Suggestion for weapon damages

[Lord Twig]

You never just 'sat there' for six seconds in RQIII. Strike Ranks were an abstraction. It was assumed that you were fencing with your opponent for six seconds before you could find an opening. It is described right in the rulebook that way. Your attack roll was a measure of whether you were able to take advantage of that opening or not.

I never had a problem with the 12 second round or Strike Ranks, but I can absolutely see how they needed to be changed. Combats in RQIII could take hours and the largest part of that in my experience was counting through the Strike Ranks.

It was very realistic, allowed for movement where everyone moved at the same time and allowed for long duration spell casting, but it was god-awful slow.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

I never had a problem with the 12 second round or Strike Ranks, but I can absolutely see how they needed to be changed. Combats in RQIII could take hours and the largest part of that in my experience was counting through the Strike Ranks.

I agree with that, actually, and one advantage the new system has, annoyingly, is that rolled initiative... you don't have to count through Strike Ranks to know the sequence players & GM act in.

Wulf

 

[homerjsinnott]

You never just 'sat there' for six seconds in RQIII. Strike Ranks were an abstraction. It was assumed that you were fencing with your opponent for six seconds before you could find an opening. It is described right in the rulebook that way. Your attack roll was a measure of whether you were able to take advantage of that opening or not.

I never had a problem with the 12 second round or Strike Ranks, but I can absolutely see how they needed to be changed. Combats in RQIII could take hours and the largest part of that in my experience was counting through the Strike Ranks.

It was very realistic, allowed for movement where everyone moved at the same time and allowed for long duration spell casting, but it was god-awful slow.

Never found it a problem, we had a wipe clean sheet everybodies Sr was written down and it was just a case of calling peoples name out or monster. If people rolled their dice "between" rounds Combat could go sweet as a nut.

 

[TrippyHippy]

I think anybody who gets hit with a sword should have to count to ten.

In order to calm down a bit.

 

[Adept]

I always detested the GURPS 1-second round - it would be fine if you couldn't just attack-attack-attack-attack constantly every second, but virtually every combat was over in about 5 seconds (game time, that is!), which is utterly ludicrous for anything over a single blow or a completely one-sided trouncing. Certainly doesn't allow for any sort of heroic maneouvering or posturing.

Wulf

There can be plenty of wary circling of opponent, posturing and the like. On those rounds no combat actions are actually taken. The 1 second rounds are excellent for frantic melee, and many other things.

With the 12 s rounds there were often things like "Argh, he's going for my friend! I'll chuck my knife at him!", and then there is a several second wait before before the knife wielder get's to do his/her action.

Utterly strange and boardgame like. With the ability to track frantic action second-by-second one doesn't have to suffer those things.

The one second (or other short) rounds make sense if one is tracking each blow, and like me, uses an initiative system. For a duel, or other cautious combat there are large bonuses on defense, and the rounds last about 10 seconds. In real life duels could last a long, long time, if both were being cautious.

 

[homerjsinnott]

I think anybody who gets hit with a sword should have to count to ten.

In order to calm down a bit.

I think it should be anyone who hits someone with a sword.

 

[Cobra]

I never had a problem with the 12 second round or Strike Ranks, but I can absolutely see how they needed to be changed. Combats in RQIII could take hours and the largest part of that in my experience was counting through the Strike Ranks.

I agree with that, actually, and one advantage the new system has, annoyingly, is that rolled initiative... you don't have to count through Strike Ranks to know the sequence players & GM act in.

Wulf

If you never had a problem with them, how could you see that they NEEDED to be changed? I also never had a problem with them and therefore find a change unessesary (ignoring, for a moment, what Wulf said in another topic about MG not being able to use the original rules).

I never found the combats to be overly long - at least if they were they were so exciting that no-one noticed.

As for the rolled initiative (and i'm speculating a little here), it seems to me that the disadvantage is the loss of performing simultaneous actions (see below what I mean by that). Also, rolling initiative each round and keeping track of the order in which everyone goes (which will be different every round) is at least as tedious, if not more so, than the original system IMO.

We would just call out strike ranks in order and when it was your turn you'd shout out and make your action. But now I have trouble seeing how this will work other than in the D20 method. In D20, the guy who goes first could move 30' to close on an oponent and strike him, then the oponent could take his turn and decide to flee, invoking an oportunity attack, then run away.

But using the strike rank method, the first guy would start moving toward the oponent on his dex stike rank, closing at X metres per SR, and the oponent on his dex striek rank could begin to flee, but the first guy likely would not be able to close in the space of time between the two people's actions. I find this much more realistic.

I'm not entirely sure how the new system works, but it seems to me to lean more heavily toward the D20 version now.

Please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Cobra

 

[Lord Twig]

No Cobra, I think you are correct.

The old system was more realistic, but it took a lot longer. When I said that it needed to be changed I guess I was overstating the case a bit. What I should have said is, "If you want to make the game play faster, you need to change Strike Ranks." Mongoose has been talking constantly about making the game faster and simpler. Strike Ranks were neither.

So while I didn't have a problem with them while I was playing RQIII. I can see how some people would not like to spend a lot of time counting down Strike Ranks.

People have been saying, "Oh well I just call them out and when it is someone’s turn they go." That is not how it ever worked in my games. By the time you get to SR5 EVERYONE is going. They are moving, casting spells or attacking/parrying/dodging. Then SR6 everyone moves again.

Our combats were very fluid with people moving all the time. We allowed everyone to move at 1m per SR at no penalty to anything else they were doing. So you could walk slowly and cast. Or whatever. This was very realistic and a lot of fun, if you liked that type of thing.

 

[Wulf Corbett]

If you never had a problem with them, how could you see that they NEEDED to be changed? I also never had a problem with them and therefore find a change unessesary (ignoring, for a moment, what Wulf said in another topic about MG not being able to use the original rules).

I think they could have used Strike Ranks, they aren't a core concept peculiar to BRP, in fact BRP uses a few different systems in different games. My favourite was the constant count SR in Ringworld, now copied by 2ed Exalted!

But my argument was actually against Strike Ranks for a different reason. Once you get to melee range, they fixed everyone into a locked sequence of events, as though everyone moved like clockwork, and the sequence never varied. Combats don't work like that, one person isn't constantly and invariably faster than the other. The combination of rounds and SR gives the impression that they are. Variable SR, with a bonus to the faster participants, is more realistic.

Wulf

 

[Longsword]

As far as I know that technique was known as "half-staff", because you hold it at the middle. Also used, but not the quarter-staff technique.

That sounds right. Thanks.

What kind of a weapon are you talking about when you say "longsword". In the naming traditions I know (the historical ones) a longsword is what is these days called a bastard sword. I'm guessing you don't mean that, since there's little point in using a shield with that weapon.

We were using one-handed broadswords, some curve in the guard and a heavy disc-shaped pommel to balance it. They were cheap training swords, so they were made of soft iron, with flat rounded edges, and not as 'broad' as a replica medieval knights sword would be.

There were a few members who were quite experienced and whom I could almost never best. It taught me just how much difference skill and experience can make.

There was one experienced swords women who was naturally ambidextrous and who used two light, thin swords. With the exception of our swords master, she could best anyone who faced her with a sword (but no shield) in seconds. She could fight from left or right stance with equal ease. It was awesome to watch.

 

[Adept]

This is the sword I train with

http://www.rautaportti.fi/Aseet/Miekat/SwordOfWar/SwordOfWar.htm

And here is what my girlfriend trains with

http://www.rautaportti.fi/Aseet/Miekat/IrishHand-And-A-Half/IrishHand-And-A-Half.htm

Both are Windlass Steelcrafts swords, made in india. Good value for the money. The site is in finnish, but you can find information on them online in english too if you want. I just liked those for the good pictures.

Both go under the longsword category, but mine (The sword of war) is pushing it a bit, and is pretty close to a true two hander.

 

[Cobra]

But my argument was actually against Strike Ranks for a different reason. Once you get to melee range, they fixed everyone into a locked sequence of events, as though everyone moved like clockwork, and the sequence never varied. Combats don't work like that, one person isn't constantly and invariably faster than the other. The combination of rounds and SR gives the impression that they are. Variable SR, with a bonus to the faster participants, is more realistic.

Wulf

Well, that is certainly true. Especially as long as people are performing the same actions. If you chose to move instead of fight in round 2 then you might go first instead of your normal second, but then you're back at clockwork again when you pick up the old actions. In D20, once the initiative is rolled, it's also clockwork, no matter what you do, unless you specifically delay - and that's one of the things I don't like about it. It also ignores weapon speed and largely discounts dex.

I actually like the idea of introducing the random element to strike ranks. I just don't want it to overpower the other factors. My house rules might change that D10 roll to a D4 or D3, for instance.

As for rolling each round - I can only imagine that if it was THAT cumbersome they would have abandoned it during playtesting. But then you would have more insight into that than I...

Cobra

 

[Wulf Corbett]

As for rolling each round - I can only imagine that if it was THAT cumbersome they would have abandoned it during playtesting. But then you would have more insight into that than I...

Not really, unfortunately. As discussed around here, RuneQuest, despite my nostalgia, really isn't my sort of RPG anymore, and even less my group's (they don't even have the nostalgia), so I couldn't actually get much actual PLAYtesting in...

Interestingly enough, though, when we play a d20-derived game, we roll initiative every round...

Wulf

 

[andakitty]

My reaction too rolling initiative every round was distinctly negative, when I first saw the preview. Now I am impatiently waiting for the full game system (optimistically, for a wonder) before I decide if its good or not.

 

[Gaheir]

Adding a variable element to strike ranks makes sense, to me. It allows for random elements (the sun, a sudden movement away from the fight distracting the quicker combatant) to have an effect.
The strike rank in the original game was realistic... for the first round of combat. After that, it was questionable, at best. Certainly the tall, man with the two handed spear had an edge as his short sword wielding foe closed. After the first round that edge would only hold as long as he could keep his foe away. At close quarters the quicker weapon would have the edge, not the larger.
I'm looking forward to seeing how it works, within the game. My concern is that a d10 may make the other factors insignificant. Cobra may have the right of it by reducing the die type to perhaps a d4/d6.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

Hold on - is there a misunderstanding a few posts up that SRs have been removed altogether? Cos they haven't. The rolled initiative is in addition to SR, not a replacement for it, and the SR scale still works the same as the old RQ, but in the opposite direction.

I think it's a great idea, and having SRs going up without a limit adds scope for other interesting mechanics as options.

 

[RMS]

After that, it was questionable, at best. Certainly the tall, man with the two handed spear had an edge as his short sword wielding foe closed. After the first round that edge would only hold as long as he could keep his foe away. At close quarters the quicker weapon would have the edge, not the larger.

This is how it worked in RQ. The longer weapon went the SR after the shorter weapon, if the shorter weapon wielder was allowed to close the distance.

 

[SteveMND]

This is how it worked in RQ. The longer weapon went the SR after the shorter weapon, if the shorter weapon wielder was allowed to close the distance.

True, but that may no longer be an issue, seeing as how it looks like SRs may have been removed from weapons completely (based on the weapons list preview)...

 

[Archer]

Having used both first round initiative rolls and rolls per round in many games, I have come to prefer first round rolls only. But that also depends on wheter or not there are rules that allows you to take action to change your initiative (by trying to get an upper hand on your opponent etc.).
Luckily, this is something that I think will be very easy for each GM and his players to decide which way they want to do it.

As for Strike Rank modifiers for weapons. I think this is the easiest part to reintroduce into the game again, if you so wish. My suggestion would be dividing the weapons into three groups; Short, Medium and Long according to their reach. Then use a modifier for each group such as (note, the values are just an example); Short +2, Medium +4, Long +8.

Using these three distances for reach, you could also reintroduce the rule about closing and furthering distance between you and your opponent, to make combat more about movement (dodging in and out of range for example).

 

[Cobra]

Hold on - is there a misunderstanding a few posts up that SRs have been removed altogether? Cos they haven't. The rolled initiative is in addition to SR, not a replacement for it, and the SR scale still works the same as the old RQ, but in the opposite direction.

I think it's a great idea, and having SRs going up without a limit adds scope for other interesting mechanics as options.

Well, they actually haven't given us enough information, but the old SRs were time based, so you would count up the time scale and act at the appropriate instant of time (strike rank).

But now, although the term strike rank is still used, it appears that you just count in order of action from person to person. Player A does his first action, player B, does his, and so on until all first actions are done. Then repeat for second actions. With the old system, player A might be able to get both his first and second action off before player B went at all. These are conceptually quite different.

Weapon strike ranks appear to be missing, now (at least they are from the weapon table).

As an aside - does anyone have some insight into whether a stabbing short sword would be faster than a swinging one? Just curious.

Cobra