[Rq-rules] Thanks!

[Gary Sturgess]

> And in fact, if B's got a shorter weapon, he DOES have the option of closing
> (using the RQ3 rules) if the longer-reach guy can't or won't retreat.
> Ironically, a guy with a crappy DEX *should* use a toothpick, because then
> he always has the shortest weapon and at least has the option of closing in
> which case (if he can corner his opponent) he can make his abysmal melee SR
> irrelevant.
>
> So we have a system that encourages slow, clumsy people to use the shortest
> weapon they can find?  Brilliant.

In all fairness, that's a bit of an extreme case, and somewhat
tangential to your main point. I could similarly argue that if you
have no weapon skill you might as well go for the biggest weapon you
can find, regardless of not meeting any STR or DEX modifiers, and
blindfold yourself as well. Once you're at 5%, no further reductions
are meaningful. But it would be a stretch to then conclude that RQ
promoted the strategy of using inappropriate weapons whilst
blindfolded - it's a corner case, nothing more.

Likewise, if your MELEESR is so abysmal that it's more than 3 higher
than your opponent, then yes - you're right - you might as well use a
small weapon, since even an SR 0 weapon won't let you go first.
However, that's a corner case too.

I do have a lot of sympathy for the overall idea that some sort of
random factor in who goes first might enhance the realism - but I
don't think you chose a particularly good example to make your case.
-- 
GAZZA