Variable combat actions

[Deleriad]

I've been running RQ for a while now with a fixed number of actions per round and I'm considering the pros and cons of having just one action per round. So thought it would be interesting to find out what other people do.

It's poll time.
Option A is the system as written.
Option B is based on knowing that some people link the number of CAs per round to the character's SR or a dice roll based on SR.
Option C: why fixed and how many?
Option D: what system do you use?

 

[gran_orco]

I see interesting the fact that a lesser foe could do 4 actions with his gladius and the great troll could do one attack with his great hammer. It is more strategic.

 

[Denalor]

Using only a single action would make DEX far less important in combat. IMHO too less.

Basing the number of CAs on a roll with SR (which is rolled each round... which I do not like at all, I prefer one roll at the start of combat) sounds like a lot of book keeping.
IMHO too lot

So I go for Option A

 

[elgrin]

I was not happy with some aspects of the CA system as written and so tweaked it until I realised I was only just using the basics of the number of CA's being reliant on DEX and a D10 roll at the beginning of each round. The system uses SR's and also a weapon penalty for short weapons (a variant of the old RQ systems) and means that while the high DEX characters normally strike first, a bad roll combined with use of a dagger can not only mean that they do not strike first, but may not get to use all their CA's, which are lost. It does make for bookeeping for me but I knew that as I was writing it.
Maybe not the 'totally different' I registered, but different enough not to really fit the other options.

elgrin

 

[RosenMcStern]

I use rolled SR/10, rounding up. Yes, it requires some bookkeping, but the system as a whole is based on the concept of tactical unpredictability, so this should be in the spirit of the rules. And making dexterity an ubercharacteristic (+1 attack and +1 parry per round is a great advantage) is much worse than dealing with some more rolls per round.

 

[Rurik]

I still use it as is, but have played Rosen's way and it works very well.

The net effect is most everyone gets 2 CA's and occasionally 3, with quicker people getting three CA's more often. A bit more balanced and variable than the fixed CA's but it does require rolling strike rank each round.

 

[Smokestack]

Because I dislike having one Stat being a "Combat God" stat, I actually use a system I pirated and modded from BRP, a little like splitting a dice pool in other systems. Basically, any character can make any number of attacks/round within these guidlines; skill % for a single character can be split to allow multiple attacks, dividing the overall percentage as the player deems fit, at a 50% minimum, with remainders forming another attack.

I.E. 1: A character with a 76% skill could make two attacks; one at 50% and one at 26%.

I.E. 2:On the other hand, a character with 220% could potentially make 5 attacks; 4 at 50% and one at 20%. However, because of the large skill % involved, this character could also make one attack at 100%, and two attacks at 60% each, etc....

We've found that this works well in long-term campaigns, as it adds another reward for players willing to persue very high skills, but makes it a tricky proposition to split your skill against a foe of equal or greater skill. However, I have also made all combat skills based on 2 stats, to reduce the combat-godliness of Dex as written, and have separate defence skills that follow the same rule. I was getting sick of everyone dumping as much as possible into Dex right off the bat, to maximize their number of attacks and base combat skill percentages. Having a whole group of characters with Bruce Lee-like agility got real old, real fast.

 

[captrooper]

I use both the system as is and Rosen's system depending what background I am using, and which gaming group too.

 

[Tabularasa]

I use 3 fixed actions for everyone. Makes runing the round so much smoother and avoid some of my players sitting iddle while other act.

However, I have also made a major modification: Parrying/Dodging or making opportunity attacks now cost you an action. You decide to use those after you know whether your attacker hits you.

Works wonder

 

[Denalor]

Parrying/Dodging or making opportunity attacks now cost you an action.

According to the rules you differentiate between actions and reactions and you have the same amount of actions as reactions. If you use a fixed number of three (regardless whether action or reaction) you have thus a lot less actions per round. As a round is a fixed time increment you might get problems with spell durations. Actual physical combat becomes a lot slower in comparison to other actions, thus you put an emphasis on magic. (runic and sorcery only, as divine spells can only be cast once per combat round).
Also, what do you do with those people who use two weapons ? Those get either an additional attack (albeit at -20) or an additional reaction. Do you completely ignore that part ?

You decide to use those after you know whether your attacker hits you.

Dodging/Parrying after you know you have been hit :shock: ? I'm definitley not for simulation, but that goes to far against my sense of realism

 

[Tabularasa]

I play a pretty narrative game where the Gamemaster (me) has a lot of lattitude. In short, what counts for me is describing the action rather than rolling the dices/following the rules. As such, I assume a variable lenght to the round 6-10 seconds depending on my whim.

To answer your questions, I tend to run low-magic games but compensate this by giving my players special combat manoeuvres (for example: If you are armed with a reach weapon (aka a spear), spend 1MP (which i have renamed Mana points), take a -20% to hit penalty and if you hit you deal no damages BUT you push you target backward 1d4+1m... pretty cinematic and quite fun to describe).

Regarding spells, casting a spell in hth gives your opponent a free attack, so you may think twice about doing that. I have not given any special benefit for a second hand weapon nor do I differentiate between parry/dodge

Regarding rolling for parry after the attack, you are totally right, except that doing it the way I've described flows much more naturally and tend to speed up the round quite significantly. You roll for parry only when it matters. The way I describe it is that when you fail your attack roll, it either means that you have swung your sword widely off the mark or that simply you have not found an opening in your opponent's guard, trading instead inefficient blows. If he or she succeed in his roll on the other hand, this means that there is a big sword coming your way very fast and you may need to do something about it.

Merging actions and reactions is pretty interesting because it forces your players to make difficult choices. It also continues to give an adventage to the fast & smart characters because attacking first in a 3 fixed 3 action round means that you are probably going to attack twice (Player A: Attack - Parry - Attack vs. Player B: Parry - Attack - Parry)

I run a table for 6 players so keeping track of variable action number per round and reactions is an absolute bookeeping nightmare. The 3 fixed action and reactions cost actions works much better

 

[duncan_disorderly]

[

You decide to use those after you know whether your attacker hits you.

Dodging/Parrying after you know you have been hit :shock: ? I'm definitley not for simulation, but that goes to far against my sense of realism

It's what we have often ended up doing in a number of systems. Why would you want to roll a parry/dodge if your opponent has already missed you? It adds little or nothing to the game other than slowing things down. It also avoids arguments about what failing to sucessfully dodge an attack that missed you actually means, and how (if at all) it differs from succesfully dodging an attack that would have missed you anyway.

 

[Deleriad]

Because I dislike having one Stat being a "Combat God" stat, I actually use a system I pirated and modded from BRP,

That is one of the reasons I use a fixed number of combat actions. If you look at the infuence of characteristics on the game:

STR: half of damage modifier, close combat skills
CON: half of hit points, resilience skill
DEX: half of Strike Rank, all of Combat Actions, all physical skills, crafting, fine manipulation skills, stealth skill
SIZ: half of damage modifier, half of hit points, reduces some skills
INT: half of SR, skills
POW: skills and magic points
CHA: some skills

Basically DEX stands out as doing far too much. If you have two roughly equivalent characters but one has 3 CAs and one has 2 CAs then the one with 3 CA will win.

So given that the average range of DEX gives 2 combat actions I simply say that everyone has 2 CAs and reactions.

However it's clear that this is one mechanic that is played according to the rules by the vast majority.

 

[Cowboy]

Impulse-based system where the number of impulses it takes to perform an action is inversely proportional to DEX. So characters with good DEX still get to act more often but not as much more as the in the RAW.
It also means only having to track a single initiative score per character instead of three (initiative, actions remaining and reactions remaining).

 

[soltakss]

Because I dislike having one Stat being a "Combat God" stat

To tell the truth, I don't really mind.

It doesn't really unbalance things too much - if you have a high DEX then you are a little bit better at most skills and have more combat actions. So what?

 

[Deleriad]

Because I dislike having one Stat being a "Combat God" stat

To tell the truth, I don't really mind.

It doesn't really unbalance things too much - if you have a high DEX then you are a little bit better at most skills and have more combat actions. So what?

Well, those extra combat actions are huge. If you have two otherwise equal combatants and one has one more combat action then the person with an extra combat action will win. Especially with the players update where reactions are declared before actions. Basically, the extra combat action equates to an additional attack that can't be defended against every round.

One of my very clear memories was playing a game of RQ at Gencon UK in 2007. My character was a pre-gen dwarf with 2 combat actions while another character was an elf with four combat actions. The whole thing felt like "no fun" and it seemed that every combat round took an age to finish and half of that age consisted of me sitting around waiting for everyone else to finish doing things after I had.

 

[Denalor]

Why would you want to roll a parry/dodge if your opponent has already missed you? It adds little or nothing to the game other than slowing things down

I see your point.
I do not remember the system we used when that became a real issue. It must have been a system where the choice to parry/dodge had the implication of losing the next action. I think it was and earlier version of WFRP (Warhammer Fantasy Role Playing). If you did parry there ,you lost your next action. Thus your choice to parry or not had a direct impact on your own offensive capabilities. It also just doesn't seem right to raise your shield after you have been hit, but that is another point.
Any system which uses an active parry/dodge (i.e. where you have to roll dice or something similar) has an impact on the offensive. Take Rolemaster, by putting some of your Offensive Bonus to your Defensive Bonus you limit your damage potential.
Even now, in MRQ your decision to parry/dodge influences your performance. Suppose you have 2 CAs, thus you also have 2 reactions. Do you try to parry the hulking barbarian's swing with his greataxe, or do you save your reactions to dodge the bowman's arrows or the spellcaster's area spell ? If you only ask for that decision when you've been hit you greatly increase your number of options for your available reactions.
So, I believe it's all a tactical choice and I will stick to a prior choice for the reaction.

I do agree though that in MRQ a successful parry vs an unsuccessful attack no longer has an effect. I somehow seem to remember that in a previous edition you struck the attacking weapon and were actually able to damage it. Thus, if you parried with your sword you were able to shatter your opponent's weapon (the haft of an axe for example). This complex detail has obviously been dropped.

I definitely do intend to introduce some kind of damaging weapons option. If your blow (against a successful parry) does more damage than the AP of the offensive weapon you will deal damage to it, possibly even destroying it. How many times have you read in some book (or watched in a movie) of shields being shattered ? The thing I'm still not clear about is whether the defender takes damage or not if the attacker went over the AP of the defending weapon. That is the case according to the rules, but it only ever happens when both attacker and defender roll exactly the same number on their dice and both succeed in their respective action.
[Shrug] Damaging weapons will - of course - make combat more complex. Question is whether you want that or not.

If you have two otherwise equal combatants and one has one more combat action then the person with an extra combat action will win.

That made me rethink the whole thing, because you are absolutely right.
Given the fact that MRQ is favouring the randomness of combat (i.e. rolling for strike rank each round rather than just once at the beginning of combat) I now believe that a random determination of availbale CAs based on your strike rank modifier (i.e. INT+DEX devided by 2) makes much more sense. However, you do need to adjust the table, as you add the roll of a d10. Perhaps delete 5 ? You'd take your strike rank roll (d10 + (INT + DEX)/2) and compare it with the table.
1 or less: 1 CA
2 - 7: 2 CA
8 - 13: 3 CA
14 and above: 4 CA

 

[Denalor]

Actually I did a lot of thinking yesterday and before implementing my idea above I have some qualms.
Attacking first is IMHO a big advantage, so a high Strike Rank roll is the thing to aim for. With my idea you do not only strike first but you also would get more actions from a high roll. Thus, the Strike Rank roll becomes very important indeed.
I do think I will go with Deleriad's idea of using a fixed amount of actions.
Thanks Deleriad

 

[Deleriad]

Actually I did a lot of thinking yesterday and before implementing my idea above I have some qualms.
Attacking first is IMHO a big advantage, so a high Strike Rank roll is the thing to aim for. With my idea you do not only strike first but you also would get more actions from a high roll. Thus, the Strike Rank roll becomes very important indeed.
I do think I will go with Deleriad's idea of using a fixed amount of actions.
Thanks Deleriad

You're welcome. As you say, a high DEX not only means that you attack more often but you are more likely to attack first. With the combat changes in the players update meaning that you have to declare defences before the attack result is known then there is no conceivable drawback to attacking first anymore.

Personally, having been using fixed combat actions for a year now, I wouldn't play any other way. That said, I do allow different ways to get additional combat actions. I have a legendary ability that lets you get an additional action or reaction with a specified weapon, I've also added two traits.

multi attack (attack1, attack2, attack3 etc) that lets a creature make multiple attacks as a single combat action. e.g. Multi-attack(claw, claw) does what you expect. No precise attacks with a multi-attack though.

Additional attack (weapon). that lets you have an additional action with a specific mode of attack but it can only be used for this attack. E.g. Additional Attack (sting) lets you attack once extra with a sting but, if you do so, you can't use the sting for regular attacks.

I find that adds back in all the variability that I need.

(I believe that Monsters II might have something similar but I don't have the book.)

 

[Inspector Zero]

My character was a pre-gen dwarf with 2 combat actions while another character was an elf with four combat actions.

I don't see the problem with a high DEX giving quicker reaction times and more actions per round. There are (or should be) other compensating factors which make clashes of different kinds of combatants with different attributes interesting.

Take the dwarf-on-elf situation. The elf moves quicker and has more attacks but the dwarf has a higher STR and CON and probably a better number of hit points/location and better damage when it connects. Also with high resilience it is more likely to withstand blows than the elf and better able to shrug off the affects of serious/major wounds. This seems to me to be a good balance.

Like the discussion on another thread about Armour Points Penalties it gives players the chance to consider tactics. Do I go for high protection and slow myself down? If I only have 2 CA per turn how do I make the most of them? Perhaps it makes the players less gung-ho for fighting everything and everyone they come across.