elsewhere. For now I am going to stick to the RAW but I am going to implement the following "features" to help the new players, especially (and this poor old GM's brain):

1. CA Tokens
In MRQ1 I used a combat tracker for CAs and while it was a lot of book-keeping it worked. The players in the group at that time were all old RQ vets or savvy to the BRP system, so there weren't too many issues, but time and record keeping.
It was suggested that I use tokens. I think this is an awesome idea, and for tonight's session I'll hand out glass beads to the players. The SR will be called out in turn, and as players spend their beads they put them in to the "used" pool. It seems, to me, that this will be a very effective way to teach the players how to effectively use/understand the CA spending system for actions.

2. Defenses
Someone pointed out (Loz? I forget) at the rpg.net forums that parrying/evade is not declared until after the success/failure of the attack is established. I was doing this the other way around, requiring that the players declare any defense before the attack was rolled....might be a throwback to MRQ1 in which we did it that way for much for much of the campaign due to some rule issue interpretations with that edition. Not requiring a decision on defense until after the attack is rolled makes a lot of difference, I think.

3. Bypass Armor
I still like the idea of allowing armor bypasses as a declared action, because it is the one great equalizer in RQ and often necessary when weak foe is up against a tough foe. I also see where Loz is coming from on avoiding the issue of bypass armor as a ho-hum maneuver. To compromise, I'm going to experiment with allowing PCs to declare an attempt to bypass armor. If they choose to do this, then they must first succeed at a -40% penalty on the attack (but the attack succeeds as normal if they roll within normal success margins!) such that if they beat their opponent's roll by a margin of 40% or more then they may activate a bypass armor.

Thus, if the attacker has a 75% skill and his foe has a 45% skill for the parry, then the attacker has to roll 40 points better than his foe to gain the armor bypass. In this case, if the defender rolls a 15 and the attacker rolled a 55 or better then he would have both hit and bypassed the armor. If the defender then becomes the attacker (45%) and the defender (75%) then the chances of the lower-skill opponent getting through his foe's armor is much lower; If he rolled 45% exactly, he still wouldn't be able to pull this off as his opponent would have to roll 5% to be under by 40 points...and that means his opponent just critted his defense, which is baaaaaad news for the poorly skilled attacker, anyway. Thus, the only chance of bypassing the armor the poorly skilled guy has is if he himself crits on his attack and his opponent blows it.

Anyway, I'll make this an option and see how it goes. The idea is that a highly skilled opponent is much more likely to defeat or bypass a foe's armor than a poorly skilled one, and it will help equalize the current system, which favors bypassing armor as a rare event. It may not work out all that well, but we'll see....!

 

[Nickbergquist]

Hmmm, in thinking about the armor bypass rules I suggested, it occured to me that my method allows for a success on both sides still leading to armor bypass, which doesn't seem right. I think it would be better if the attacker intentind to bypass armor has to first succeed at the attack with an opponent failing his defense. He must then have had a success by a margin of more than 40 to bypass armor (but still hits normally even if he didn't meet the threshold). Thus, in the example in my prior post, the attacker with a 75% skill needs to roll 25 or less to succeed at bypassing armor, so long as his foe failed in his defense. This basically gives him an 17% increase on his chance to bypass armor over the RAW with his 8% crit, and depends on his foe botching defense as well. He could, of course, still qualify for armor-bypass if he crits against his foe anyway.

Well, we'll see how this all goes. I'm not going to address this idea in tonight't game for now; we'll stay focused on getting everyone comfortable with the combat action system using tokens, and slow and careful walkthroughs on their combat actions.

 

[Deleriad]

The easiest way to make bypass armour more accessible is simply to make it a normal CM not a critical CM.

It's still not a no-brainer. Consider: to get a CM you need either a critical versus a normal or a normal vs fail/no defence. The first case is already covered.

This means that on a normal attack, if you get a CM you can choose to bypass armour. Against lightly armoured foes you arguably don't get as much of a bonus as some of the other CMs might get you. For example, an Impale, bleed or stun might actually be more effective than ignoring 2-3 APs. Note also that you have to decide your CM before rolling for location so you might end up hitting an unarmoured location anyway.

If doing this, do remember that the CM only bypasses one source of armour and I would personally say that Natural Armour, Worn Armour and Magical Armour are three different sources.

Finally, if you are allowing it as non-crit, then I suggest you drop the armour penalty for SRs as a balancing factor.

To be honest, it's probably better playing RAW for a while because sometimes things that look dodgy on paper actually end up ok in play (and vice-versa). If you still feel that armour is too good, then go with the flow of the game and tweak the CMs rather than trying to mould it in a different direction, which can lead to all sorts of unexpected effects.

 

[Nickbergquist]

@Deleriad: Yes, I agree that it's probably better to do it RAW for a bit first, then if it looks necessary we'll implement some changes. The players, once they adjust, may start finding a variety of creative solutions that aren't immediately evident to them now, but which will be later.

Part of my bias is probably based on the frequency with which my MRQ1 group relied on armor bypass rules. This group may prove quite different. We shalls see! I'll offer up a report later if anything interesting happens in tonight's game.

 

[Deleriad]

Part of my bias is probably based on the frequency with which my MRQ1 group relied on armor bypass rules. This group may prove quite different. We shalls see! I'll offer up a report later if anything interesting happens in tonight's game.

My group's the same as they've had to face a fair few dinosaurs in Blood of Orlanth. The obvious responses in RQII are to send in someone with a 2H weapon who can sunder. With 1H weapons, stun, bleed and impale are crippling if you can get at least 1 point of damage through armour. when dealing a well-defended enemy the first thing you need to do is prevent it from defending. The tactic becomes a mix of disarm, sunder or degrade ability to fight. In this environment one of the best attack spells is now Countermagic...

 

[Sorn]

Well, by the RAW you do have to declare a parry before the attack roll is made, just if the attack misses you can choose not to parry and save the CA. A slight difference, but it may be important at some point.

 

[Nickbergquist]

(Also posted on the RQII review at rpgnet)

We had Session 3 tonight of our RQII game and it went very smoothly this time; third time's a charm, apparently, and everyone was grokking the whole experience quite well. I used glass beads as counters for combat actions, with players using one color for their standard CAs and another color for bonus CAs due to off-hand weapons or shields. We did a walk-through on combat, and used one of the paizo maps, deciding that one square was 2 meters and sticking to that formular for movement. The net result was very clean and smooth combat, and everyone got to do some cool stuff; even the sorcerer (who fumbled when trying to form/set flesh against some threatening ghouls....we had a bit of a debate about just what sort of changes could be wrought and in what amount of time!...) had grasped the sorcerery mechanics by now and all was going quite well. The FLGS sold two more copies of the rulebook to my cohorts that night, and it looks like we're staying with it for the duration.

I myself have, after we all got in to the spirit of it, begun to appreciate the RAW on combat maneuvers and am now a believer.

One note of interest for GMs in general is about how profoundly a bad player can affect a game. We had one player leave our game and another one (who was quite psyched for RQ) join. The new player (who is a regular, just wasn't able to attend the previous games) is a good buddy and always adds a lot to the game; he's my trusted "Rules Lawyer on the Side of the GM," always ready to look up information and help everyone "get it right" while miraculously not stepping on the GM's toes. The guy who left, also a good friend, is nonetheless a notoriously disruptive player; although I hadn't thought much of it, his absence in this game was palpable...without his strange attention-grabbing story-derailing antics the rest of the group was able to really get in to both the storyline and understanding the rules. I had not noticed this, as such, until he wasn't present. I think, more than anything, his presence at the game last week was causing much of the difficulty we had in the learning process, due to his essentially combative/disruptive playstyle. Without him, it was a smooth ride....!

 

[gran_orco]

You are not playing RuneQuest anymore :roll: RuneQuest II is very good. You are able to change rules, but you are changing all the game :?: Your system is a little complicated. But it is only my opinion, of course. I have been playing this system and since second session we think it is very fast and very intuitive. Now my girlfriend with 130% bow skill cannot kill a dragon bypassing armour like before. And we prefer it so, really.

 

[Ultor]

I have to say we found the new system simple and quick to learn. My camaign is set in the classic Third Age setting of the Borderlands and Pavis, and I had Duke Raus run a quick tournament to name a Champion of Ronegarth for any formal purposes necessary. In the very first combat, our Vingan spearwoman evaded a sun dome templar's pike, closed ranks, hit, impaled and drew out her spear. Incapacitated arm, combat over.

Later, Daine (Duke Raus' rune-level mercenary chief) squared off against our nomad princess. Daine was clad all in iron armor and the nomad's arrow tinked off his helmet. Laughing, he started casting Bladesharp, so our resourceful nomad charged him with a simple unarmed kick. He fumbled his evade and she hit. I ruled that a kick is a bludgeoning attack, so she chose bypass armor and stun. The location roll came up - abdomen! Stunned for three actions plus two actions from the fumble, the princess dumped a couple of spells on him and he surrendered. Prior to this Daine, as expected, had been invincible, but one well-placed kick had taken him out.

Great stuff. Very RuneQuest, but much more entertaining than previous iterations of the combat system.