What's new in Deluxe?

[Grrrr]

Well in my book a guy with 200% would just reduct the guy with 50% down to 5% (still having 155% in his attack and parry) and then proceed to beat the living snot out of him (he could even aim blow down to 78% if he wanted to or have two attacks at said %age).

Exactly. In your book. But not in the (RQ3) rules. RQ2 allowed something similar, though.

Where 'similar' means 'exactly the same' tbf I assume that Homer uses RQII (and why not) as his rules set.

IMO
RQII allows high powered games very well
RQIII allows high powered games less well
RQM vanilla does it very poorly
RQM+Player update does it a bit better than RQM vanilla


Grrrr

 

[atgxtg]

.

Consider a hero with 800% and a demigod with 900%. The hero has special: 160% and critical: 40%. The demigod has special: 180% and critical: 45%. To all intents and purposes the battle is played over the criticals and there is only 5% in it.

Obviously to make it interesting we're going to need to invent new super-duper criticals and Holy Hyper Specials like other people have done to make it an interesting contest. Or we can have a properly sophisticated scalable system like the update or Heroquest (and yes even the new AD&D does it)

Well, SPQR did just that, by putting in a new levels of criticals. Frankly. I've never seen PCs will skills than high in RQ, so I never worried about it, but it worked. I think each step up was 1/10th of the previous grade. So 1/10th skill, 1/100th, 1/1000th etc. Perfectably scaleable to infinity.


As for D&D being properly scalble, well no. Since BAB is desgined to increase faster than AC you eventually reach the point where attack rolls mean very little (you will hit on anything over a 1), and it simply becomes a matter of damage dealt vs. Hit Points.

 

[Sinisalo]

Where 'similar' means 'exactly the same' tbf I assume that Homer uses RQII (and why not) as his rules set.

Even using RQ2 "rune lord" mechanics (and let me say I got very nostalgic looking this up) we still have scalability problems:

Consider fighters both with 150%. They'd fight at 100% (150% minus the opponents skill over 100%) which is hardly going to be a thrilling match. Now look again at the update with 2 fighters at 150%.

IMO
RQII allows high powered games very well
RQIII allows high powered games less well
RQM vanilla does it very poorly
RQM+Player update does it a bit better than RQM vanilla

I think RQ2 has the best flavour of the lot but it is out of print. It's dead we need to move on.

 

[Sinisalo]

Well, SPQR did just that, by putting in a new levels of criticals. Frankly. I've never seen PCs will skills than high in RQ, so I never worried about it, but it worked. I think each step up was 1/10th of the previous grade. So 1/10th skill, 1/100th, 1/1000th etc. Perfectably scaleable to infinity.

What's SPQR?

As for D&D being properly scalble, well no. Since BAB is desgined to increase faster than AC you eventually reach the point where attack rolls mean very little (you will hit on anything over a 1), and it simply becomes a matter of damage dealt vs. Hit Points.

No, you're right I take it back.

 

[GbajiTheDeceiver]

Steve Perrin's Quest Rules: http://www.perrinworlds.com/

 

[Grrrr]

I think RQ2 has the best flavour of the lot but it is out of print. It's dead we need to move on.

In terms of broadening the base of players for RQ yes we do (advising someone to buy a copy of RQII from eBay becomes less and less useful as time passes).

In terms of pointing out a rule which worked well before (as Mongoose did when they changed RQIII into RQM) no we do not.



Grrrrr

 

[atgxtg]

What's SPQR?

See Gbaji's post. In a nutshell, Steve Perrin (one of the primary authors of RQ II and III) started working on an updated RQ-like game. Steve hasn't done anything with the game in years, and it is incomplete, but it does have a few ideas that are probably worth looking at. One of them was adding new layers of criticals, allowing the game to scale upwards. The revised damage bonus table is a blessing.

 

[brother omar]

i never understood why ANY version of RQ allowed skills to advance above 100%.

 

[Magistus]

i never understood why ANY version of RQ allowed skills to advance above 100%.

Because no matter how good you are, there is a chance that someone is still better than you

 

[brother omar]

We're talking about quantifying an abstract--as in, 100% is the best that can be done. If something can be done at 110%, the scale is off.

IMHO, all the beyond 100% skill level past discussions that sent so many RQers into a frenzy were bunk; skills should not be allowed above 100%.

 

[CruelDespot]

i never understood why ANY version of RQ allowed skills to advance above 100%.

And because modifiers can quickly reduce the chance of success far below the skill level?

 

[atgxtg]

We're talking about quantifying an abstract--as in, 100% is the best that can be done. If something can be done at 110%, the scale is off.

IMHO, all the beyond 100% skill level past discussions that sent so many RQers into a frenzy were bunk; skills should not be allowed above 100%.

That isn't how RQ ever interpreted the skill percentages. Generally 100% represents the skills of a "Master" in a field. That is a far cry from the perfection of the skill and the best that can be done. That would be closer to every roll being a critical success (or nearly so).

 

[brother omar]

>That isn't how RQ ever interpreted the skill percentage

Yep, and that was its problem, IMHO.

 

[AKAramis]

Think of >100% skills as this:

the rating is the chance of success in a normal activity.

Even early versions allowed modifiers to effective skill for different difficulties; by RQ3 it several areas had fairly standard modifiers for various conditions and difficulties.

So that Guy with the 150% skill still only has a 95% chance of success, just like the 95% skill guy and 100% skill guy, on a "normal" difficulty roll.

But, if they are both wearing VERY uncomfortable armor (20% penalty), 95% guy is dropped to 75%, 100% guy to 80%, and 150% guy still has a 95% chance.

Now, add slippery floors (-10), thin but noticeable smoke (-10), and the accompanying sneezing (it's an irritant incense; -20), and Mr. 95 is down to a measly 35%... but Mr 150 is still throwing a 90%.

 

[weasel_fierce]

How about just giving parries a bonus of "weapon AP times 2" or some such ?

Nice and easy

 

[weasel_fierce]

Actually, thinking about it a bit, hwile eating pizza, it struck me why I much prefer the opposed roll system.


AP has f**k all to do with a weapons effectiveness of parrying. Parrying usually relies on either intercepting the attack (block the haft of an axe f.x.) or deflecting it away. The concept of the attack "overpowering" the weapon doesnt seem terribly reasonable, compared to how these things tend to work (as far as things like SCA can teach us)

This was a problem in RQ 3 as well, and produces weird results. A dagger isnt a bad parrying weapon because its not very solid, its a bad parrying weapon because its so small. A viking round shield is made of wood, rather than steel, but its a better parrying implement than the sword, due to its ease of blocking or deflecting a blow.

So my idea is:
Keep the AP as what tehy are now: Defense if somebody targets your weapon.
Instead, designate weapons as either:
Unsuitable for parrying (a dagger or flail f.x.). These parry at -20
Suitable for parrying (swords f.x.). These parry at no modifier.
Excellent for parrying (shields). These parry at +20.


If you want to get more detailed, vary the individual parry modifications, and add options for weapons to be damaged from parries, if you really want to.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Some daggers were specifically designed as parrying weapons, though. I am not in favour of such "everything is a success roll modifier" approaches, like it happens in HeroQuest, since they tend to make the game bland rather than simple. See also my post on the "Parry example" thread for a possible solution.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Some daggers were specifically designed as parrying weapons, though.

The development of 'parrying' daggers occurs only in combat styles which are defending against thrusting weapons... where a small deflection can easily guide the weapon's point off line. A parrying dagger is extremely difficult to use against slashing weapons where its small size becomes a liability.

Saying that, in period fencing an off hand parrying dagger doesn't actually do much parrying. It is far easier (and safer) to use the main blade to parry the attack, and then use the dagger to either a) bind or disarm the attacking weapon, or b) step in close and use the dagger to stab with.

Sorry to talk about historical accuracy, but I though it should be pointed out...

 

[RosenMcStern]

How about just giving parries a bonus of "weapon AP times 2" or some such ?

Nice and easy

Nice and easy for the two of us. The formula would be (base chance) + (2 x AP), which is a mathematical expression with two variables. It has been stated that even this is to be considered too complicate.

A parrying dagger is extremely difficult to use against slashing weapons where its small size becomes a liability.

Hmm, the last time I tried to uphold this poisition against two forumers with simulated combat experience I got sort of a "shut up" reply . In any case it is, as I always stated, not impossible, but way too difficult to perform to be a widely used tactics.

Sorry to talk about historical accuracy, but I though it should be pointed out...

Always glad to be instructed about history. But did you take into account Japanese parrying daggers?

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Hmm, the last time I tried to uphold this poisition against two forumers with simulated combat experience I got sort of a "shut up" reply Sad . In any case it is, as I always stated, not impossible, but way too difficult to perform to be a widely used tactics.

I support you on this one. Fighting experience aside, it is only common sense that the shorter the length of the weapon, the more difficult it is to intersect the path of an incoming attack. The disadvantage can be offset by getting in close to the opponent and engaging the incoming (swung) weapon near its hilt, but that assumes that you can close the distance without being struck in the first place. It is not impossible, it just relies on you being more skilled than your opponent.

We are of course talking about a large number of different variables, engagement distance, weapon velocity, weapon mass, deflection angle, weapon reach, offline shifting of the body, number of supporting hands, distance weapon must move to intercept, etc, etc, etc. But in general it is much harder to parry with a dagger than a sword, and harder to parry with a sword than block with a shield.

Always glad to be instructed about history. But did you take into account Japanese parrying daggers?

No sorry, I didn't. European martial arts are my forte.

However there are a couple of points about historical use of Sai which I'd like to mention. Firstly Sai are traditionally used in pairs, which means that you use both together to establish a block or deflection, and since each has a blade length of about 40 cm or over, the combination will give you a similar warding length to a single handed sword.

Secondly, Sai were originally designed for use against wooden staff or hafted weapons. This is important for the fact that if you fluff a parry against a staff, the resulting injury is (generally) not fatal, or perhaps even serious. Using Sai to parry swords is a far more risky business. I'm not saying it can't be done... just that sensible users wouldn't want to risk it unless they were significantly more skilled than the sword wielder. :?