Paid a bod yn dwp

5 minutes ago, Kloster said:

RQIII was very clear (Player book p48): "... he may not attack with a weapon with which he parries. Two handed weapons however, can be used to attack once and parry once."

That was removed/corrected  with the errata. 
 

That sentence must have been from an earlier draft of the rules that was left in by mistake. It was corrected in the later errata.  It always sat oddly for me as it wasn’t referenced in any other parts of the text. 

49 minutes ago, Jeff said:

1 hour ago, jajagappa said:

 

My vision of Clearwine in the Sartar Companion was not really thought through - and I did not have access to Greg's old sketches of Clearwine from his game. The version presented in RuneQuest is correct.

Love the conception of Dragon pass places in RQG. It’s everything I always hoped it would be and more. Maps are just brilliant. Thanks 🙏 

7 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Well in previous editions you couldn't attack and parry with the same 1h weapon,

You could attack and parry with the same one handed weapon in RQ2 and RQ3, but parry followed the same rules as attacks, and was subject to the same split attack rule - only one parry allowed unless you had 100% + and split your parry. 
 

Rq3 wasn’t 100% clear but later had an errata that clarified this. 

Guess we’ll be seeing an errata for RQG at some point. 
 

edit: think the boxed set of RQ2 had a supplementary “basic roleplaying” booklet which had the rule that you couldn’t both attack & parry with a one handed weapon, but that was contradicted in the main RQ2 rule book. 

On 1/11/2020 at 12:35 AM, Akhôrahil said:

Anyone you’re in melee with is engaged by you,  by my reading - there is no such thing as in melee but unengaged.

In that case I’d definitely house rule it a bit.

Suggestions so far:

1. Only allow a free attack on the opponents you’re currently targeting in combat.

2. Only allow a maximum of one free attack.

3. Allow multiple free attacks but with a cumulative -20% (same as parry)

4. Consider an SR penalty for each free attack beyond the first.

Maybe some combination of the above?

Personally i’d probably be inclined to go with “only allow a maximum of one free attack”  as it’s a reactive action, but the target is also moving/running away, so only a slim chance to get one free attack in.

14 minutes ago, g33k said:

Basically, the "free attack" is based on the idea of a trained fighter who sees (and reflexively takes) that "free shot" at an unguarded foe.

Yeah that’s in line with the reactive RQG parry concept. Works for me 

43 minutes ago, Akhôrahil said:

This doesn't sound right - it means that if four people run away from you all at once, you get to attack every one of them (and then someone else the same turn on top of that!).

Isn’t It only the ones that you are engaged with? Maybe with split attack you could be engaged with two/three max? But most would only be able to engage with one opponent at a time. 

All the same I might be inclined to house rule that you’re allowed only one free attack, and if engaged with more then one opponent you have to choose which to use the free attack on. 

Just noticed this on the Q&A:

More specifically one of the last points where Jason mentions that a reckless disengagement allows the opponent a free attack ( can’t be parried or dodged) , which happens immediately, and doesn’t effect the characters standard actions that round.  

So potentially you can still use your standard actions ( including attacking) without any SR impediment from the free attack.

Don’t think it’s spelled out that way exactly in the rule book, but I like the interpretation.  Is this how others play it? 

1 minute ago, lordabdul said:

I understood Jason's comment more as "each parry gets the penalty of its respective attack"

Yeah at first I thought that, but rereading his statement I don't think he means that. We'll see what he says. 

34 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

That's why earlier I suggested possible house rules like "your parry is the highest (or lowest if you prefer nerfing it) of the effective (split) percentages"

Pretty sure this is what Jason has said the rules are supposed to be. It solves the issue of having a ludicrously high parry relative to your split attack. Whether you use the higher or lower value of the split attacks as the parry starting point ( still waiting for Jason to confirm his thinking here in the Q&A) , it remains a simply penalty that changes relative to the split attack %.

2 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

I absolutely agree, which is why I don't agree with the "clarification" that it does (for that weapon).

For me it makes sense that it would affect your ability to parry with the same weapon. After all you’re trying to do an awful lot in one round. Sure we already have the culminate parry penalty, but the starting parry shouldn’t be so much higher then the attack chance IMO. 

I’m really happy to see Chaosium fleshing out dragon pass in such a compelling way. That really needed to be done. The maps are superb.

Really looking forward to this. 
 

edit: there’s plenty I’d like to see covered, but Notchet and the Holy Country are right up there...Bit of lunar love would be good too. 

58 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

The penalty is the half chance to hit. There should be no further penalty, and there never has been in any previous iteration of the rules.

 

I guess the penalty would only apply to the weapon when parrying, not the shield 

1 hour ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

 

Yep that’s the gamble. 

I could also imagine other time limited situations where splitting attacks could be the best option. For instance you have to try and take out more then one opponent in melee round to stop someone from escaping, triggering an alarm/calling for help, or just protecting allies 

2 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Sure, but if you miss your attacks (or those are parried), you won't kill your opponents quicker.

Yep that’s the gamble. 

43 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Even in this situation, splitting attacks sounds like a bargain to me, and I'd rather try to kill opponents with one almost guaranteed unparried attack per round rather than hope for two succesfull attacks.

True - but RuneQuest is deadly. Just one successful blow could take you out. It’s a gamble I guess.

Neutralise as many as possible as quickly as possible? Or take them out one by one, prolonging the risk of blow getting through to you?

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

See the example given at the beginning of the thread of a character with skill 185%, splitting his skill into 134 and 51%. It's possible that he hits twice, but the chance that both attacks either fail or are parried is higher than if he just rolled under 95% and applied the -85% to the defender. Even with the increased critical chances, I would personally not do it.

Yes - Perhaps more handy when you’ve got multiple opponents. Try and take 2 of 3 opponent down quickly then deal with the last opponent at full attack advantage 

On 1/3/2020 at 12:39 AM, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

The only question remaining is which starting parry % value should you apply if attacks are split unequally? Do you go with the higher or lower % value? Unless I can think of a good reason not to,  I’d always go with the higher of the % chances. 

I’ve added this as a question In the core rules thread to see what Jason says.

Just thought of a good reason not to go with the higher value % for the parry in a split attack situation. Perhaps (as with mounted combat and the ride skill)  the lesser skill should be the limiting factor? It does make sense and feels in line with the logic of the RQG ruling for mounted combat where the Ride % skill takes precedence if its lower then the weapon skill used to make a mounted attack. 

7 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Oh, my poor aching brain I wish I could say I understand but... even Paid a bod yn dwp has not helped on this one... Alas, the only thing I am understanding is you agree the example is unclear and that you hold allow a player to hold back... Not your fault, but I can not get it. Thanks for trying...

Basically the final modified attack/parry chance is what you base the crit/special % on. 
So if your over 185% skill is brought down to 100% because of the opposed combat rule, then the crits/specials will be based on the modified 100% chance - Not the starting 185%.

edit: never leave a man behind! 

9 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

The example (not the entire rule) given clearly says no, we know that the 150 must become 100 and thus make the 30% default to the mandatory min of 5%. but note that the special and critical remain as if for 150% (30% and 8%.).

The example at the end of that last bullet point in the rulebook is a little confusing, as it doesn't make clear whether the 150% is being opposed or not. There's a tendency (for me at least) to read it as a continuation of the previous bulleted example. But in fairness it doesn't mention that its being opposed, so the example on face value stands correct -  The unmodified 150% skill (not opposed by a parry/dodge) will remain with a special of 30% and crit of 8%. As soon as its opposed by a parry or dodge it will become 100% with the crit/special chances being effected accordingly.

9 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Now I hope Paid a bod yn dwp does not mind the interruption but really, of all the people i have seen take this question he is the only one who can make it sensible to me. What say you sir? @Paid a bod yn dwp I would check out the Q and A section at the Well of Dahlia but the last time I was there (this morning) it gave the dreaded 404 error. Thanks for you time Paid a bod yn dwp! 

Jason Durall has covered this in the core rules questions. See here:

Jason has also expounded on this in another question about Berserk. Interestingly he says he would allow any  left over percentage points over 100% (after reducing opponent to min parry) to be used as a plus or minus to other related actions.

9 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

So rules as written not dropping your opponents parry would be holding back your blow. If I was a GM and you came to me and after all this explanation you told me you wanted to make it harder to hit (holding back ones full skill, or really allowing your opponent their full skill even though o do not have to) I would allow it... but again you are tying a hand behind your back in this fight. I can see no advantage to it unless out of homer you are giving your foe a chance.

 

Yes I would allow that as GM call, though if it was in the context of a a sword trance I would rule that you can't pull blows. Edit: however if the opponent wants to oppose the your attack, with parry/dodge you do RAW have to follow the over 100% combat rule. Your 185% humakti will still be very effective as the opponent will be reduced by 85%

7 minutes ago, galafrone said:

so technically, let's say i DONT want to use the plus to reduce the opponent % (for any reason) can i keep the 185 and calculate crit and special on it ?

 

RAW no - As long as the opponent wishes to oppose the attack you will have to follow the above 100% rule and reduce your chances to 100%, with the resulting crit/special chance. But crucially they also have their chance reduced by whatever % you had over 100%.
 

If they don’t know, don’t wish to, or are unable to oppose the attack then you can have the special/crit chance at 185%

One last point if the example humakti had his natural weapon skill (before magic enhancements) over 100%, he could use the “split attack” rule to make more then one attack. But the magical enhancements would be added afterwards. So sword trance bonus of 100% would be divided equally between those multiple attacks. They wouldn’t each  receive the full sword trance bonus.

But to clarify/reiterate, parrying multiple attacks would receive the full sword trance bonus but with the cumulative minus 20% for additional parries after the first.*

* still some uncertainty on which of the split attack weapon skill values you use to base the parry on (if they are divided unequally) though. Hopefully @Jason Durall will see this and the new corresponding question on the core rules thread. 

11 minutes ago, galafrone said:

How for the percentages of critical and Special ? are they calculated on the base (185) skill both in the lone attack and in the first parry then reduced accordingly after the first parry or… not ?

Raw they’re calculated from the modified chance to hit. So because the 185% is opposed, following the over 100% rule combat rule, the 185% becomes 100%, so  the special/crit chance will be based on 100% ability. Following RAW you would be modifying the special/crit chance for parries as they are reduced by the cumulative  penalty ( but I’d probably forget to do that 😀 ). 
 

If the humakt’s attack of 185% wasn’t opposed by a parry, then the special/crit would be based on the higher 185% chance 

On 12/26/2019 at 5:34 PM, galafrone said:

so i didnt understood Joerg's answer correctly. 

If the 85% surplus applies only to 1 opponent (the example dont give us the chance to split on more than 1 opponent toh), that 85 can  be used ONLY to the parry of the defender (as implied in the rules) or on the parry of the incoming attack from the same opponent or on both ? (by rules isnt really clear at all)

Both, as attack and parry use the same skill in RQG. But remember the Humakti is only able to make one attack, though he can make multiple parries at a cumulative minus 20%.

So this is what will happen to the Humakti with his magic enhanced 185% weapon skill:

Attack - So if you are not splitting attacks ( which can only be done if the unmodified weapon skill before magic enhancements is 100% or over), your Humakti will have one attack of 100% against one opponent, but that broo opponents ability to parry the attack will be reduced by whatever % was over 100. In this case reduced by 85%.

Parry - The same for the Humakti's parry of 185%, which will become 100%, but the excess that was above 100% is used to reduce the Broos attack % chance. The first broo attack will be minus 85%. If the Humakti is parrying more then one attack ( from single or multiple opponents), each subsequent parry will be reduced by a cumulative minus 20%. So the above 100% weapon skill does apply as a reduction to all the opponents he is parrying, but crucially with the minus 20% cumulative penalty for each additional parry made after the first.

On 12/29/2019 at 6:06 PM, lordabdul said:

Interesting find, thanks! I'm not sure how that can work in practice though... say I have 150% in weapon skill, and I'm splitting that 80% (against opponent A) and 70% (against opponent B). Do we need to track this so that I have 80% parry against A and 70% parry against B? (dropping either one by -20% for when they come second) And if a 3rd opponent C attacks, which skill score should I use? I've got no idea what Jason means, there.

Rereading Jason’s reply, I don’t think it’s as complicated as that. We’re not “splitting parries” as characters can already parry multiple attacks from different sources in RQG. We’re just applying a starting penalty to the parry % because the character has stretched themselves in splitting their attacks. 

The only question remaining is which starting parry % value should you apply if attacks are split unequally? Do you go with the higher or lower % value? Unless I can think of a good reason not to,  I’d always go with the higher of the % chances. 

I’ve added this as a question In the core rules thread to see what Jason says.