From: Wayne Shaw (shadow@qedbbs.com)
Date: Sat 17 Jul 1993 - 13:19:10 EEST
rq4@sartar.toppoint.de (Joerg Baumgartner) writes:
> Just a short note of protest:
>
> I hate systems that proclaim static combat, i.e. combat where the
> characters either move or act. With the strike rank system RQ had a
> mechanic to cope with this problem, if not perfectly, so at least
> sufficiently so.
Unless I've totally misunderstood combat (and my players with me) you
ALWAYS can move a bit in a round: you can combine a single move with any
two melee actions, so you can single move and dodge, single move and
parry, single move, parry and dodge...you can't use more than two actions
for combat activity, so that third for movement is always possible. Now
you can't TRIPLE move and do any of these, but somehow that doesn't seem
a great flaw.
The biggest flaw with the old strike rank system was that you had to pay
attention to EVERYTHING, all the time. You couldn't skip any strike
ranks because SOMEBODY was bound to be moving in them. Not to mention
the crazymaking problems when you were handling a bunch of NPCs, some of
whom had moved (and therefor delayed later strike ranks) some of who
hadn't. At least the current system gets rid of most of that.
> I think that a maneuver roll to determine advantages after movement and
> combat is ok, but it should be related to the overall fighting skill,
> not necessarily a separate skill.
I can't agree. There are static fighters who are used basically waiting
for the fight to come to them (most formation fighters) and there are
those who are used to fluid fights. And the ability to control the
motion of the fight is no more interrelated than is, say, your attack and
your parry.
------------------------------
shadow@qedbbs.com (Wayne Shaw) or qed!shadow
The QED BBS -- (310)420-9327
0,,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat 05 Jul 2003 - 20:28:24 EEST