Runequest Armor rules over Stormbringer Rules

[Mad_Irishman]

Hello all, I just wanted to ask you why you use the Runequest armor and hit rules over the Stormbringer armor rules. I tend to use the Stormbringer armor rules to speed up play and also allows weaker equipped foes to find a chink in the armor. Also I have a question on the parry rules. In Stormbringer when you parry, as long as it its not a critical, the attack is parried and no damage makes it through. In RQ, when you parry, you use your weapons armor rating as well as the armor you are wearing to stave off the attack. It seem that if your wearing plate and your attacked with a knife, the attacker has to chance to hurt you. What are your feelings on this? I feel the new RQ rules are great, but still do not have that swashbuckler feel that Stormbringer has. Thanks for any input you can give me. Thanks for your replies.

-Ian

 

[RMS]

Are you familiar with the old RQ2 and RQ3 rules? MRQ follows those ideas directly, with fixed value armor and parries that may only absorb some of the damage. Stormbringer is a simplified version of older versions of RQ combat, with less tactical options and a bit less detail. I like both, depending on the feel you're going for. You're right that Stormbringer is a bit more swords & sorcery, swashbuckling feel, whereas RQ is a more gritty, "realistic" feel. The great thing is you can interchange the systems seemlessly if you wish. RQ will end up with more people going down due to knockback blows, limb injuries, or weapons being destroyed in combat than in Stormbringer.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Strombringer has a roll to hit, then a roll for damage. The defender gets a roll to parry or dodge, and then a roll for armour value etc.

RuneQuest gets rid of the armour roll but adds a roll for hit location, and the parry rules are a bit more complex.

My players prefer the added complexity of the RuneQuest rules

Here's a thought, how about NPCs use fixed armour values to speed things up, but PCs roll for armour...

 

[Trifletraxor]

Are you familiar with the old RQ2 and RQ3 rules? MRQ follows those ideas directly, with fixed value armor and parries that may only absorb some of the damage.

Que?

I think the combat rules is the biggest difference between MRQ and RQ2/3. MRQ does not give a gritty, "realistic" feel.

SGL.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Really?

I've found them at least as deadly, but then I house rule a defender has to declare a reaction if an attacker declares an attack - then the dice are rolled :twisted:

 

[Trifletraxor]

High resilience that could keep your headless corpse continue fighting, normal weapons are useless to parry with, armor next to useless, lots of attack during a 5 second round, "reactions", strike ranks gone, hero points can save your day, lots of new feats-like abilities, etc.

This part will be the hardest for me to house-rule, and still be able to use the scenarios.

SGL.

 

[RMS]

Are you familiar with the old RQ2 and RQ3 rules? MRQ follows those ideas directly, with fixed value armor and parries that may only absorb some of the damage.

Que?

I think the combat rules is the biggest difference between MRQ and RQ2/3. MRQ does not give a gritty, "realistic" feel.

SGL.

RQ2/3 and MRQ both have fixed AP for armor and have parries that only block part of the damage. They also have hit locations, which I don't mention specifically there. None of those are present in Stormbringer. I don't really understand what you are contesting in my statement above.

 

[Trifletraxor]

The gritty, "realistic" feel of MRQ.

SGL.

 

[Trifletraxor]

It could maybe however be more gritty and realistic than stormbringer. I haven't played that game. Read your post in another way than it was meant probably. My fault. I withdraw my previous statements...

SGL.

 

[RMS]

The gritty, "realistic" feel of MRQ.

That's not the part you quoted, so that's why I wasn't following you.

It could maybe however be more gritty and realistic than stormbringer. I haven't played that game. Read your post in another way than it was meant probably. My fault. I withdraw my previous statements...

No problem. I was actually comparing RQ2/3 to Stormbringer, more than MRQ to anything. I was just pointing out that MRQ keeps those parts of combat that have always been part of RQ combat and are part of what differentiates it from Stormbringer.

MRQ isn't as deadly as RQ2/3, but it does have the same level of detail. Stormbringer is cut-down version of the RQ2/3 mechanics, so less detailed. I was thinking gritty and realistic more as a matter of options in combat than deadliness. Stormbringer is deadly, just in a "S&S, skip the details and get on with the story" sort of way.

Also, remember that I'm one that's capped resilience in MRQ so I won't have people running around with 90%+ scores in that skill.

 

[Trifletraxor]

Also, remember that I'm one that's capped resilience in MRQ so I won't have people running around with 90%+ scores in that skill.

How? CON x5?

SGL.

 

[gamesmeister]

FWIW, I'm doing Resilience as an average of CON/POW x 5, and Persistence as INT/POW x 5.

 

[RMS]

Also, remember that I'm one that's capped resilience in MRQ so I won't have people running around with 90%+ scores in that skill.

How? CON x5?

SGL.

Yep. I'm just setting a lot of Basic skills at some stat or average of stats x 5% and not letting it increase or decrease independent of the stat changing. I'm not a fan of very low resilience or very high resilience. It's much more logical IMO to tie it to a stat and just leave it there.

 

[Trifletraxor]

Yep. I'm just setting a lot of Basic skills at some stat or average of stats x 5% and not letting it increase or decrease independent of the stat changing. I'm not a fan of very low resilience or very high resilience. It's much more logical IMO to tie it to a stat and just leave it there.

Hmm... Might work. Maybe I should try that before I put total hit points back in. But what about the races with very high CON? And do you play with maiming and severing?

SGL.

 

[RMS]

Yep. I'm just setting a lot of Basic skills at some stat or average of stats x 5% and not letting it increase or decrease independent of the stat changing. I'm not a fan of very low resilience or very high resilience. It's much more logical IMO to tie it to a stat and just leave it there.

Hmm... Might work. Maybe I should try that before I put total hit points back in. But what about the races with very high CON? And do you play with maiming and severing?

SGL.

It wouldn't be RQ without limbs flying all over the place! You have a good point on high CON critters. My game is pretty humanoid-centric (all 3d6 CON I think), so I'll have to give it some thought.

 

[Trifletraxor]

This is not just a point in an argument, it's a honest question:

Is there any advantages with Resilience, as opposed to total HP?

SGL.

 

[RMS]

This is not just a point in an argument, it's a honest question:

Is there any advantages with Resilience, as opposed to total HP?

SGL.

For combat, probably not. However, Resilience does cover poisons and disease too, so you'll still need it around or a similar mechanic. The biggest advantage to using Resilience over adding total HP is that it keeps the game mechanics the same. Resilience is still a skill that works exactly like it does in the written rules and shows up on the character sheet the same way, with nothing added, etc. All I'm changing is the starting and maximum values of it, which are the same in this case. If you add total HP, you'll have to add mechanics on how to deal with it and add it to the character sheet. It's not a big problem, especially if your whole group already knows RQ2/3, but it does induce more changes to the core of MRQ.

 

[Trifletraxor]

For combat, probably not. However, Resilience does cover poisons and disease too, so you'll still need it around or a similar mechanic. The biggest advantage to using Resilience over adding total HP is that it keeps the game mechanics the same. Resilience is still a skill that works exactly like it does in the written rules and shows up on the character sheet the same way, with nothing added, etc. All I'm changing is the starting and maximum values of it, which are the same in this case. If you add total HP, you'll have to add mechanics on how to deal with it and add it to the character sheet. It's not a big problem, especially if your whole group already knows RQ2/3, but it does induce more changes to the core of MRQ.

As any other GM with respect for himself, I will of course make my own version of the character sheet! So that's not a problem. Resilience can be kept, at CONx5, for poison and disease. The only problem would be calculating the total hit points for opponents in published MRQ scenarios. On the other hand, using Resilience, I would have to recalculate that for the opponents instead. STILL waiting for the rulebooks to arrive though, so until I've read them some times, I'm not totally sure what to do yet.

SGL.