 
|
|
|
( 21.08.2008 )
|
|
|
|
( 28.07.2008 )
|
|
|
|
( 21.04.2008 )
|
|
|
|
( 12.02.2008 )
|
|
|
|
( 10.02.2008 )
|
|
|
|
( 12.10.2007 )
|
|
|
|
( 17.07.2007 )
|
|
|
|
( 03.07.2007 )
|
|
|
|
( 13.04.2007 )
|
|
|
|
( 29.01.2007 )
|
|
|
Categories
Discussion
Main - Rune Quest
RE: Combat Rules
|
Author:
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
Time:
23.01.2003 13:43
|
Text:
> Ah, but that's why I LIKE dodge, mostly, as it's written.
> You may have missed the bit about how dodge is applied to
> ALL attacks from a single opponent. That means that you >get a dodge roll at your full skill level against EACH of the
> many-armed monster's attacks. Splitting your dodge when
> you're over 100% means you get a 50%+ dodge against all > of TWO opponents' attacks.
I looked it up, and I stand corrected.
Brilliant! It just proves my thesis that the rules in RQ is very good, and that every time I'm about to improve an aspect of them, it turns out that my reason for wanting to improve somthing is based on a misinterpetation by me.
But then I'm only Norwegian, and can be exused : )
> But diverting a slash is much more difficult, and should
> only occur on a special success or better. Most of the
> time, one is lucky to get one's weapon in the way in time.
Are you sure? I'm not. A slash is much slower than a thrust, so if your argument is that you divert a thrust but not a slash because a slash is too quick, I think you're wrong.
> > > ..parries against thrusting attacks be treated as
> > > dodges are, shifting the success of the attack by the
> > > success level of the parry
> > Even if a thrust only takes Quote"...a
> > child's strength to parry", the thrust is still is very
> > quick and lethal if striking home.
> Of course it is; a spear does 1D8+1, which is pretty
> nasty. The point here is simply that a successful parry
> against a successful thrust will shift the level of success
> of the hit, not modify the damage inflicted. An impale that
> would have done 2D8+2 (upon hitting the heart) might be
> diverted just enough to miss the heart, but it'll still
> hurt, and maybe even kill anyway.
Let's see if I get you right:
You may divert\sidestep a thrust partially, and you want that to show with a new principle to the game; pitting level of successes against eachother. I think that allready is illustrated in the rules by the fact that you roll damage, and don't operated with fixed damage. If B parry A with a success, but A got a special, he could still roll snake eyes, and that would simulate that B managed to divert the thrust from his heart to somewere else on his body (The spear from your example above doing 4 damage.)
> Any number of interpretations are possible of any given
> melee round. Of course we shouldn't fall into the trap of
> thinking each SR corresponds to 1.2 seconds, and our guys
> take turns swinging or thrusting every 12 seconds.
> I'd rather leave to the interpretive
> processthan make up rules for them, though.
Oh yes! I don't want to incorporate any possible action from reality in rules, that's impossible. The definition of a good rule system, is a system that could (-if the GM wants to) -explain all possible outcomes from reality.
What we must as ourselves when evaluating your house rule is wether it is:
A - made because of a glitch in the existing system.
B - made to alter the lethality of the existing system.
I don't think that it is a nessecary change, because we have dice rolled damage. But if you think combat is too deadly with the Normal - Special - Critical -system as it is in the rules, I guess your house rule is OK. The system as it is is very compromiseless. If a character meets a Troll NPC that get a critical success, it's time to make a new character... I don't think that's very unrealistic, allthouth deadly. With your house rule, you only get critical success if the opponent fails his parry \ dodge that diminishes the possebilities for surviving a fight with a very powerful person. If Rasalkark have 250% in parry, and you have 50% in attack, you would have to roll "01, "02"or "03" the same time Rasalkark rolled to get a critical and rasalkark roll "00" to kill him.
BUT HEY! I'm reading on page 55 in the rules now, and discovered that a normal parry against a critical success gets you to subtract the parrying object's AP's from the damage. In other words, the critical success only ignore armor.
If you think the thrust is too lethalized compared to the sweep (as I mabye do), we could either say that a sweep attack does doubble damage if the opponent wears no armor, or let the "overhead blow"-rule be used by everyone, not only gigants armed with monoliths and oaks.
> A fist parry against a
> spear thrust is perfectly legitimate.
As well as against a sweep (provided you time it right, and yes, it should be a deflection)
A suggestion to differenciate between blocks and deflections (as they have differenciated between thrusts and sweeps in the rules): A deflection attempt reduces the P% with 10% (as that is fairly easy to calculate in ones head), but you can add... -say 4AP's to the parrying object.
|
Message threads
| Topic: |
Author: |
Time: |
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
09.01.2003 08:31
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
20.01.2003 15:55
|
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
23.01.2003 09:08
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
23.01.2003 13:43
|
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
24.01.2003 09:51
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
24.01.2003 11:14
|
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
25.01.2003 07:04
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
25.01.2003 13:58
|
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
26.01.2003 01:18
|
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
28.01.2003 06:24
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
28.01.2003 15:37
|
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
29.01.2003 06:07
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
30.01.2003 13:09
|
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
01.02.2003 04:50
|
|
For any questions or comments about this site,
contact the webmaster
www.runequest.za.org is hosted by
www.wack.co.za
W&C Information Consultants CC
|
|
|
