Paid a bod yn dwp

Its also been clarified by Jason Durall that you now have to use an SR for a parry, and you can't both attack and parry with a single weapon on the same SR. This would lead me to believe that using two weapons, one in each hand, would give you the advantage over single weapon use of being able to both attack and parry on the same SR.

In the QS, the off hand now starts at half the % attack chance. The second attack is now made after the first weapons SR plus the SR of the second weapon. If your character doesn't have over 100% in attack skill ( think splitting attacks), then having 2 weapons gives you an option of having a second attack which wouldn't ordinarily be there. The rules for parry have now changed with the QS and refined in RQG. Unlike RQ2 you can now have multiple parries at cumulative - 20%, without the need for having over 100% to split parries. Thats a big change in the new combat rules. Not sure if there is an advantage with regards to the cumulative penalty with 2 weapons? Do you count the cumulative penalty separately for each weapon? If yes that would give a good parrying advantage. Edit: Jason Durall has indicted that dodge is also effective in the same way as the new parry, and is inter-changeable with parry in a melee round. But the cumulative -20% penalty is counted towards any use or combinations of parry and dodge in a melee round, so I suspect that is the same with 2 weapon parries.

Yes you may be right there, its very specific and calculated, and thats why i was wondering whether its outside the scope of the SR interpretation, particularly as combat (in RQ2) is thought to include the feints and sides steps within the attack action. Perhaps a more reasonable rule would be to allow delayed attacks to occur after a trigger, not simultaneously (unless by accident)? That seems like a fair ruling for a delayed attack, I'm starting to get the feeling that having the complete freedom to choose the exact SR for a delayed attack, without any SR penalty is going a bit too far, adding the DEX SR to the triggers SR is very reasonable. Be interesting to hear the designers thoughts on this?

Yes you have a good point. Although I now feel clearer on the RAW rules, I think your interpretation would be more fun, and fitting having both characters roll. Would it be an over complication to use the the resistance table to gauge both attackers chance of winning an arm wrestle, and get them both to roll on that result as an opposed roll, or are we in danger of disappearing up our own RuneQuest behinds?

Reading through the quick-start again it does indicate that opposed rolls are used specifically for ability rolls. Flicking back to p2 titled "Ability Use", it describes abilities as either a Skill, Rune, or Passion roll. so that excludes characteristic rolls. Further more under the Resistance Table title p6 it states that: " Resistance rolls are not used for skill, Rune, or passion rolls. They are used when pitting one characteristic against another, such as STR against the size of an object to be lifted..." After a reread it is more clearly laid out then i first thought. An arm wrestle contest would still use the Resistance table, as its one characteristic pitted against another.

I meant that other than the example of the "aimed shot", which specifically mentions delaying an attacks SR, there are no other examples in the rules (i have come across) that demonstrate the flexibility to be able to precisely control the timing of a delayed attack. For example - Working on the assumption that a single weapon user can't both parry and attack on the same SR - if my character wishes to tactically delay his/her attack to occur later in the melee round, so that it occurs on the exact same SR as his/her opponent is to attack, with the intention of forcing the opponent to either loose their parry, or loose the attack. So in this example we have have an ability to delay an attack but importantly with restriction. The resurrection being adding the weapons SR to occur after a verbalised trigger. Which does makes sense. So going back to my example, in the new RQG, could a character delay an attack to occur simultaneously on the same SR as his/her opponents attack, or is that outside the scope of the strike rank rules? Is that considered too specific with consideration to the idea of the abstract nature of strike ranks being: "Strike ranks determine which attacks are resolved first in the melee round, and do not represent each second of that melee round" From RQ Quick-Start rules. So @Jason Durall to clarify my original question, In RQG If a character can delay an attack: 1. Can it occur simultaneously (allowing for the fact the player knows what SR the opponent is attacking on), or must it occur after a trigger? 2. Can he/she choose which specfic SR to delay the attack to, or is there some kind of SR penalty for delaying an attack? 3.If a combatant looses their attack through using parry on the same SR that their attack was due, can he/she still perform the attack at a later SR, or is the attack lost for that melee round?

Yes, that covers delaying an attack to make an aimed blow. The first example is closest to what I was thinking, it gives the idea that you could delay and choose which SR to attack on. Question is, is that applicable outside the context of a aimed shot?

The arm wrestle example seems like the perfect example of an opposed roll to me ( two active opposing forces both rolling dice). What say you @Jeff?

Thanks for the insight Jeff

That's what I'm beginning to wonder. Imaging newbies coming to the game being confused with the multiple methods of resolving different rolls. Still I'm sure this must have come up in the play tests.

Having thought about this, even as a bit of a Grognard, I question whether we still need the resistance table along with the new opposed rolls? I'm guessing there must be a good reason to be using both?

Wonder if @Jason Durall could confirm whether that is the design intent, to allow characters to delay their attack to occur on a later SR of their choosing in the melee round? Or does the abstract nature of SR's not allow for this?

I don't think I've ever explicitly seen that written in past rules? Though I presumed it. I was wondering as balance of SR seems quite fine. Particularly when an aimed shot in the QS requires the attacker to wait until SR 12 to perform.

@Jason DurallWasn't it the case in RQ2/3 that we used the resistance table for an arm wrestle contest? So are opposed rolls now preferred in RQG when there are 2 competing active forces, leaving the the resistance table to deal with active vs passive?

Nicely fitted in So having an arm wrestle ( like you do) would be two active opposing forces requiring an opposed roll instead of resistance table?

Thanks Jason, that's clear now

Curious about the deciding factor in choosing between a characteristic roll or the resistance table. Reading through the Quick- Start example for Strenght check (STRx5) it says "intense muscular efforts like bashing a door open or carrying someone, etc" p3 likewise when reading about the resistance table, it gives the example of "They are used when pitting one characteristic against another, such as STR against the SIZ of an object to be lifted..." P6 So from those 2 examples it could be inferred that carrying a person of a certain size could be applicable to both methods. Is this ambiguity intended (GM call), or have I missed something?

@Jason Durall Can characters/NPC's delay an action in melee to occur on a later strike rank of their choosing?

Makes sense not to overload new players with large amounts of spells straight away. I think also for new or inexperienced Gm's, having large amounts of spells to keep track of can be quite daunting with regards to NPC's. Its important to ease new players and Gm's into the game first. Hopefully we'll see a number of introductory adventures launched soon after the core rules to ease new players into the game system. I think once new players and Gm's become more familiar with the RuneQuest spells and how they work, it soon becomes less of an issue.

Unlike attacks, parry no longer follows the previous rule of needing over 100% for multiple parries. You can parry as many attacks as you can fit into strike ranks, but at a cumulative -20% penalty for every parry after the first. The same goes for Dodge. Bearing in mind you can't attack and parry with a single weapon/shield on the same SR. Please note - I'm referring to the current iteration of the unreleased RQG rules that Jason Durall has talked about here: There are some small differences with the QuickStart rules.

So thinking about the refinements to RGQ over the Quack-start rules, this is what jumps out at me: Toughness of parry weapon/attack weapon is now a factor (unless a critical is rolled) - I like this, it makes sense to have only damage effective above the AP of the weapon/shield . But there is also still the devastating critical which bypasses the AP altogether and is applied directly to the Weapon/shield AP points. Dodge is brought in line with parry. More flexible, effective against multiple opponents ( not just single opponent), and like parry suffers -20% cumulative penalty on every dodge after the first. - Nice that dodge and parry are more flexible defensive options now, and interchangeable. Critical Damage has been simplified to being a special that ignores armour - Streamlined simple change *why didn't i think of that?*. less for newbies to have to remember, but still significant damage. You can only perform one action with a single weapon on a single Strike Rank - So no parry and attack on on the same SR with a single weapon. Makes a second weapon/shield tactically significant as you can still parry on the same strike rank with the second weapon/shield. @Jason Durall With strike ranks is it possible to delay a melee attack for tactical advantage? For instance delaying an attack to occur on an opponents SR so that they have to make a choice between using their parry or attack?

Regrading Dodge - @Jason Durallhas confirmed that it is under the same ruling as parry, in that any subsequent dodges/and/or parries in a single melee round suffer -20% cumulative penalties, whether against attacks from a single opponent, or attacks from multiple sources. As a result dodge is now effective against attacks from multiple sources not just a single source as in the Quick start rules

Yes I see the logic now- Thanks for explaining. Its really interesting to read the reasons for design choices. So much work is obviously going on behind the scenes with the play testing, its impressive. The most difficult aspect for me now will be waiting for the release of the core rules. Looking through the QS i'm amazed that you packed so much into relatively few pages, its a great primer.

Yes, I like the balance you are striking. Although with some differences in QS rules to the latest iteration, this is how the level of crunchiness came across in our FreeRPG game - Comparable to a nicely brewed cup of tea, but with potential for limb loss Yes this whole explanation makes sense to me. I'm glad the rules aren't being pushed into too much complication. For me the crunchiness as presented is striking the right balance

@Jason Durall this is shaping up rather well. Really like how parry and dodge has been opened up in play. Makes sense that they both follow those rulings - it stops it getting unnecessarily complicated - half makes me wonder whether extra/cumulative attacks could be handled in the same way? But im sure there would be implications to that which i haven't thought of. i also infer from your answer that dodge is now opened up to attacks from any source not just one source. I like this a lot. Thanks again!