The top lines of the Reaction tables are misleading and will probably be errata-ed out at some point. The "Players Guide" PDF clarification (http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/rqplayersguide.pdf) states:-
There are not two sets of rolls in combat for the attacker - he just rolls once, and the result of that roll is what the defender compares his Dodge/Parry to. This is covered, for Dodges, on p50, last paragraph of the first column. Parry has a similar paragraph.
> > Low Dex AND Int (the determinants for the number of actions and
> > reactions in combat) will make a very slow character and may well
> lead
> > to an unopposed attack, though you don't use up reactions (parries
> or
> > dodges) on failed attacks. Overall though if you are slow against a
> > faster opponent, going head to hea is probably a stupid thing to
> do.
>
> All I was saying here is that as these stats are randomly generated
> they are going to be very important for the future of your character.
True.
> > You must make your own decisions, ofcourse. IMHO there are minor
> > problems with MRQ but nothing to stop a game and much to recommend
> in
> > terms of smoothing out the old RQ rules and reducing the need to
> look
> > All rules need time to bed in. Some may be errata-ed or ditched by
> the
> > second print run. There is the RQ forum mentioned above, preview
> PDFs
> > on the Mongoose website. Go see for yourselves.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Dave (who hasn't posted here since Nov '01. Wow)
> >
>
> I wasn't saying the system is especially bad. I don't think it is
> much worse than most game systems. I would rate it as worse than RQ2
> and a bit better than RQ3. I think its worse than Basic Roleplaying
> and Pendragon. I wouldn't compare it with HeroQuest as its aims are
> very different. Most game systems IMO suffer from the fact that they
> break down at higher levels and RQ4 is no exception. I think it
> might work OK as long as the % chances are between about 40-70% but
> then RQ2 worked at that level too. I bought it to see what it was
> like anyway but I don't think it is clearly better than previous
> versions.
>
I agree about RQ3. RQ2? Dunno. RQ2 was a good, succinct system but was short on backgrounds and skills. I don't see why it can't work for higher %s too - most of the problems with RQ3 tended to be around managing the time taken to process a combat round and the stalemate that high skill levels could produce. Clearly better? I don't know. I don't see MRQ being any worse and the emphasis on tactics and movement might be better.
Cheers
Dave
Powered by hypermail