frogspawner

Though it looks great, I don't actually play CF, but I'd have thought...

A cleric wouldn't have to pray for their spells every day. Just the first time that spell is memorized (or re-memorized, if previously dropped to make room in POW for another). Just casting a spell doesn't mean it is lost from memory. (CF ain't that D&D-like - is it??)

Lesser Bless only lasts rounds, so that wouldn't be any good, as praying for spells takes 1 hour/spell. (This is less of a problem when you use it as above, though). Still, praying to the goddess each dawn sounds like a good idea anyway.

Dunno about casting times.

Biggest challenges for the GM are the glitches. Best give it a good read-through to spot & fix 'em. E.g. the map-scale doesn't match the dimensions given in the text.

So should they be deleted from here as well - and the whole sorry version air-brushed from history...?

NO! Let it stand forever as a Terrible Warning to Future Generations of RQ-ers!

I'm not bothered about this, because I accept that draws happen. But I remember that, back in the day, a mate of mine invented a similar D100 system (yes, independently of RQ afaik) - but along with Criticals and Specials he had "Less than Half". Would that be enough to make the maths fair?

...despite it sounding like a wild guess, I'm thinking 100 Lunars for your average riding ostrich is about right.

But I don't think it's too far off-topic. Off-topic would be "What's the price of a Praxian Riding Ostrich?" (Seriously, I could do with an answer!)

A question: was our "Go Off Topic" skill roll opposed or simple? Because we sound like we rolled a critical success.

All credit to you for our success in this, Rosen. You dig at me, how can I not respond? It'd be rude.

PS: I think the OP now has answers he's happy with, so we're free to 'have fun'.

Well, in a fight your moves have no meaning without the other guy's moves...

I don't feel it that way. It's the sporting ideal that how well you perform, essentially against yourself, matters most - not beating the other guy.

But Frogspawner will still complain, because he does not like opposed rolls and matrices at all. You cannot make everyone happy.

As I said earlier, I am happy with my own version, thanks.

What I like about independent rolls is - when you make a roll, you achieve a definite effect.

What I don't like about opposed rolls is - when you make a roll, it has no meaning without the other guy's roll.

There's no immediacy to that. It's not you doing something - it's the system's mechanics doing it. The feel is wrong.

Just go back to RQ3 AP values (about half the BRP ones)...

Already there, mate. And not actually bothered about Block vs Deflect - it's all Parry to me.

One key difference is that in RQ a successfgul parry still results in a damage roll...

Absolutely key. And it's the whole "Opposed Rolling" ethos that wrecks it. Don't get me started!

Lots of goodness in RQ4:AiG. Ah, what might have been...

Hmmm, this would have two effects: a more realistic separation between Block and Parry, and making Frogspawner very, very happy...

Thanks for thinking of me. Though I am already pretty happy with my own RQ2/3-ish homebrew (yes, using basically RQ3 APs and not the BGB Matrix - so don't have a 'useless shields' problem). Distinguishing Blocks from Parries is more a thing to make you happy, I'd say.

If this rule is in the BGB, I did not see it there. Also, I noticed that RQ:AIG shields have AP ratings amounting to (a little less than) half their AP/HP rating in BRP. I think this rule could be one possible answer to the question: 'What are the shields good at?'

Of course, the real RQ4! Yes, I had forgotten this one. Only the "Slung" part is in BRP/BGB that I can spot. Anyone know better?

But others may have already remembered this (perhaps from RQ2/3, either...?), and still not think shields have enough of an 'edge'. Is that the case?

(BTW, while reading this up I noticed the BGB says a good thing about shields is they are easier to hold onto and can only be lost via fumbles. So then, though, is there a BGB mechanism for losing grip of parry weapons, that I've also missed?)

Question: what does a shield have in terms of advantages over a main gauche or other off-hand weapon?

If you find a suitable answer to this question, you will easily find a way to model the advantage in game terms without too much tinkering.

Well, I think we might have just found an answer.

Actually most shield were just held, not strapped on.

For the ones that are strapped on yes.

There is a difference between small shields, which are used to actively block, and larger shields which protect in part by being movable cover.

Even so, parrying weapons get knocked away more easily than (some) shields. True? And if so, how do we model that?

Daggers don't break that easily. It is more likely that a dagger would be knocked out of someone hand...

Now, that is a realistic advantage shields should have, being strapped-on... right?

Would you perhaps take my word as someone who teaches this sort of combat, that there is no reduction in skill when performing these techniques? They are not only deceptively simple to perform, but also brutally effective.

I would. In fact, I was hoping my comments might elicit such testimony from Those Who Know, such as your good self.

So - do you give us your word that with these techniques it is as easy to hit and parry simultaneously as it is just to hit or parry with other techniques?

No, not unless it blows the "attack on a single SR" and "one attack for the round" ideas out of the water too. The idea behind RQ/BRP combat is that one attack constitutes a series of blows. So what we are seeing, in BRP terms, is the maneuvers that constitute part of an attack.

Realistically, people are fighting throughout the round, not just on the SRs that they make an attack or defense roll.

Certainly. Those ideas don't need 'blowing' - we already know they are just game conventions, not reality. But Mr Nash's diagrams do rather blatantly disprove "No attack and parry on the same SR with a 2h Weapon" - so a more realistic disadvantage to 2hWeapons would be very much better. Axe-elf's idea may be that.

No problem Frogspawner, no offence taken.

I have a mental filter which automatically interprets most of your observations as being somewhat subjective.

Of course they parry. But not necessarily in the same round as attacking, or at full chance. (And I doubt the art shows that much detail).

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/78.jpg

...

http://www.thearma.org/Manuals/Goliath/106.jpg

...And it may also be possible that I'm wrong more than once every 3 years.

To quibble though, we can't see from the pics whether the parries (or attacks) they're doing are at full chance. (Which was the actual thought behind my earlier comment).

But these pics do rather blow the "No attack and parry on the same SR with a 2h Weapon" idea out of the water, eh...?

OK, so now we're considering...

Parries and dodges

In a round you can parry once and dodge once. Only one defensive action can be done against any one attack. If you dodge, you lose your attack that round, and if you have already attacked you cannot dodge. Shields and weapons in off-hand give you an extra free parry [with that off-hand].

Shields and off-hand weapons

Shields and off-hand weapons give an extra parry each round, but no extra attack. You may attack with the shield or off-hand weapon though, after or before parry with weapon in your primary hand. Parrying with off-hand weapons except shields is difficult. Attacking with shields and off-hand weapons is difficult, except for bucklers and parrying daggers.

Double action rating (optional)

Most weapons give the ability to divide skill rating in two (or more) attacks when skill rating is at least 100% (BRP p.198). These weapons are therefore are said to have Double Action Rating (DAR) of 100. Some weapons are faster, such as swords (except great swords) and have DAR of 70. More attacks in fractions of at least 35% can therefore be done with swords. Rapiers are even faster and have DAR of 50. The fractions can also be used for parries. With sword skill rating 75% you could for example parry at 35%, and attack at 40%. For the dodge skill, humanoids and most other creatures have DAR of 60.

Ehm, no. It is your opinion, not "true". And it is not very kind towards Peter, either.

Something can be my opinion and true as well. It happens - more than once every 3 years or so, too.

I know it's a bit of a blow to Pete if play-testing does show this as a better solution than RQ6-type Combat Styles - but I already said "sorry". And the truth ain't even my fault! Glad you are willing to allow it to be tested now, though.

I am generally on the side of supporting promising new ideas (not bashing them in case they hurt sales). Yes, I'm happy to back that horse.

Where on earth do you guys get the idea that samurai dodge and don't parry? Kenjutsu is full of parrying, and it is seen frequently in Japanese art all the way back to the Sengoku (if not earlier).

Yep, nowhere. Of course they parry. But not necessarily in the same round as attacking, or at full chance. (And I doubt the art shows that much detail).

It's just about answering the perennial problem "Why should I have a shield?". Axe-elf's Rule seems to solve it pretty well, too - and more simply than Combat Styles. (Sorry, but it's true).

This is not true: you have written that all parries with an off-hand weapon that is not a shield are Difficult.

No, I think it's fine - because Mr. Samurai will be dodging, not parrying (assuming he actually attacks with his 2hSword-of-whatever-type, and so can't parry with it under the rule). Right?

Re-read my statement.

Yes, I understand the knights didn't regard shield-wielding as cowardly (unlike the Samurai). What I mean is, did the decision to put heraldic devices on shields (as opposed to flags, or whatever) make it easier for knights to avoid the idea of shields being cowardly, by giving them another purpose (identification, supposedly)? And maybe that decision was conscious, perhaps just by a very few individuals at the outset, for that reason...

Probably more due to the fact that Samurai culture thought the use of a shield cowardly, similar to the early European Knightly class view on the Bow.

Interesting. I wonder... might knights' heraldic devices have been put on shields, in part to provide a non-cowardly reason to wield them?

Really? Why did samurai stop using them? They fought hand to hand, and they stopped used shields long before they adopted gunpowder for their militiamen. If shields were so effective, why did the Japanese drop them?

Could be any number of reasons. Maybe just fashion, or bravado. Is there any actual evidence shields are not so useful in hand-to-hand?

Looks quite neat. A bit harsh on two-handed weapons though.