Real Roleplaying

Author Topic: Ag and Qu re-examined - discussion  (Read 231 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Twistor

  • Adept
  • **
  • Posts: 342
  • OIC Points 0/0
    • Awards
Ag and Qu re-examined - discussion
« on: September 06, 2017, 09:52:37 AM »
September 2017 article, "Ag and Qu re-examined", by Nathaniel Tennant
http://www.guildcompanion.com/scrolls/2017/sep/agandqureexamined.html

In short, Qu should replace Ag as a stat in gross-motor skills like Climbing, Dancing etc. while Ag would remain in fine-motor skills like Crafting and Play Instrument.

I like this idea and would likely make it into a house rule in my own games, once I get to running campaign again. Couple of things pop to mind though.

Quickness -> Nimbleness

Quickness, i.e. reflexes and coordination, doesn't work well as a name for stuff like Dancing and Climbing. With a rules-change like this one, I think a term like "Nimbleness" or similar would work better.

Agility-based vs. Strength-based fighters vs. new Quickness-based

If Agility is for fine motorics, should Qu replace Ag in fighting skills as well? In Melee skills? What about Thrown Weapons or Missile Weapons, like shortbows?

Because Qu is also the stat for natural DB, this would make Qu-based fighters depend on just one stat. Could this break game balance in combat, or does it simply make sense? Naturally, St would still be useful when equipping armor or using St-based melee weapons.
"This here is my invention. A small orb with a tornado trapped inside of it. Magnificent, like a ship in a bottle but with dynamics and power fluctuating inside. Here, you may take a closer look. Just don't drop it or we will all die."
- Vir'alaar the Air Elementalist

Online Hurin

  • Sage
  • ****
  • Posts: 3,660
  • OIC Points 0/0
  • Awards OIC Member
    • Awards
Re: Ag and Qu re-examined - discussion
« Reply #1 on: September 06, 2017, 10:17:36 AM »
I think making Qu one of the stats (together with St) for melee combat would be unbalancing. DnD in some editions had this problem too, where Dexterity became the god-stat, because it gave bonuses to both defense and offense. The fact that, in RMU, Quickness x3 is now added to your DB even if you have heavy armor and a low strength (you used to need a high strength to offset the quickness penalty for high armor), would make it even more unbalancing.

I do like the author's delineation of fine motor skills (Ag) versus gross motor skills/reactions (Qu); that makes sense from a logical perspective. I'm not sure that there's not a considerable component of fine motor skills in using a bow though. A bow seems to require both reactions (for targeting) and fine motor skills (for drawing and loosing). I guess you could always make bows Ag/Qu/St?

I always thought the reason RM distinguished Qu from Ag was for creatures like the blob, or the old Star Frontiers' Dralasite: it was very slow but very agile. DnD had really no way of representing that.
'Last of all, Húrin stood alone. Then he cast aside his shield, and wielded an axe two-handed'. --J.R.R. Tolkien

Offline Jengada

  • Neophyte
  • *
  • Posts: 93
  • OIC Points 0/0
    • Awards
Re: Ag and Qu re-examined - discussion
« Reply #2 on: September 06, 2017, 12:12:22 PM »
...I'm not sure that there's not a considerable component of fine motor skills in using a bow though. A bow seems to require both reactions (for targeting) and fine motor skills (for drawing and loosing). I guess you could always make bows Ag/Qu/St?

First, I'd agree with the dangers of making QU apply to attack skills. Second, as an archer myself, I find Ag or Qu an imperfect stat to use. If I were being picky, I'd use Ag for a sling, but with a bow it's as much about figuring the right arc and release time - matters more of Reasoning than Agility. If you want to get really picky, you could argue that Agility is even less important for a European- or foot-archer, who would draw to a fixed anchor point on their chin, than for an Asian- or horse-archer, who trains to "float" the drawing hand more.
That said, I am perfectly comfortable subverting verisimilitude for the sake of game balance on this one. I'm not going to start making my players jack up their RE for archery skill.

Offline Peter R

  • Revered Elder
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,285
  • OIC Points 480/480
  • Awards OIC Member
    • Rolemaster Blog
    • Awards
Re: Ag and Qu re-examined - discussion
« Reply #3 on: September 06, 2017, 03:16:12 PM »
I tend to agree with Jengada. I consider myself quite clumsy in day to day activities but I am quite a good archer in the eastern style, That is more about balance and core strength and reasoning as said above.
Rolemasterblog http://www.rolemasterblog.com
Twitter https://twitter.com/RolemasterBlog
Facebook https://www.facebook.com/rolemasterblog/

Spectre771 A couple of weeks ago, I disemboweled one of my PCs with a...

Offline intothatdarkness

  • Navigator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,639
  • OIC Points 0/0
  • Awards OIC Member
    • Awards
Re: Ag and Qu re-examined - discussion
« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2017, 10:08:13 AM »
I think making Qu one of the stats (together with St) for melee combat would be unbalancing. DnD in some editions had this problem too, where Dexterity became the god-stat, because it gave bonuses to both defense and offense. The fact that, in RMU, Quickness x3 is now added to your DB even if you have heavy armor and a low strength (you used to need a high strength to offset the quickness penalty for high armor), would make it even more unbalancing.

I do like the author's delineation of fine motor skills (Ag) versus gross motor skills/reactions (Qu); that makes sense from a logical perspective. I'm not sure that there's not a considerable component of fine motor skills in using a bow though. A bow seems to require both reactions (for targeting) and fine motor skills (for drawing and loosing). I guess you could always make bows Ag/Qu/St?

I always thought the reason RM distinguished Qu from Ag was for creatures like the blob, or the old Star Frontiers' Dralasite: it was very slow but very agile. DnD had really no way of representing that.

I tend to agree, although in terms of bows there are enough different styles we could easily get into the dreaded skill bloat by specifying different formulas for different styles.

As an aside, I always found it interesting that RM fixated on Ag when it came to firearms skills. SD is to me more important, especially for Sniping (which RMSS's Black Ops linked to Ag alone).
Darn that salt pork!

 

Cloudlords of Tanara