Forgive my continuing defence of variable combat actions. This debate is raising some interesting ideas!
Deleriad said:
It's often been mentioned that having variable CAs simulates the nimble thief with a dagger who attacks more quickly than a big slow person with a maul. Thing is, it doesn't.
You're quite right. It should really say that variable CAs simulate the differences between people with better agility and coordination, and those that are less so. Size should have nothing to do with it (at least across the human scale, assuming no obesity)
A Great Troll with DEX 19 (DEX = 3D6 same as a human) and a great maul at 40% attacks just as quickly with its maul as a human thief with DEX 19 and 120% in their dagger.
If a creature has the surplus strength to wield it, then I don't see why it can't be as quick as a dagger. That's a question of relative strength to mass ratios. But granting more CAs to higher skill levels would only exasperate your problem with excessive free attacks, surely?
It is just as easy for a Great Troll PC to reach DEX 19 as it is for a human PC.
I also think that this is a flaw. When you start getting
really large creatures, DEX should become more limited. However, as an aside, has anyone here seen one of their players actually use improvement rolls to increase a characteristic? The only DEX 19+ PCs I've seen was one I created created using the 'Advanced Characters' rules.
Infinite Free attacks. If you have 4CAs and are facing someone with 2CAs and you start more than 10m away then, both parties run for 2CAs and then Mr 4CA throws 2 daggers that can't be dodged. Repeat ad infinitum.
Well, eventually he'd run out of ammunition! However I think this example is slightly flawed since I don't think the chasing party would expend their Reactions by running, so they can still attempt to block missile fire.
However, the same situation can be replicated using mounted archers against unmounted PCs, or terrain etc. So I consider it more a tactical problem.
Skill doesn't matter. Skill 120% with DEX 12 compared to skill 40% with DEX 19. The latter gets two undefendable attacks each round.
This I disagree with. Skill matters greatly, especially if you use the opposed combat roll, downgrade rule. In your example, the slower 2 CA guy would almost certainly have landed two blows (and defended himself successfully twice) by the time the first of his opponent's 'free attacks' comes into play.
Weapon doesn't matter. A Great Troll can hit you as quickly with a bear as it can with a dagger.
From my experience, weapon size doesn't have much of an effect on the number of blows you can throw in a limited timescale. Historical two handed weapon combat isn't all massive roundhouse swings... its a smooth flow between jabs, short cuts, thrusts, punches, etc. The really 'big' blows usually come at the end of a combination when your opponent has been overwhelmed - and they can be deceptively fast! Likewise,
effective knife fighting isn't about quick slashes, which generally only cause superficial damage - its more a case of a lot of manoeuvring to get the brief opportunity to thrust home a telling stab.
It might appear contrary to popular belief, but little weapons make fights last longer and slow down the exchange rate! But that's enough about boring real life combat stuff, lets get back to heroic fantasy! :roll:
SIZ doesn't matter. Bigger creatures often have relatively low DEX but not always.
This I agree wholeheartedly with you. Bigger creatures should be, er, perhaps not slower since a 1 ton salt water croc can be blindingly fast on initiative, but certainly have less CAs.
I think many of the Creatures in the MRQ Delux book were pretty much transcribed as is from RQ3, and perhaps lacked a little forethought as to how the DEX based variable CA system would impact them. A few need some tweeking for sure. However at the human scale I don't have much problem with big people still being blindingly fast in combat. Over the years I have had many bruises to testify it.
Armour doesn't matter. If you have DEX 19 you have 4 CAs regardless of whether you are wearing a loin cloth or full gothic plate.
Again I agree with you in principle. Heavy armour does slow you down. Not massively, certainly not by 25% or more, but enough to be noticeable. Unfortunately I cannot see a elegant way of accounting for this without causing break points in the armour tables, or be unduly penalising at this scale of CAs per round.
Extra types of attack don't matter. If you are an 8-armed goddess with 12 DEX you have 2 CAs. If you are a one-armed Fachan with 19 DEX you have 4 combat actions.
Just because you have multiple limbs, it doesn't mean that you can use them all simultaneously in combat. In reality, most multiple limbed/attack animals use one or two of their attacks to hinder/grapple prey, before sticking in the rest sequentially after they've established a hold. Physiology prevents most creatures from using all their attacks at once.
However this is fantasy, so most players expect 8 armed goddesses to be able to fight with all eight swords at once. Although representing this by hiking up DEX (and extending the table) means that the goddess would have a serious Strike Rank advantage I don't have a problem with it, since being first to attack is a lesser advantage. I must watch that Sinbad film again...
There is nothing better than an attack that can't be defended against.
Very true!
But as I said before, the attacker still has to succeed in his unopposed skill roll, the blow could be stopped by armour and/or magic protection, if it penetrates the damage may be negligible, and even if it causes a Serious Wound then the defender can still make a Resilience roll.
A free attack does not equate to an instant win.
Taking all this into consideration I find myself hard pressed to find any good reason for having combat actions be variable and be based purely on DEX.
You do have some very valid points. However, adding modifiers for armour, weapons, skill, SIZ etc would probably start turning the game down the path to FGU-dom. I think it'd also encourage mini-maxing and you'd end up with more extreme situations of variable CAs. :wink:
IMO the game doesn't break if a combat specialist has an extra attack per round than his opponent. Its an advantage, but so is a Damage Bonus. Indeed, a +1d4 atop a great weapon's damage can in many cases finish fights quicker (a one hit Major Wound) than a free attack at the end of the round.
Is DEX currently out of proportion with the other characteristics? Yes, as it stands I'm in full agreement with you. Is having 3 CAs a round an evil sin when the other PC only has 2? No, I don't think missing out one (shorter) CA phase out of every three is such a burden. Is having 1 extra CA a round versus the GM's monsters unacceptable? Of course not, the GM can tailor his encounters to take it into account. Is giving the monster an extra CA over the players even worse? That's up to the GM.
Lets face it, PCs naturally gang up on opponents, so the concept of game balance where everybody gets 2 CAs goes straight out the window. How many times has your big baddy been taken out by mob tactics?
Free unopposed attacks are always going to happen, variable CAs or no!
What I don't quite understand is if you are so against variable numbers of CAs, why on earth do you offer a Legendary Ability
allowing PCs to gain an extra one? :wink:
Tabularasa said:
regarding Peter's comment on bookeeping, I use a fixed 3 action per round and do not differentiate between actions and reactions (parrying/dodging/free attacks cost one action). An exceptionally fast monster may get a 4th action at the GM's discretion.
Actually, the idea of removing the split between actions and reactions does simplify things greatly, and improves tactical flexibility. Its growing on me. Who knows, I might take a step towards the light side of the force after all!
