RQII Combat Question

[andakitty]

Yep, hook-line-sinker. Again. Goody for you! :roll:

 

[Stormwalker]

Just gives you confidence, doesn't it?

What does that mean? Because someone forgot a reference to one of the optional combat rules from a book printed nearly 30 years ago?

 

[kintire]

What does that mean? Because someone forgot a reference to one of the optional combat rules from a book printed nearly 30 years ago?

Printed? PRINTED? In them days we were lucky to have it in pen and paper.

Brown paper.

With no pen.

Or paper.

In a dirty, cracked folder.

In fact, we never used to have a folder, we had to read them off a rolled up newspaper.

But you know, we were happy in them days, though the rules were poor. In fact, BECAUSE they were poor. My old GM used to say "Good rules don't get you happiness". And he was right. I was happier in those old RQ2 days, though we had nothin.

But you try and tell the young people that these days, and they won't believe ya.

 

[Dr. Halflight]

What does that mean? Because someone forgot a reference to one of the optional combat rules from a book printed nearly 30 years ago?

Printed? PRINTED? In them days we were lucky to have it in pen and paper.

Brown paper.

With no pen.

Or paper.

In a dirty, cracked folder.

In fact, we never used to have a folder, we had to read them off a rolled up newspaper.

But you know, we were happy in them days, though the rules were poor. In fact, BECAUSE they were poor. My old GM used to say "Good rules don't get you happiness". And he was right. I was happier in those old RQ2 days, though we had nothin.

But you try and tell the young people that these days, and they won't believe ya.

And we used to wear an onion from our belts, because that was the style at the time. And we called turkeys, walking birds.

 

[Dr. Halflight]

Yep, hook-line-sinker. Again. Goody for you! :roll:

/ignore

 

[Rurik]

My we have strayed quite a bit from:

AND THERE WAS GREAT REJOICING IN THE STREETS AS THE BENIGHTED MULTITUDE GAVE THANKS TO THE MIGHTY GOD MONGOOSE MATT AND ALL HIS ANGELS... :lol: :wink:

 

[andakitty]

Rurik, nice to see you are still a double crossing, lying louse. :shock:




OK. Sorry for the sarcasm and all. Truth is I'M hook-line-sinkered too. I have to buy the damned book to see how the new modified rules might have improved. And it will probably be loaded with bad artwork, be written so the next half dozen books in the line are absolutely necessary, and have a 50/50 chance of splitting the binding the first time it's opened.

'All hail Mongoose Matt and his angels' indeed. What a bunch of suckers we are.

 

[andakitty]

Back to the original subject of the thread, it does seem a bit unwieldy to me to subtract the difference between an over 100% total from one combatants skill from both attacker and defender. I have a percentile game which involves this mechanic and it does slow the flow down. Splitting the attacks and/or increasing the critical range make more sense to me. Other problems I have with it so far are the 'blackjack' rolls for opposing skills and keeping the persistence and resilience rolls. However, there is a lot I like about it too. The things sited above,IMO, do add to the complexity of running the game when I want to keep things moving along at a nice clip. And there may be more little mechanical quirks like that. It still doesn't keep me from wanting the book. Hope the artwork is a little better and the spine doesn't break this time.

I know I can ignore rules that don't work for me, but I don't really want another game that requires a lot of houseruling. I am not convinced that this iteration of the rules has gone far enough in correcting the original MRQs problems. So I will at least try to resist grabbing it the first time I see it, and wait for reviews and discussions.

I do applaud the return to simple attack/parry rolls, if that is so. It may be the single deciding factor for me in the end.

 

[Loz]

it does seem a bit unwieldy to me to subtract the difference between an over 100% total from one combatants skill from both attacker and defender. I have a percentile game which involves this mechanic and it does slow the flow down.

The subtraction method helps considerably with scalability, especially very high skills. Also, the subtraction is done once at the start of a melee or for an opposed skill contest. In that sense it isn't really any different to imposing skill modifiers for other circumstances, so although there may be a little slowing, it shouldn't become onerous.

Splitting the attacks and/or increasing the critical range make more sense to me.

But most characters have multiple combat actions anyway. Splitting attacks is fine if the system is one attack/defence per round, but CAs allow you more options and they're built into the mechanic. Splitting attacks still further, based on skill >100%, would create additional complexity rather than take it away.

Other problems I have with it so far are the 'blackjack' rolls for opposing skills and keeping the persistence and resilience rolls. However, there is a lot I like about it too. The things sited above,IMO, do add to the complexity of running the game when I want to keep things moving along at a nice clip. And there may be more little mechanical quirks like that. It still doesn't keep me from wanting the book. Hope the artwork is a little better and the spine doesn't break this time.

I think - hope - you'll be pleasantly surprised!

I know I can ignore rules that don't work for me, but I don't really want another game that requires a lot of houseruling. I am not convinced that this iteration of the rules has gone far enough in correcting the original MRQs problems. So I will at least try to resist grabbing it the first time I see it, and wait for reviews and discussions.

Again, I hope the reality confounds the expectations...

 

[Rurik]

Rurik, nice to see you are still a double crossing, lying louse. :shock:

I am offended.

I will have you know I am, and have been for some time, officially a triple crosser.

And with only 728 more experience points I will level up to quadruple crosser.

 

[andakitty]

Ha, you are flattered, and you know it!

 

[Banesfinger]

Gaining several levels of success over your opponent allows you to select an equal number of manoeuvres, which can be devastating in the right combination and/or situation.

Would you be able to elaborate?

-Will PCs have a full-list* of manoeuvres they choose from (based on level of success), or do they have a limited amount of manoeuvres (perhaps perchased using experience)?

* During play-test, did an extensive list of manoeuvres cause delays in combat while players meticulously browsed their choices, looking to min/max their best combo?

-Are manoeuvres limited to battlefield movement, (flanking, knock-down, etc) or will they provide extra attacks/damage?

-Are manoeuvres melee only, or will they work for archers or even spell-casters?

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Will PCs have a full-list* of manoeuvres they choose from (based on level of success), or do they have a limited amount of manoeuvres (perhaps purchased using experience)?

By default there is a full list to choose from, evenly split between offensive and defensive manoeuvres. Although some are limited to specific weapons.

However, this part of the system is designed to be flexible. If the GM wishes he can limit the available manoeuvres to particular combat styles. This would be suitable for settings such as waring Chinese weapon schools, or the different styles of lightsabre combat.

During play-test, did an extensive list of manoeuvres cause delays in combat while players meticulously browsed their choices, looking to min/max their best combo?

Most of the playtests showed it usually takes a couple of sessions for players to get used to the manoeuvres, after which it becomes second nature and fast.

Are manoeuvres limited to battlefield movement, (flanking, knock-down, etc) or will they provide extra attacks/damage?

There is a comprehensive range of different options which cover most things that happen in combat.

Are manoeuvres melee only, or will they work for archers or even spell-casters?

Manoeuvre effects are generally melee or missile orientated, but some can also be used in spell casting situations where a spell must be physically evaded. As part of RQII's pliability, Manoeuvres are open to imaginative use by clever players.

 

[Banesfinger]

By default there is a full list to choose from...

Could you be tempted to post just one Manoeuvre - - just to wet our whistles? :wink:

 

[Christopher Graves]

Actually, RQ2 had impale, slash, crush and knockback as its specials though it didn't call them specials. The change in term was for copywrite purposes.

pissy, pissy, pissy

 

[andakitty]

It's been a while since I posted here, but I remembered expressing doubts about the changes in RQII and wanted to say that I finally got a copy of the book (with a gift certificate my wife dug up for Barnes and Noble). I thought I would post this little update note, because...

I like it. Although I won't know until I actually play it I think it may-finally-replace BRP for fantasy. Parts still look unwieldy and the magic looks too powerful but I can definitely see the possibilities...and the supplements and settings are looking more attractive in spite of some difficulties, as with A&E apparently. I really appreciate the robust binding, too.