weapon style flexibility

[sdavies2720]

Yeah, I think some of these situations are cases of overthinking the application. I don't think weapon styles are supposed to be quite so restrictive. I think of them as more open than the old way of doing things, because you can build percentages more easily through the use of them. ...

When I converted my campaign over, I gave players a choice how they set up their styles: One style as "Shield" and another as "Sword" or as one style "Sword and Shield."

Benefit of separate styles: Even if switch out the other component, you still keep your full percentage. Benefit of integrated styles: one advancement roll to increase both.

I've kept the old "check for success" advancement system, so most times a character will get a check for both weapons they use. So almost everyone picked two styles rather than one integrated one.

Steve

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I don't mean to be argumentative? but its just the way I feel. Please enjoy RQII, it looks like a great choice for the right audience.

No problem!

I might just say that the two 'loosest' parts of the rules - what weapons to include in Combat Styles and how many spells in a Grimoire - are in reality only minor hindrances. It needs but five minutes thought at the start of your campaign to decide how you want to define (or houserule) them, after which you should be golden and never need to be bothered by the concept again.

A mere smidgen of effort compared with the hours of effort required to build and populate the rest of a campaign. Well, one hopes anyway.

 

[andakitty]

True enough. I guess one risk you run with a game like RQ, with it's history, is that some of us will choose to stay with a similar, previous system due to comfort levels...not to mention years of use. Old Stormbringer just makes more sense, and has a crazy vibe to it that I have not seen duplicated. So my house ruled Stormbringer BRP it is, for me as GM. Or CoC. At least it's an informed decision, eh?

I will definitely play this if some other GM around here runs it, though.

 

[Draconis13]

I have had some major issues just selecting what weapons are grouped into what class. such as: "Should I group maces and flails 1 and 2 handed or leave them seperate?", "What weapon group or groups are discus and nets in?", "A scythe is treated as a bill at -10%, but what is a bills stats?" and of course "should I leave the staff skill to ONLY cover quarterstaves or should I lump it in with clubs/maces/flails 2 handed?". The list goes on

 

[Faelan Niall]

Sorry to resurrect this, but it caught my eye as I have been contemplating running a MRQ2 game. Combat Styles in my mind were a step in the right direction, but I simplified it even further, I just give my players an Armed Combat Skill, and they then pick four weapons they are familiar with. Use up an improvement roll become familiar with another weapon. I find it encourages them to be walking armories, and use a wide variety of weapons dependent on what the situation calls for not what the best percentage is.

 

[andakitty]

Surprised to see this post still active.

I am thinking about Openquest as a base system for similar reasons . It seems more and more reasonable to have only three skills, actually, Close Combat, Missile and Unarmed. As you say, it seems to encourage tactical thinking instead of always using what they have the best percentage in. I have a bit of concern about the rate of advancement, but we shall see. I can always use an approach similar to yours if that's a problem.

 

[Halbard]

Yeah combat styles has taken a fair amount of time to think about, haven't been able to do more than mock fights, with MRQII, but loads of thinking.
One way is to use a OQ type of Basic Armed Combat but let specific styles be specializations. The basic Combat skill could "follow" each style at half increase (start it a half the basic under the major style), for each style developt and no style is ever lower than Combat skill. The basic Combat skill can then not be developt separately (except as advanced training perhaps).

This would mean you would benefit from developing two or three styles (general Combat skill would increase for each style developd an might push a style up afterwards). It would also simulate that a realy experienced fighter can pick up almost any weapon and be a though opponent.
An idea that came up at 4:30 in a morning a few weeks ago.

 

[Faelan Niall]

Surprised to see this post still active.

I am thinking about Openquest as a base system for similar reasons . It seems more and more reasonable to have only three skills, actually, Close Combat, Missile and Unarmed. As you say, it seems to encourage tactical thinking instead of always using what they have the best percentage in. I have a bit of concern about the rate of advancement, but we shall see. I can always use an approach similar to yours if that's a problem.

It basically comes down to why should the spellcasters have all the fun? What is so mystically different between a knife, a dagger, and a dirk? Essentially it takes four skills to be good at combat with my house rules versus well a shitload.