Jump to content

Paid a bod yn dwp

Regulars
  • Posts

    838
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by Paid a bod yn dwp

  1. Jeff has given us this teaser about the GM Pack
  2. Dirk the Dice from The Grognard files podcast, takes Baz & Gaz from What Would the Smart Party Say podcast through the RQG QuickStart scenario, The Broken Tower. Roughly 45mins of edited, pacy & entertaining play. Obviously if you hope to play through the Broken Tower in the future maybe worth holding off on this as there are spoilers. https://smartparty.wordpress.com/2018/07/09/bonus-episode-runequest-actual-play/
  3. We really need @Jason Durall to clarify the last point in this chapter. We know we lose the chance to parry with a shield if we attack with it ( knockback or standard), but we don’t know whether you can still parry and attack with a weapon in the other hand if you attack with a shield? And likewise can you still dodge if you make an attack with a shield?
  4. Yes, but the section on shield attacks in RQG p219, is i think clear on this matter. It is referring to all types of shield attacks, not just the knockback attack. Though I'd still like clarification on whether if you attack with a shield, are you allowed to attack/parry with a weapon in the other hand? And can you still Dodge?
  5. That still remains true according to Jason. You give up a a chance to parry with a shield if you attack with it. Though i’m still not sure if you also give up chance to parry and attack with a weapon held in the other hand by doing this? And Is dodge still possible if you make a shield attack? I would guess that the RQG approach would be the more straightforward route i.e. it’s just the shield parry you give up, but a last clarification from Jason would be appreciated.
  6. @creativehum @deleriad @HreshtIronBorne @simonh @hanataka @Atgxtg @Mugen Here's the definitive answer:
  7. @Jason Durall Pretty sure this is the last clarification dredged up in this thread: If I attack with a shield, can I still parry & attack with a weapon in the other hand, and also dodge?
  8. Though i realise SR is such a big part of the identity of RQ , I'd rather have the simpler StormBringer implementation too. For me it would still have the things I regard as fun in RQ combat...but I can see why it was kept in.
  9. Its the big one ladies and gentlemen. We have the definitive answer! Thanks Jason
  10. Good question. The way I see it in RQG is yes, but its approached from a different angle. You can have All-out Attacks and All-out defense options through: Augments to combat through passions and runes Using magic such as Berserk & fanaticism (is there an equivalent defensive spell?) Alternatively it would be easy to house rule something like +20% to attack or parry if you focus solely on attack or parry, giving up the chance of the other.
  11. Pretty sure Jason has explained that in RQG you don’t have to give up your parry if you make two attacks. Which is why the rule on p224 was mentioned. It talks about number of parries which is irrelevant to RQG as parries and subsequent parries are allowed with any combination of weapons now ( with the exception of a shield attack) .
  12. Yes needs clarification. My feeling based off the wording of Jason’s post, is that if you make an attack with a shield you can still parry with a weapon held in the other hand, and can also still dodge. But I do feel it needs further clarification from Jason
  13. @Jason Durall For clarity in any future FAQ - RQG only says a *knockback* attack with a shield is on SR 12. There’s no mention of standard shield attacks being delayed to SR 12. I presume a standard shield attack uses the shields SR to determine when it strikes? The text does mention that you loose your option to parry if you attack with the shield. (P219 shield attacks), however there is still ambiguity as to whether this refers to just the shield or any other held weapon as well? Your statement above helps clarify this , making it apparent this is just the shield affected - I presume Dodge is still allowed if you make a shield attack?
  14. Thanks Jason. I personally like this level of streamlining. That’s a helpful summary. Just one thing. I’m pretty sure I know the answer, but just as it’s been asked so many times I feel it should be addressed directly: If you make two attacks in a melee round with the *two weapon use* rule can you still make a parry/Dodge as normal?
  15. Everything I've gathered from Jason indicates that a parry with two weapon use, whether making one attack or two, is treated the same as a standard parry with 1 weapon. I think they err on the side of cutting out the fiddly bits
  16. Well going back through Jasons answers he hasn't categorically stated either way on this, however he hasn't said there is a restriction if you make an attack with both weapons. Everything he's stated emphasis's an unrestricted use of parry per attack. Which I take to mean you can still have a parry option f you make two attacks with two weapon use. looking at the parry rules and subsequent parry rules, it feels like they are designed to avoid the kind of doubt that this thread has thrown up ( which is due to the accidental inclusion of RQ2 rule on p224 - Any adventurer using a weapon in each hand may use them for two attacks, two parries, or one attack and one parry.). The new parry rules are more instinctive to use - you can always parry ( no need to think), but subsequent parries carry a cumulative -20% no matter whether you're using one or two weapons. See Jason's third bullet point below:
  17. Yep - I believe it’s a mistaken carry over from RQ2. Good news ( for me at least) is it’s actually a more straightforward implementation. You can attack twice, and parry as normal. I guess you have to designate which weapon you’re parrying with for damage purposes, and % chance
  18. If we're going by official implementation, Jason Durall has confirmed that all subsequent parries regardless of which weapon used suffer the -20% cumulative penalty. Also if you swapped a dodge for the parry in a melee round the cumulative -20% would carry over regardless.
  19. Big thanks to you all, and especially Jeff for bringing RuneQuest back in such style.
  20. If you were to use a form of multiple attack based on the parry rule, then you’d need to get rid of the splitting attacks rule which is the current way it’s done. You could keep the SR limitation. It would slow the game down though as everyone would have 2 or 3 attacks each round.
  21. That’s true, good point - Although if you follow the parry rules through to the letter they don’t use SR limitations, you can parry on any SR. Not sure how comfortable that would be to allow attacks on any SR?
  22. It works nicely with parries, but the same rule applied to attacks would lead to very long combat rounds I imagine. A melee round would last indefinitely as even though the attack chance is reduced to zero you'd still have the base 5% chance of attacking success. Parries are limited by the number of attacks in a round, If you give potentially infinite attacks its all going to spiral out of hand.
  23. Yes its the best edition yet. From what I've read so far the changes that have been made in combat have really helped to focus the rules on the good stuff. Cleaning it up & keeping it a tasty level of crunch. For instance I much prefer the new approach to parry and dodge. Away from combat the character generation takes you right into the heart of the game. Passions and Runes are inspired. I need to plough on in and read the magic chapters now. Congratulation Chaosium, you've cooked up a treat...just need to get my hands on that monstrous bestiary now!
  24. Yes we were talking about this on the other thread. That sentence refers to the old RQ2 rules and should be ignored. It’s the only serious rules mistake I’ve come across, though I haven’t read the whole book yet. It has led to a lot of confusion though - It just needs to state you can make two attacks. Parry is the same as for 1 weapon use. Edit: Once that sentence is removed, i believe a lot of the confusion fades away. There was a lot of back & fore on the other thread which probably didn't help your understanding, as we all voiced opinions and interpretations trying to justify a sentence that shouldn't have been there. Thanks to @Jason Durall for clearing that up for us.
×
×
  • Create New...