creativehum

1 hour ago, styopa said:

I think people are finding this intuitively hard to cope with particularly when the weapon list bothers to call out a "parrying" dagger and give it extra AP.*  (shrug) it's a simplification like removing the separate parry skill.

For me this isn't it at all. I came across a passage in the rules (a passage that has been quoted repeatedly above) that told me two weapons would let me parry with both weapons -- but doing so would be at the cost of my attacks. So clearly there would be some advantage to parrying with both weapons. But there isn't. And that's weird. And I think that's the core issues.

1 minute ago, Scott A said:

Assuming that you parry in the order presented, it'd be (100 - 11)%, (100 - 20 - 23)%, and (100 - 40 - 9)%

I'd say that you only care about the final parrying value, which would be 95% and thus wouldn't trigger the over 100% rules.

Agreed.

I'm not sure what Jason would say. But that's how I'd rule.

My instinct is always to go for the interpretation that is easiest and moves things along. It helps to remove any worrying.

Actually, I have one more follow up question. Which might have been already answered. Or might be errata already dealt with. But some of this text is like a blob of mercury... every time I think I'm about to nail it down, it moves again, and I lose track of whatever clarifying rulings had been made before.

On page 197 we find this sentence:

"An adventurer may attack and parry with the same weapon in the same melee round."

Is this true?

Is it true when fighting with one weapon, but not with two?

Or must a weapon be used to either attack or parry in a given round?

I am so glad the confusion on this point isn't just me!

Once again I cross-posted with someone else and came in second. But, again, Paid is going after the same question I am.

Also, I was going to make a separate post about this:

3 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

on P200 Subsequent parries it clearly contradicts this

"If the chance is reduced to 0% or below, the chance of success becomes the default 5% minimum chance of success."

I'm assuming the text in the book is correct? But maybe not!

28 minutes ago, Jason Durall said:

I think I see the confusion, and it's bad wording on the rule's part. 

• You can parry as often as you are able to in a round, assuming you have a positive modified skill value. If your modified skill goes to or below 0%, you can't parry any more.
• You can only attempt to parry a single attack once. You can't try to parry an attack with one weapon, fail, then try to parry the same attack again with your second weapon. 
• The "one parry per round" should be per attack. You can parry multiple times in a round whether using 1H weapon and shield, 1H weapon and 1H weapon, or 1H or 2H weapon, hence the modifiers. 

 

Jason, great. Thanks so much.

Final, bonus round (for me, at least):

Why would anyone armed with two weapons choose to parry with both weapons?

I asked this question above, and you replied with a list of reasons that explain why someone would make sure to have more than one weapon or be trained to fight with more than one hand.

But the answer does not explain why one would ever give up an attack for a second parry since:

• One can only parry any attack once
• Each parry will incur a -20% mod

As far as I can tell, the mechanical effect in the game of a 1H-weapon-and-1H-weapon combatant parrying with one weapon (parry all attacks, accumulate -20% mods) is identical to parrying with only one weapon. 

In one case is he alternating weapons to parry at a -20% mod for each parry, and in the second he is only using one weapon at a -20% mod for each parry. In the first case is losing the chance to use his second weapon to attack, and in the second he gets to attack and is using his second weapon to parry. 

Leaving aside the difference skill %s that each hand might have, given the above is there any reason ever to commit both weapons to parrying rather than have one attack and one parry?

Thanks for the replies.

For me, at least, we are so close to me understanding what the rules are supposed to do.

A couple of more questions, based off this passage of your reply:

39 minutes ago, Jason Durall said:

2. You can parry an attack only once, using one weapon. If you like, you can describe it as doing some funky X crossing your swords in a scissors or whatever, but basically it's one weapon parrying and one supporting the other. 

If I understand the words above correctly:

• When welding two weapons a weapon can be used to parry only once in a given round. Is this correct? This would be in contrast to parrying with a shield, which can be used for multiple parry attempts per round? Is this correct?
• Out of curiosity, does the same limit of one-parry-per-round-per-weapon apply even if one is using a weapon and shield? That is, universally a weapon can only parry once in a given round, but a shield can be used multiple times? (I didn't think this was true... but I don't understand why one would be able to parry multiple times with a sword if holding a sword and shield, but only once with the sword if holding two swords.)
• The reason one might parry with each weapon when armed with two weapons is that you might want to parry more than once. You can only parry twice in a given round if wielding two weapons, but if you need a second parry, you use the other weapon for the second (and final) parry for the round, and no attacks. Is this correct?

Thanks!

I cross-posted with deleriad, but this portion below goes after the part I am asking about. 

14 minutes ago, deleriad said:

That would be strange because, for example, using just a shortsword I can attack and parry with it as frequently as I wish but if I use a 2-weapon style I can't. 

Can someone parry each incoming attack with a sword if holding only that one sword, but parry only once with a given sword if wielding a sword in each hand?

4 hours ago, Furry Fella said:

I will simply revert to RQ2 with a few mods to incorporate simpler versions of those changes I do find relevant.

Hi Furry, 

A couple of questions for you:

Can you talk to me which RQ2 rules you would be reverting to? (Combat? Magic? ...?) And which rules rules you'd be taking from HQG?

7 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

I haven't come across anything specific in the text of RQG to say that with two weapon fighting you can't parry the same attack twice, and I've not seen that said in RQ2 either. For me it makes much more sense of the RQG ruling, and why you should give up your attack if you decide to parry twice using both weapons.

This is becoming a problem with the text for me... I'm spending time trying to read between the lines to justify the text. It is becoming too much work. The "two parries against the same attack" is the only reason I could think of for using two parries as a statement of intent. (Jason's reply to my question upthread lists great answers for why one would make sure to carry more than one weapon... not answer the question one would would give up an attack to parry twice if one is armed with two weapons.) 

39 minutes ago, soltakss said:

My gut reaction is that the Sword is its own weapon and uses a Sword Action, not the Shield Action, so should not suffer a penalty, so the first Sword parry should be at 70%.

11 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I agree, that's how I'll be ruling it.

I'm with you two.

Out of curiosity, how would you handle someone wielding two swords and parrying with both in a given round?

Both are Sword Action, and yet one is Off-Hand, which to my thinking still makes it something different and thus each should have their full value for each sword's parry.

10 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

If you have 2 weapons the penalty is separate for rach weapon.  So parry with shield at full then parry with sword at full then parry with shield at -20% then parry with sword at -20%.

Thats how they will clarify the RAW when they get around to editing all the cut and paste errors.

@Jason Durall just said posted literally the opposite of this in this thread seven hours ago.

(I mean, as far as I can tell.)

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

I still don't know how the subsequent parries rule is supposed to work with the rule on pg 224-225 that says you can only attack and parry once, parry twice or attack twice with two weapons, which was the subject of this thread.

-Can I attack once with each weapon if I don't parry at all ?

-Can I attack at all if I parry with both weapons ?

Or should we just ignore this rule and consider a character has 1 attack per turn and unlimited parries, no matter what weapons he has in hands ?

I'm confused by your confusion, as far as I understand the question.

The rule says, "Any adventurer using a weapon in each hand may use them for two attacks, two parries, or one attack and one parry."

So, as to your questions:

Quote

- Can I attack once with each weapon if I don't parry at all ?

Well, yes, right? "Any adventurer using a weapon in each hand may use them for two attacks, two parries, or one attack and one parry." Isn't that what that sentence says? Two attacks, or two parries, or one attack and one parry. You choose among those three options.

And...

Quote

- Can I attack at all if I parry with both weapons ?

Well, no, right? "Any adventurer using a weapon in each hand may use them for two attacks, two parries, or one attack and one parry." Isn't that what that sentence says? If you choose to parry with both weapons you don't get to attack.

Now, is your confusion that you might only get two parries total, and not be able to use the same weapon for multiple parries at the -20% mod?

Because at this point I can safely say, "Who knows?"

I would normally assume that of course if you are parrying you can use the parrying weapon (or both weapons, if you are parrying with both) multiple times at a cumulative -20% mod. But it does say "one parry"-- and I've hit a point of realizing that despite my best efforts to comprehend the text I honestly am not sure that what the author intended and what I'm understand the text to mean are the same thing. The phrasing states clearly that if you are fighting with two weapons you can either make one parry or two parries, which isn't how the parry rules work elsewhere. (Because the rules state elsewhere you can parry any incoming attack at a cumulative -20% mod per parry). So I don't know... and I kind of toss up my hands at this point.

18 minutes ago, Scott A said:

Ok, I'm going to be incredibly fussy here and ask for clarification: it's a -20% cumulative malus per subsequent parry, applied to any subsequent parry? Period, no exceptions?

So if a character parries a first attack with a shield in one hand, a second attack with a sword in the other, and a third with the shield again, the modifiers would be -0%, -20%, -40% respectively?

I'm surprised by this as well... but it does seem to be what Jason is saying. But I'll be curious about any further clarification.

I can only assume that if one is parrying with two weapons, one can make two parries against the same attack -- the first at -0% mod, the second at -20% mod?

If not I can't figure out why anyone would ever parry with two weapons.

I posted a question. Then figured out the answer. 

Hadn't had my coffee yet.

It's the internet. Going off-track is what we do!

25 minutes ago, Der Rote Baron said:

I am sold on the first video: Swords, axes and knives are more deadly than a staff and while I am in no position to belittle any skilled and experienced quaterstaff fighter the third sparring oversells the quaterstaff with its hitting capacity. Winning is not about hitting but about wounding, disabling and killing the enemy: One hit to the head might give you a headache, a bleeding wound, a fracture and yes - without a helmet - might kill you or knock you out but the smae hit with an instrument of steel is far miore likely to off you or do some serious damage.

Quaterstaff Man: "Haha! I hit you six times already, Sir Knight! I have won!"

Sir Knight: "Ouch ... yeah. But wait ... Here - how about (SLASH!) this ONE hit? What say you, stupid peasant?"

Quaterstaff Man: "You .... wi...." (grrrch)

It is hard to simulate this in sparring. But there must have been a reason at at some point of history people said:

"Gee whizz, General C. Aveman. Blunt and even pointed sticks just don't cut it anymore. Actually, THEY NEVER DID. Let's have us some of these here new-fangled shiny swords and knives. Lookee here: They are really nice and shiny ... (and kill a man!)"

Well, it isn't about always killing someone with a single blow. In my martial arts training I was taught that getting solid blows in that slow or delay your opponent will mean you can get your next blow in before your opponent can respond. You rattle your opponent a couple of more times and he's down on the ground. 

One crack to the head with a swiftly moving piece of would might not kill your opponent, but it will knock your opponent's noggin around. And that matters. If the staff is faster and can cause the opponent to hesitate and/or need to recover -- even for an instant or a second or two -- it can add up to a defeat for him.

Moreover the third video recounts the number of murders committed by staffs vs. swords according to historical records, with staffs killing a lot more people than swords.

Now you are correct: a sword will do more damage than a staff. And I suspect that the skill required to do that damage is less for a sword than for a quarterstaff -- which is probably what made them more common over the long run. But the HQG rules reflect this: swords do more damage than quarterstaffs. The question from this thread is, which has the lower SR. Given the reading and watching I've done over the last couple of days I'm content to say quarterstaff.

(full disclosure, since we're beginning to pull out our martial arts training now. My class wasn't for weapons. It was hand-to-hand... a kind of mix of boxing and krav maga. It wasn't a sport. It was taught by a an ex-Navy SEAL instructor. We were being taught to drive someone into the ground if a situation came to that. I'm making this clear to be upfront that a) I wasn't using a quarterstaff and never have used one; and b) I was being taught by a guy who taught people how to kill people.)

Huh. I can honestly say (as someone still working his way through the rules) the thought of having different %s for attacks and defenses for each weapon is the last thing I'd be looking for. 

After all, we could post videos and quote wise books for endless years and never sort out which weapons are better at one or the other and what those percentages should be.

As far as I can tell the base % reflects how well a person is in using that weapon -- boom, that's it, period. It's how could he'll be using it offensively and defensively and we move on. There are already (as far as I can tell) dozens of fascinating combat and tactical options built into the game, as well as lots of options for character builds and building. 

I understand that other people want even more, and then more, refinement. As g33k says, those games exist right now, and people could even mod RQG to such ends. But it wouldn't be my cup of tea. Fights will clearly be tense and exiting, built with influence from Runes, Passions, and even the seasonal and weekly calendar. I'm content with there being enough going on to keep everyone engaged and busy.

I wanted to add my own correction to the text after thinking it through:

Currently on the STRIKE RANKS MODIFIER TABLE on p. 193 we find this:

Quote

STRIKE RANK MODIFIERS
Readiness SR
Prepared spell or weapon... SR 0
Prepare a new weapon, reload a missile weapon, spell, or ready a missile (arrow, sling stone, crossbow bolt, etc.). SR +5

It should probably read:

Quote

STRIKE RANK MODIFIERS
Readiness.... SR
Prepared spell of 1MP or weapon... SR 0
Prepare a new weapon, reload a missile weapon, spell of 1MP, or ready a missile (arrow, sling stone, crossbow bolt, etc.). SR +5

And then as Furry Fella noted above: 

Quote

Magic Points
Each magic point used... +1 SR

Should read

Quote

Each additional magic point used in a spell after the 1st... +1 SR

12 hours ago, Furry Fella said:

One of the best concepts I've ever come across was in Bushido (from FGU) where they referred to distractions and restrictions.

I just dug up my Bushido rules and read this passage. (I haven't played in ages.)

For anyone who is curious:

Quote

1117.3 SITUATION MODIFIERS

There are three principal categories of Situation Modifiers. They are:

Distractions

These are things which impinge on the senses of the attacker in such a way as to impair his ability to engage in combat. Distractions may be ignored or limited by successful application of willpower. A character may ignore a number of Distractions equal to his Effect Number on a Will Saving Throw. Such a Saving Throw need only be made once per Detailed Turn. 

Distractions include each friendly character within range of the attacker's weapon, something impeding free use of a limb, other things described as placing the character in Engaged status, other things described as Distractions by the rules, and, of course, anything so declared by the Gamesmaster.

Restrictions

These are hindrances to combat due to the environment around the attacker. They may not be ignored. Restrictions consist of solid objects such as trees, walls, ceilings, etc. which are within Range of his weapons. The value depends on the number of such hindrances within Range.

Circumstances

These are all the factors involved in the situation, other than those mentioned above, that would affect the combat. The accompanying table lists some. The Gamesmaster should feel free to codify others that he feels should be present. Those listed will act as a guide to the values.

Furry Fella, a couple of questions:

When playing RQ do you have the PCs make rolls to shrug off Distractions?

When playing RQ do you have list of Restrictions and Circumstances that the Players are familiar with they can use to their advantage (or try to avoid!)? What sorts of penalties do you apply? For example, in the example you provided above what would be the penalty for fighting someone who had the sun at their back?

I'm asking this because making combat not static is a goal of mine in any RPG I play and looking for clues!

4 minutes ago, David Scott said:

We had to stop using black and red traveller style dice as our colourblind members found them very hard to read. 

I am sorry to hear this!

1 hour ago, simonh said:

I think multiple spells in a round is just if you are not engaged in melee. If you are, the restriction applies.

As a side note, and as someone new to RQ, I like this. It means that a character focusing on casting spells wants to make sure not to be engaged in combat during a round as he might be able to get off additional spells. This provides more motivation to keep moving during the round, more use of the physical space of the combat, and will force decisions on whether to remain engaged or use one of the options to disengage if an opponent reaches him.

Also, I think I've figured out what the first MP of a spell doesn't count toward SR. Or at least why the rules say such. (Since Rune magic doesn't really exist we can argue to till the sun burns out about how it should "really" work.)

Both bows and arrows must be prepared. Preparing a spell or weapon ("Prepare a new weapon, reload a missile weapon, spell, or ready a missile (arrow, sling stone, crossbow bolt, etc.") is +5 to the SR. Meanwhile, using a prepared spell or weapon is +0 to the SR.

If the first MP of a spell adds +1 to the SR, this means that casting any prepared spell will always be cast at one SR after an arrow is released or a weapon swung (all other SR factors being equal). Which seems odd (at least to me) given that the the spell is prepared (just as the arrow or weapon is prepared) and ready for release. Mechanically, it puts spells at an odd disadvantage. 

And if one wants to enter the game of how magic "really" works, it seems to be a prepared spell should not suffer any particular disadvantage when competing with an arrow's flight or a sword swing. After all, the magic happens... well, magically. It doesn't need to traverse a certain amount of space like an arrow's flight or sword swing. Once cast, one can assume many spells are instantaneous, leaving aside the concerns of time and space. 

More powerful spells, in turn, need more effort to control and shape, and so the additional SR.

But game-wise, if one is willing to cast a lower-powered spell in order to get the spell off at the same rate as a prepared arrow shot it seems this provides interesting choices for he spell caster. There is a value (in my mind) for these sorts of choices for the players.

1 hour ago, soltakss said:

So, why should I buy these rather than a plain d20?

For the same reason I like using black d6 with red pips when playing Classic Traveller.* The Q-Workshop dice will make the table more Rune-y. That might not be reason enough for some people to buy them, but will be for others.

Now, there my be more functionality built into them to be revealed later. But for now, that seems to be the reason.

_______________

* Or why some people buy a BMW over a Honda Civic, and so on. Sometimes a choice of purchase is not based on practical utility but on aesthetics or the pleasure given by design rather than function alone.

1 hour ago, Ian_W said:

Note that's holding it more or less like it's a two handed sword ...

For a full swing, sometimes yes. And yet in the videos below you'll see that it is seldom held like that. The grip between the hands seems to be wider than that found when using a 2H sword. This allows more power to be put into each blow.

But the quarterstaff seems to be more flexible in terms of its maneuvers. See this video from 00:55 to 2:30, where the staff is handled in a manner not at all like as sword:

And here is a very earnest video responding to the video series above, which makes the case that quarterstaffs are very deadly and have a very solid reach:

And here is a video where the wielder of a quarterstaff uses it more to swing as his opponent. But notice how the sword is often at a disadvantage in terms of length.

Finally note that one of these video is a very earnest reply to one of the others. I'm going to guess there's a lot of disagreement in the field of weapon use (like all martial arts, like RPGs, like everything). Again, I'm not stepping into that fray, so no one should be bothering to argue with me about this stuff. I'm simply passing on videos of people who seem to care about this stuff and at least have the surface gloss of knowing what the heck they are talking about.

You made me curious, so over lunch I looked up some YouTube videos on Quarterstaffs vs. Swords.

It seems as if the staff is often used by holding the back quarter, keeping the reach (which allow more force to be delivered on a swing) or to thrust (to trip, to hit the head). In either case the quarter staff retains a lot of reach and can be shifted to different targets more quickly than a sword.

I'm no expert, and have no interest in defending either staff or sword in this matter... but from what I saw I can certain understand why a quarterstaff might have a quicker SR.

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

It's okay. I suspect that, as far as RQG goes, we're natural enemies. I'm curious, over inquisitive, and can be something of a catalyst, and your a big RQG fan (I think, but just my assumption) and defending it. So we're bound to butt heads a bit. 

Ha ha ha... For you to say that you would have had to ignore the first part of my post. Listen, you're not making much sense to me, so I'll pass on engaging from now on. It seems the easiest way. (As I am apparently not curious, inquisitive, and some sort of lump that produces no energy, I'm sure there will be no loss for you on this.)