Atgxtg

RQ3. I think it wasin the combined paperback version Chaosium relared in the 90s. I'm not sure how much further back it goes. I vaguely recall seeing it in one of the RQ3 supplements or a magazine, but not sure exactly when. I don't know exactly who came up with the "not on the same SR" restriction or where they were going with it. I don't think the intention was to deny someone an action, or to prevent someone from attacking and parring at the same exact time (Strike rank).

It's a little more complicated than that though, as there are related systems that work a little differently. Elric! for instance, where you can get by with just one skill, or Mythras where I think you learn fighting styles instead of individual weapon skills, or Pendragon which uses an opposed roll, with shields soaking damage on a partial success. And even with the systems you listed it's more complicated. For instance RQ2 had a Defense skill that got subtracted from the opponent's attack skill. Plus most character who used a 2H weapon probably knew a 1H weapon too just in case one of thier arms got injured. As for the same SR glitch, it was something that was in the errata not the core rules. It was probably going to be explained better later, but, well, it didn't happen.

I think that is the most likely way it would happen. Three people ganging up on one person and trying to time things just so. I'm not that worried about it, mostly because fighting three opponents at once is mostly suicidal in RQ anyway. Even when the strike ranks are right and Rhy'leh rises from the ocean the lone warrior gets a parry, there are still two undefended attacks to worry about. It would have to be on the same SR but after the lone warrior attacked, which would mean that he had a higher DEX, and ignored the risk. Then someone else would have to remember the attack & Parry on the same SR thing. So it seems higehly unlikely. If anything the warrior would probably delay his attack so he could parry, which might turn into a wating game, but probably not as the three warriors still have an advantage by attacking. 285%?! Then shame on you for getting into this situation, you knew better. 😁 Really at that skill level I'd expect you have an allied spirit befuddle then to break up this sort of tactic, or have worked out some other counter- like say raise your dodge to 250%, and sidestep them. Probably a bit of both. SCA and HEMA experience probably show that three vs. one odds are telling, with the rest being moot. Give the lone guy a sword & shield and the results won't be that different. In that case let's remove that, because it is a fairly telling setup. What if we have two characters (twin brothers?) armed with swords who can each attack each other on SR7 at the same DEX? Since they both attack on the same SR and DEX do neither get a chance to parry? I think the most logical outcome would be that one attacks the other opts to parry and his attack is delayed a SR, much like with casting or movement. I don't think it is really fudging it. I think that is what was intended. The reason for the "not on the same SR" rule seems to be that the weapon is busy parrying at that strike rank and isn't free for attacking, or vice versa. Not that the weapon can't attack during that round. I think the attack just get's delayed. it's not an intentional delay, but one that is forced by circumstances. After all, you don't declare what Strike Rank you attack on, you just attack on the first strike rank that you are allowed to. So if the lone warrior declared a parry during the declaration phase, he'd have two things happening on the same SR and doing one would mess up the other. Since he would know exactly what was happening that round, he probably be able to prioritize. I think the situation only looks so bad because of the three vs. one situation. In RQ2 or RQ3 that's a bad spot to be in and I expect the lone guy to go down even if he gets the parry. Neither game was big on the idea of a long warrior taking on multiple opponents. Even lone warriors with 285% skill. What the 285% warrior is supposed to do is have a retinue to keep opponents busy while he takes single foes apart one at a time. In a one on one situation it's not so bad, because the single opponent is in the same boat. Unless they have a shield or secondary weapon. But then the first warrior probably would have a decent dodge skill to fall back on for just such a situation.

Well, idle hands lead to chaotic features, and vice versa.

Except that in RQ2 if you use sword to parry you probably won't have a sword to attack or parry with for very long as parrying weapons take damage, they don;t have a lot of hit points. In RQ2 parrying with your sword to get an extra attack with your shield isn't a very good idea. Your much better off parrying with your shield, because it won't break. Yup. It does nothing for move quietly either. The same holds true for shield parry. It's why in older RQ games characters that used a shield tended to have lower parry shills with their weapon. It probably makes some sense too, as someone who normally fought with a shield probably wouldn't parry as well with their sword.

Oh, I thought you meant a secondary weapon and a shield. I assume you mean with RQG rules, as earlier editions had attack and parry as separate skills. Plus earlier versions were a bit more restrictive on multiple actions.

One...two..three hands? I'm confused.😳

Can't really happen in RQ. Statement of intent comes before the round. So either they would all have to declare it before hand and have the soeed to do it, or it becomes a reaction and loses 3 SR. Of course even without the cheesy attack on the same strike rank stunt, three against one is a pretty bleak situation in RQ3. Unless you got some skills over 100% you're facing at least one un-parried or undodged attack, and possibly two. Could but why? I mean really, in RQ3 you should know better than to fight three opponents at once. Same with RQ2. RuneMasters even made a point about Runelords not taking on multiple foes. Basically one Runelord vs. three average warriors pretty much gives away most of the Runelord advantages, and probably means somebody is going to be rolling for DI on 1D10.

Oooh, longform cult write ups. That might even get me to break down and buy a RPG product. Is there something like Cults of Prax for RPG?

LOL! I know the feeling. Quite a few times I been surprised not to see a rule that I remembered as being in there. Usually said rule turns up eventually, usually in a supplement or later edition or some such. Porting over rules from realted games probably doesn't help. Yeah, look at the weapons too closely and you're bound to find some that lag behind the others. . I think the thing is the swordman should be able to parry but his attack gets delayed 1SR. I think that was the original intention of the rule and makes the most sense.

No you had it right. Shield Attacxk was in the appendix. Not there was much incentive to do so. Pretty much the same as RQ2, excpet the numbers were a little different. Probably not that likely to happen though as 2H weapons usually have a low SR modifier.

Yes, as an optional rule. In RQ3 is was part of the main rules stats. Now I don't think either version handled it all that well. You'd basically have to learn another skill to attack with the sield, and the shield probably did less damage that the main weapon, especially with battle magic. But that's another can of worms. Yes, they call it that now, but it is RQ2. But is isn't a better name. The game is RQ2 and has been since 1978? Changing the name just clouds the issue. That's why it should be called RQ2. Now if Chasoium's defense, they probably wouldn't have renamed if if Mongoose didn't produce a second RQ2, and confuse things. Player book page 63 allowed you to cover specific hit locations with your shield (for full value). Passive armor at half value was in effect for shields slung on the back, and was also used for 2H spear & shield. Combined with missile hit locations is was rather effective. Certinaly more protection that in RQ2. THat rules might be an Wyrms Footnotes or something. I'll look. I agree. No, shields are better. They can defend against projectiles, which weapons cannot, they tend to have more armor points. Weapon parries are a bit better in RQ3 too, as the weapons aren't made out of silly putty. Well you seem to be a bit rusty. Yeah, because formation fighting isn't very practical in normal adventuring scenarios. But then neither is standing still while being peppered with arrows. Usually players will either be shooting back with their own missile weapons, ducking behind cover, or, if close, charge into melee. Come to think of it, I've seen more PCs drop from charging archers when out of reach, in both RQ2 and RQ3 than I wish. A lot of players learned about impales the hard way. I still remember the group that did a frontal attack on a fort only to be surprised to find the gate barred. No. Not really. It was just better than standing there doing nothing. The romans used to routinely take apart oppoents that had shields with a voelly or two of pilia. Go get some friends and play around with some nerf toys and a piece of cardboard. See how open the one with the shield gets hit, especially when the archer targets the exposed areas. Then consider that real missile weapons had much greater speed and range. Basically shields kinda suck against missile weapons, they just suck less than not having shields. Moreso in RQ. Oh yeah, but it is more prevalent in RQ2 as hit points are tied more closely to CON. It's pretty much true in any BRP game that uses hit locations. It's what I meant about all RPGs having flaws. In this case, it'ss really just a byproduct of CON affecting hit points. Realistically, being healthier doesn't make it any harder to slice off one of your body parts, except perhaps in that you can put of a better active defense. A high CON would probably make a huge difference in surviving such an injury, and you probably should heal faster, but RQ mostly doesn't do that. RQ3 does make it a bit more likely that you will stabilize before bleeding to death, but that's about it. Realistically, I think hit should probably be based on SIZ with a slight adjustment for CON, pretty much the reverse of what RQ2 does. True, although I did.t mention armor. Not really. A medium shield can stop 12 points on every parry. The best weapon can't stop 12 points more than once. And are thus indestrubible. Since you brought up how unrealistic things are in RQ3, I'd like to point out that historically weapons, even bronze ones, tended to hold up better in a fight than shields. In fact bronze weapons probably shouldn't break, but intend bend. In the bronze (and iron) age Straightening swords after a battle was a thing. Now Gloranthan bronze isn't terrestrial bronze, so maybe it's more brittle. Neither am I. But the fact that RQ2 did it for weapons but not for shields, led to wooden shields being tougher than metal weapons. I you really wanted to game the system, just fight with two shields, and never have a broken weapon ever again. No it isn't. Elephants are not master combatants. They are just big and strong. T-Rexes shouldn't automatically hit with their bites just becuase they are 6 ton monster with the STR to match.In fact, now that I think about it, their STR scores are probably unrealistic. Strength changes in proportion to the square of the length where as mass changes with the cube. Because that is the smartest, most efficient way to fight such beasts, not because it can't be done any other way. Look at medieval hunting. Knights wore hunting leathers and fought beasts one on one to prove their manhood and skill. When they just wanted meat, they've use traps and bows. There is no land animal that a single human cannot beat in single combat, it just that bigger animals are far more likely to get a telling blow in than smaller ones. Plate isn't going to do much for you if an elephant steps on you. But that is no reason to give elephants 90%+ fighting skills. Yes evidence that disproves your point. Bulllfighting is a show. If the bullfigher wanted to a needed to kill the bull more quickly they could. But the whole thing is drawn out to entertain the crowd. We pretty much know who is going to come out of the fight alive (the bullfighter) and who isn't (the bull). Yes, accidents happen, and bulls are dangeous animals, but the bullfighter has the upper hand. A bullifght is also a good way to illustrate the differences between RQ2 and RQ3. In RQ2 the bull gets around +20% to it attack from high STR, and the bullfighter's cape is, well, worthless. The bullfighter is probably toast unless he has a phenomenally high defense stat. In RQ3 the bull isn't quite as good in melee,the bullfighter can dodge, and the cape is only next to worthless (okay realistically it's used to confuse the bull by making it think that it is part of the bullfighter, but neither 2 or 3 really cover that. I think we'd have to go to Bloode Tide or some such to get veronica cloak maneuver from fencing). Yes and no. Something can be proven as better, if there is some sort of consensus about what is desired. There are a few rule changes that came out over the years that pretty much everyone agree was a step in the right direction (you don't see any RQ1 holdouts who thought RQ2 was a misstep), but yeah, a lot of it comes down to personal preferences and play styles. Somethings, something that is a big problem with one group of players, never happens with a different group, or even with the same group under a different GM. Could you clarify that a bit? Better that what? RQ3, RQG, Strombrnger? All three? Again, fewer compared to what? I think RQ2 had just as many skills as RQ3, maybe even more, it just that there were fewer skills on the character sheet. Better than what? Better than RQ3? I'd disagree. RQ3 handles high level 1 on 1 fights as good or better than RQ2 Between defense and attack over 100% coming off of parry, RQ2 slows down a bit a high level. Better than RQG? I Agree. I consider RQG to be somewhat buggy. Better than Strombringer? Early editions of SB, with the riposte rule handed high level 1 on 1's marvelously. Perhaps it is the closest in feel to a cinematic duel. Many did, although it is pretty much the same magic system. The differences are the requirement of a POWx5%-ENC casting roll, the removal of some spell limits, and the easing of restictions on some some spells, such as fireblade. Yeah, I didn't like that particular change. I thin it was probably done to offset the easing of limits of some of the variable spells. There was more to it than you mention. First you had to find a spirit with the spell you wanted, at the point value you wanted. Then you had to beat it in spirit combat, which wouldn't be quite as easy as you make out. Plus you run the risk of being possessed by the spirit and possibly dying. The cost being about a month's pay was hardly a pittance. In fact adventueres tended to get more treasurein RQ2 than in RQ3. Then, if everything wen't as you wished, you got the spell, but that probably mean't you didn't have INT left over for much else in the way of spells. Nor much POW left over to cast anything else, either. I'd say that overall Bladesharp 10 wasn't worth it. Was quite possible in RQ2. You just had to roll good, or play a troll. Yup, I'll agree with you 100% on that. RQ3 never handled the cults as well as RQ1-2 did. Just about everything that made the cults so interesting in RQ2 got dropped in favor of getting the most stuff out. We never got RQ# Longform writeups of most cults. But we were free to use Cults of Prax with RQ3. Which Is what I think most of us did. Not really. Remember Glorantha has pantheons with associated cults. So if you were a member of a Lightbringer cult, if Orlanth not not have a spell you wanted, Lhankhor Mhy or Challla Arroy probably did did and you could go get the spell from those cults. The only real difference there was that RQ3 emphasized where those spells were really coming from. Not unless you were Arkat. I think you forgot the various obligations that came with the ranks. Namely that you can only give 90% of your time and resources to one cult. Yes, there were ways to be associated with multiple cults, but that was true in RQ2. Even then, you were limited by the relatioships between the cults. No one was going to be a memeber of Humakt and say, Zorak Zoran, unless they were Arkat. Probably not that good a strategy. Unless they have very limited ammo, they can and will "pin cushion" you. Especially in RQ where impales tend to punch through and impair shield use. It might be a good idea for a round or so, but that's about it. After that you just become target practice. Now if you are taking units of troops on a battlefield, as opposed to a group of adventures, maybe. There are other considerations in large scale battles. For isntance the importance of keeping a unit together as opposed to everyone scattering for cover. Mind you the game rules tend to be unkind for large scale battles. Crticals and Specials become more of a set statistical effect. Missile weapons tend to be much more effective in RQ than in just about any other RPG. Sure, at the expense of mobility. It would probably depend on their SIZ though and the size of their shield. A SIZ 13 man ducking down behind a tower shield, yeah, I might gives him arm+4 hit locations. I figure there will probably be something sticking out. A SIZ 18 man trying the same thing with a buckler, nope. Of course I'd also be using RQ3 missile locations here, and that also makes a big difference in the effectiveness of shields. When arm+2 locations includes RQ missile chest (11-15) and abdomen (7-10)makes a huge difference. Oh, and I'd probably allow for shield walls by adapting the phalanx rules for Agrimori and Sundomers, if people were trying to put together some sort of shield wall. Maybe even a little more for Romans using a tetsudo. Realistically the overlapping shields of that formation worked because the back ranks were covered by the front, which meant they only had to protect their upper bodies. Somebody in rank 5 didn't have to worry all that much about taking an arrow in the leg.

Yeah. I though RQ3 shields were tough enough, although I think the best version I've seen was from Greg Porter's Timelords/Warpworld.?Spacetime RPGs. He gave shields hit locations which allowed for sections to get hacked off. RQ3's armor points did something similar but the hit locations left you with a great visualization of what was happening to your shield during the fight. Come to thick of it, that method might be the way to offset the combined attack & parry skills. Each hit location of a shield in worth +2 (approximately +10%) to block Yeah, it's RQ2 re-branded. Not that that is a bad thing. There are some people who will buy it that wouldn't have bought RQ2. There is a tendency to think of the latest iteration of a game as the best one, and to ignore previous editions in favor the latest, but that latest edtion isn't always better than the previous edition. Most RPGs seem to work out the bugs and stabilize into a final form in the first two or three editions. After that, later version tend to alter things and make more radical changes, which player may or may not view as improvements. SO at that point it becomes more a matter of preferences than necessarily improvements. For those of us who have and are familiar with older editions, there is always the option to go back to a previous edition if we prefer it to the "current" one. Plus we can mix 'n match features from other editions.

Possibly. I'm not a fan of RQG, and am not that familar with the rules. I think that is fallout from combining attack and parry into a single skill. Doing so makes shields much less useful. That's one reason why shields were not of much use in Elric! Exactly. IMO, if you combine attack & parry into one skill then there should be a bonus to having a shield (like say +20% to parry for a medium shield), or maybe something like a "Sword & Shield" skill so that shields make some sense.

Parrying is the ideal goal, but it's harder to pull off. It's why you get a lot of partial parries. Blocking doesn't get you the advantage, but it does keep you from getting your heart stabbed or your head cut off. Yup. although doing so is a bit risky as it tends to leave you open, since while you are batting the opponent with your shield, you're not using it to defend yourself. Now as for shields in RuneQuest, you actually get attack and damage stats for shields in RQ3, not in RQ2. Not really. The only differences are that shields are indestructible (which is silly), and weapons cannot parry missiles. BTW, It's RQ2. There is really nothing that make it "classic" compared to RQ or RQ3. "Classic" is just a rebranding/marketing trick. Like with Coca-Cola. Not at all. In RQ3 shields are better defensively than melee weapons, as shields not only parry but count as cover and passive armor. Plus, as an off hand weapon, they can parry on the same strike rank that you attack with your weapon, something that you otherwise cannot do. Then you're not all that familiar with RQ3. Two Handed Spear & Shield is an option in RQ3 and even goes back to RQ2. The tactic was in RQ3 and even used in some latter BRP supplments for handling ancient soldiers who mostly got by with a helmet,shield, and maybe greaves. And realsticalyl it's not your best option either. Standing there with a bit of wood or wicker in front of you whiel someone shoots at you is never your best option. Wrong in what way? They are game rules.Are you saying they don't simulate reality perfectly, well of course they don't. No RPG rules do. There used to be a comic strip that regularly picked apart the weak spots in various RPGs. Any experienced GM can rip the RPGs they are familiar with to shreds. We know where the weaknesses are. Let's look at some of RQ2's shortcomings: a guy with a CON of 4 can survive having both his arms severed while one with a CON of 18 cannot. The guy with the 4 CON will heal from it faster, too. Weapons are very fragile, two or three parries will trash a weapon Shields are indestructible. Large creatures were combat masters due to thier incredible STR bonuses to melee. Now all of the above are "wrong" from a reality standpoint. t RQ3 was pretty much written to fix some of RQ2's shortcomings. Yes RQ3 had some flaws of it own, but most of RQ3 shortcomings were inherited from RQ2, and that RQ2 has a long more that is "wrong" with it. If you prefer RQ2 (you call it CE), that's fine. Like I said earlier there are a lot of diffient version of BRP and we are all fre to pick and choose which bits we like. If you want to prove that RQ2 is superior in some way or other, you got to back it up with evidence of how RQ2 does something better. The thing is though, RQ2's shield rules are even weaker than RQ3's. Youtube is hardly a source of anything. There are some good sources on youtube, but also some rather poor ones. But just saying "on Youtube" is like saying "somebody told me." Without know who told you, we can't tell how good your source is. As far as what a shield covers it really depends on exactly what particular shield (they weren't standardized), the size of the people using it, and how they use it. It rather difficult to get complete coverage without curling up into a ball behind the shield. The read a bit more. The tetsudo formation is more than just someone ducking down behind thier shield, but instead required multiple soldiers to overlap their shields in a pattern. It was augmented by the soldier weaning armor, too. But it's kinda moot because RQ2 doesn't have any rules for handling that.

They are great in RQ, and tend to be useless in anything other BRP game. RQ3 probably had the best shield rules since it allowed for shields to act as cover, and work as passive armor. I think the difficulty lies in the difference between parrying (deflecting/redirecting an attack) and blocking (sticking something else in the way to take the hit). I think if blocking were easy, and shields stopped a little less, it might work out better.

Yes, but the mechanic they use isn't the same as Pendragon. As you point out they generate an effect number (how much you make your roll by) but Pendragon uses what you roll as the result. So in Pendragon someone with skill 19 who rolls a 1 gets a result of 1 not an effect of 19. And since the actual number rolled in Pendragon only matters to determine who wins and if someone rolled a crtical, it isn't as crunchy as the Charrette-Hume method. I think Tunnels & Trolls was the first system to use opposed "Attack" rolls as the result. Hmm, funny how all this stuff is interconnected. Bob Chareette also wrote RQ3's Land of the Ninja, and Ken St. Andre co-wrote Strombringer, Oh, and you wrote some Hawkmoon and Elric stuff.

Sort of. The winner rolls damage on the loser, but that damage is reduced by armor and possibly shield. Depending on how much damage someone does, and how much armor the opponent has to soak it, it is possible to have a fight where no one gets hurt. For instance, a typical character does 4d6 damage, and a knight in reinforced mail has 12 points of protection, plus another 6 from his shield, if he makes his roll. So on average the knight would take no damage on the rounds that he got a partial success (that is rolled under his skill but was beaten), and a minor (2 point) injury when he failed. A serious injury would probably require a critical success, which does double damage. Yes, if a few ways. The first and most likely is to have a tie. On a tie you get a stalemate for the round. Ties a a bit more common in Pendragon, due to the way it handles crticals and skills over 20. Basically any roll of your modified skill exactly is a critical success, and is treated as a roll of 20. If your modified skills is over 20 then you add the points over 20 to your die roll. So if you have two highly skilled combatants you can get a fight that can last awhile. In fact there is even a special rule to deal with such a long term standoff. Another way to get a stalemate is if both combatant's fail their skill roll. Yet another way is when someone is fighting defensively. Doing so grants then a +10 bonus to their skill, but they do not get to roll damage if they win.

Pendragon is a BRP variant game system created by Greg Stafford back i the 80s. I brought the game up because your wish to mix the resistance table with opposed skill scores is pretty much what Pendragon does. Unlike most other BRP games it uses a D20 instead of D100, and handles most tasks with opposed rolls. For example, in combat both combatants would roll their skill and whoever won the opposed roll would roll damage against the loser. Oh, and if the loser's roll was under his skill then he's score a partial success and get the protection of his shield. There is a bit more to it, such as the critical rules and handling skills over 20, but the core game mechanic seems to be what you are looking for. In fact it is where I got the +5/-5 "reflexive" modifier from. Now if you wanted to use the difference in die rolls for specials and such, it would probably work out easier and faster than D100, too.

Okay. It might be a bit too much number crunching for some folk though. Not everyone likes to or can do that sort of math in their head. BTW, it looks like you are veering fairly close to a Pendragon game mechanic. It might just simply what you are trying to do. I'm not sure how familiar you are with that particular branch of BRP.

I ran into a similar problem. One possible fix was to use the numbers on both die for the points. That way you get a random element of the ones die to competent the skill die (tens die). Or maybe take a page from HArn and just use the ones die, with the tens die only important to determine success or failure. Good luck> I never quite got it to work out. I'd get is about 75% of the way there and then find some bug in the mechanics that would tear the whole thing apart. Skill scores over 100% for instance.

On the resistance table a 5 point difference turns a 50-50% chance into a 75-25%. So one level per 5 points would seem to be the closest to the resistance table. I think that would make POW a non-factor. A sixteen point difference, about the max you'd see in play for normal humans, would only be a +/-40% modifier. In normal BRP such a difference would be an automatic success. Since the modifier isn't reflexive (doesn't apply to both parties) like the resistance table, I'd suggest a simple +10% per point of difference. Or if you make it reflexive then +5%/-5% would keep the feel and effect of the resistance table.

I went down a similar path with a variant that used the difference in rolls (mostly the tens die) to determine success levels rather than fractions of the skill. I gave everything a point cost to buy with the difference. So ripostes, disarms, drive backs, trips, increased damage, etc. could all be chosen if the character had enough of an advantage to pay for it. Multiple specials could also be bought if the character had points left over. I even added a feint maneuver where a player could bank excess advantage points over to the next round so as to save up for a better special effect. The latter was risky though since the points would be lost if the character lost the next opposed roll. The nice thing about using the dice was that I didn't need to track special and crtical chances, and could do everything with one opposed roll.

That might give POW soo much of an edge as to make the skill roll insignificant. Or, a very high skill might make the POW difference insignificant. There was a RPG printed in an article somewhere that did just that. Every skill was 1/5th what it would be in BRP and then handled with an opposed roll. SO if one character had Rapier 15 (75%) and his opponent had Rapier 12 (60%) you'd cross reference 15 vs. 12 on the resistance table to get a 65% chance of success.

LOL!. Rose tinted glasses aside, it funny that much of BRP's flexibility comes from a few bad business decisions, and lack of support. Had the system gotten more support in the late 80s and 90s, it probably wouldn't be as open a freeform as it is today. It might not be as popular! Or maybe it could have overtaken AD&D when the latter faltered. RQ being gone, is what helped to save it. Or foruse the fact that it was an very good and very influential RPG had a lot to do with that.