What's the concensus at this point...

Melkor

Mongoose
...on the combat tables (parry and dodge) in the MRQ rulebook ?

Are they incorrect, and Mongoose is planning on fixing them ?

Are they correct, and Mongoose will utilize the current impossible results (Overextended and straight Riposte) with rules that will be released in the future ?

Something else ?

I would ask the same about the 'halving' mechanic, but from what I can gather, it is something that was determined to be acceptable as-is for ease of play, and that Legendary Heroes will offer some different options.
 
I believe the offical word is that:

1) The incorrect tables were printed, but

2) They are supposed to be used in a forthcomming product.

Sort of like we got the advanced tables with the basic rules.
 
atgxtg said:
I believe the offical word is that:

1) The incorrect tables were printed, but

2) They are supposed to be used in a forthcomming product.

Sort of like we got the advanced tables with the basic rules.

Thanks atgxtg.

So in the meantime, are you using the tables you created, or just using the tables in the MRQ rulebook as is ?

P.S. - did you get my PM ?
 
Melkor said:
So in the meantime, are you using the tables you created, or just using the tables in the MRQ rulebook as is ?

P.S. - did you get my PM ?

Im using the tables as is, isnt broken to me.
 
scz said:
Melkor said:
So in the meantime, are you using the tables you created, or just using the tables in the MRQ rulebook as is ?

P.S. - did you get my PM ?

Im using the tables as is, isnt broken to me.

You don't mind never seeing any "attacker overextended" results?
 
atgxtg said:
scz said:
Melkor said:
So in the meantime, are you using the tables you created, or just using the tables in the MRQ rulebook as is ?

P.S. - did you get my PM ?

Im using the tables as is, isnt broken to me.

You don't mind never seeing any "attacker overextended" results?

im just realized about that :oops: , thanks for made me took better look at the table, and you´re right about the table.
 
I've been playing around with combat tables, and I think I'm going to try these at my next game:

CombatTables.jpg


Sorry the format, they were done on my local wiki.

Anyway, they more or less jive with RQ3 results, and they more or less jive with MRQ results. But note they were done with defense declaration as stated in MRQ rules in mind; attack, then declare intent to dodge/parry if attack is successful.

Thoughts?
 
iamtim said:
Anyway, they more or less jive with RQ3 results, and they more or less jive with MRQ results. But note they were done with defense declaration as stated in MRQ rules in mind; attack, then declare intent to dodge/parry if attack is successful.

Thoughts?

Not bad.

I was thinking of giving the defender the option of upping his parry protection (1/2 to 1x, 1x to 2x, 2x to 3x) if he chooses to give ground. THen we would get the classic sword duel where the defender is frantically parrying and being pushed back.

Sorry, been watching old Errol Flynn movies on DVD again. :wink:
 
scz said:
im just realized about that :oops: , thanks for made me took better look at the table, and you´re right about the table.

That's okay. I just wanted to point out that not all the griping is entirely without reason. Some of it is, but that's probably true on any forum. :wink:
 
atgxtg said:
I was thinking of giving the defender the option of upping his parry protection (1/2 to 1x, 1x to 2x, 2x to 3x) if he chooses to give ground.

I liiiiiike that.
 
scz said:
One possible solution would be ignore the parry and dodge triggers, it´s a nonsense anyways.

That was my position as well until a trained fencer made a convincing argument in favor of the triggers.

*shrug*

I'm going to continue using them as per the RAW, but with my combat tables above.
 
scz said:
One possible solution would be ignore the parry and dodge triggers, it´s a nonsense anyways.

Hardly. I've studied a number of martial forms, armed and not... and parries and dodges are not something a skilled fighter does until he's reasonably certain he's going to be hit if he doesn't defend.

I know that I often don't parry blows that are not going to land. Sometimes I do; perception. Sometimes I choose to, against lesser fencers (read newbs) than myself.

Likewise, in heavy and broadsword, every instructor I've had yells at one for making a defense before one sees that it is in fact bound for somewhere that matters.

My Kung-fu sifu likewise chided me not to block until a blow is actually coming... then to grab the offending limb, twist and yank it while ducking. WHen it works, it's wonderful.

Further, all the "great masters" of fence make similar reccomendations: Saviolo, deGrassi, and many more, as well as Musashi does for Katana in the Book of 5 Rings.
 
iamtim said:
atgxtg said:
I was thinking of giving the defender the option of upping his parry protection (1/2 to 1x, 1x to 2x, 2x to 3x) if he chooses to give ground.

I liiiiiike that.

It actually stems from yet another RPG I was "inspired" by. I was thinknig that rather than getting "Give Ground" or "Overextend"or "Riposte" that players could choose an option fform a short list.

Stuff like, say keeping your reaction intread of doing a riposte (so you can face mutiple ffoes better), or maybe setting up a combination move if you have muliple weapons (or weapon and shield).

I was even working on adding a "counterattack" reaction. It is a bit risky, but really helps in ofsetting those 4 CA guys at 40% who attack a master swordsman.
 
atgxtg said:
iamtim said:
atgxtg said:
I was thinking of giving the defender the option of upping his parry protection (1/2 to 1x, 1x to 2x, 2x to 3x) if he chooses to give ground.

I liiiiiike that.

It actually stems from yet another RPG I was "inspired" by. I was thinknig that rather than getting "Give Ground" or "Overextend"or "Riposte" that players could choose an option fform a short list.

Stuff like, say keeping your reaction intread of doing a riposte (so you can face mutiple ffoes better), or maybe setting up a combination move if you have muliple weapons (or weapon and shield).

I was even working on adding a "counterattack" reaction. It is a bit risky, but really helps in ofsetting those 4 CA guys at 40% who attack a master swordsman.

Perhaps a 3rd party (Tim?) could/should publish a combat rules and options supplement.
 
You can only simulate combat to a degree,

Formalised combat i.e. Martial arts/Fencing etc
tend to not only use attacks but feints to gauge an opponents reaction,
get them to fall into predicatable patterns of response.

From a fencing perspective you always looking to get past his guard, you feint attacks, slide on the blade, apply pressure, strike the weapon, drop the point under his guard, just to get his response before lunging home if your lucky.

You can always Charge/Fleche for a more direct assault.

In short the possiblities with each weapon are huge...
And neither MRQ or BRP can really map out these interchanges, well not without a combat lasting six months:) and killing the flow of the story.

The abstraction of Attack/Parry/Dodge is close enough-

Wouldn't it be easier to turn the reposte in to a free action.
And the Over extend in to a loss of next action.

Concerning the debate numerous debates on parrying - Unless you want your weapon in small pieces at your feet you'ld always attempt to use the parry to divert a blow rather than block it directly.
When blocking a punch you dont, put your hand in front of the blow you strike at the wrist/fore arm to divert the strike... you also shift you ass out of the way in case you mess up and end up swallowing your gum shield.

Even shields were use to deflect strikes rather than block, a spear can still go through two or three layers of cured hide.

So what I'm kid of saying as long as combat works, which it kind of does, why add layers of complication that aren't going to make combat any more realistic? You'll just be slowing down the action.

Cheers
Paul
 
algauble said:
Perhaps a 3rd party (Tim?) could/should publish a combat rules and options supplement.

Don't think I haven't considered it, heh. That's a big undertaking, though, and short of fixing a few minor inconsistencies, that have already had numerous fixes applied here in this forum, I don't know that it would have enough of a draw to justify it.
 
iamtim said:
Don't think I haven't considered it, heh. That's a big undertaking, though, and short of fixing a few minor inconsistencies, that have already had numerous fixes applied here in this forum, I don't know that it would have enough of a draw to justify it.

I think the question of the hour is WHEN ARE WE GOING TO SEE MONGOOSE FIX THESE ISSUES ?

It seems like every official clarification that has come out so far has led to more questions and inconsistancies.
 
iamtim said:
algauble said:
Perhaps a 3rd party (Tim?) could/should publish a combat rules and options supplement.

Don't think I haven't considered it, heh. That's a big undertaking, though, and short of fixing a few minor inconsistencies, that have already had numerous fixes applied here in this forum, I don't know that it would have enough of a draw to justify it.

I'll hold on to my notes, just in case... : :wink:

Based on the reactions to some of the things I see poseted here, I think the biggest obstacle to a 3rd party combat supplemnt is to either get a consensus on what the players want to see changed, and/or set it un in a modular form so that people can "mix n' match" the changes they want.

From what I've seen, some want it simple, some want more options, some just want to see the errors fixed, and many all three.
 
Back
Top