Kloster

Nice twist. I take.

Not a big problem for a broo shaman.

I was especially thinking to the broadsword, the most used weapon, by characters and NPCs. Knockback. We used it, sometimes with very efficient results. If the terrain configuration does not matter, we didn't bother, but if you have a complicated terrain (cliffs, stairs, chairs and tables to gain height, ...), the knockback rules are very important. As we tried to think tactically, we very often tried to use the environment to our advantages, and all the options were on the table.

Yes, the wooden one.

1 - I am right handed, but held my bow with my left hand. If Nathem is like me, as he held his bow with his right hand, he is left handed. 2 - For a left handed man that helds his bow horizontally, it seems correct. The way he pulls the arrow with his left hand feels wrong to me, thus.

Pure RQ3 rules. Single attack and Parry per round (except for splitting). The combat maneuvers I am speaking of are: Attacking your opponent weapon (to destroy it and force your opponent to use another weapon you hope less dangerous), Attacking your opponent's shield, because in case of a critical, only the value of the parry counts (and it is very rare to carry several shields, meaning you end to parry with your attacking weapon), close in maneuvers with a shorter weapon, striking to disarm. In addition, some tactics were used to have several characters on 1 opponent (very efficient with a single parry). Don't forget that if you attack your opponent's shield (or any parrying weapon) and he parries the attack, the parry is automatically successful and the AP of the defending weapon are reduced by the amount of damage above it's AP, and not by 1. A 10 AP weapon or shield can be rendered useless in 3 shots. Yes. Agreed. No, it is faster with RQ3, because with 150%, you have 30% special and are likely to end the fight in less than 2 rounds. I agree, it depends on the armor worn. In addition, RQG combat rule block the special at 20% and the critical at 5%. My last character was below 150%, but I most of the time destroyed my opponents weapons or shields in less than 3 rounds each. By the way, those tactics and maneuvers were giving a high value to dodge skill and to your skill with your backup weapon(s).

In RQ2, Rune lords whose attack skill were above 100% substracted their 'above 100%' from the defender's parry. This rules was dubbed 'anti-parry', and was, it seems, the basis for the new opposed rules in RQG. In RQG, it is not supposed to be a guideline. AS far as I understand, it was designed to avoid the long attack-parry ping pongs. AS we were much using all the combat options in maneuvers that RQ3 provided, we never had the problem, and thus scrapped the idea entirely. On this, you are right.

This is another problem caused by the 'over 100% reduction' that appeared in RQG (I know there was an 'anti-parry' rule for rune lords in RQ2). Just remove it, and you have in most of the case successful attack on successful parry.

Yes, it is called death: Permanent immunity to any poisons. More seriously, as Jajagappa said, Humakt's gift. His idea of gaining CON just for resisting specific disease or poison is good.

Agreed. This is probably why french military stopped using them several centuries ago. Agreed. Also agreed. Bows are a stapple of RQ combat since RQ2 because of this.

Fun. My character's backup weapon is usually a shortswor, not a great sword, but I can understand (the reason and the look of the guy tha destroy the shield).

Don't be sorry. He gaves us a great explanation and this is what matters.

This method is very efficient (either as a fighting technique and to avoid the attack/parry ping pong), and I agree on the anathema.

You target a shield or a weapon to damage it. Once destroyed, it is useless, and your opponent has to use less efficient weapons, and/or ones he is less proficient with.

Yes, correct, much lighter. On this, we agree. This, I don't know. My only experienc (much limited) of real combat is with 80 mm mortars and assault rifle. My mistake. Thanks. Right, and as RPG are games, the fun is important. Completely agree here. But this is what I described as the problem of period generals and current historians (I should have added wargamers), not of standard RPGers, that are much more concerned by the individual efficiency than by massed fire.

What I did for my RQG play is .. use RQ3 combat rules. What I kept from RQG is the runes and passion inspiration, and the various specials. For the rest, I have almost RAW RQG. In the same vein, you can, starting from RQ3, import Runes, Passions and specials. I stay clear of the multiple parry because it is too much a game changer (gives a big advantage to defense vs offense). Additionally, I think combat vs multiple opponents should be deadly, except if you are way above your opponents.

A self bow is 1D6+1 (max 7, average 4.5, max impale 14, average impale 9), a long bow and a composite bow is 1D8+1 (max 9, average 5.5, max impale 18, average impale 11). A bronze (don't forget armor value in RQ3 are for bronze) is 8 AP, 9 with padding. An iron plate is 12 AP, 13 with padding. That means a self bow can not pierce a bronze (or worse, iron) plate without impaling. That means that a self bow that impales has 'only' 42 % of piercing a bronze plate + padding and 0% of piercing an iron plate with padding. That means that a composite bow that does not impale can not damage a target protected by a bronze plate with padding. That means that a composite bow that impales has 44 % of piercing a bronze plate + padding and 9 % of piercing an iron plate with padding. It seems to me that those number are not far from what you want: Having someone protected by steel plate immune or almost from arrows, because he will be wounded only by9% of impales. Of course, we don't speak of criticals, because they ignore armor.

For me, as I have explained, all spells that affect somebody or an item he helds or carry requires the POW vs POW roll. Let's use Joerg's 'aura's' explanation for the rationale, but for me, it is more a matter of avoiding exceptions in the rules: All of my players are not bright scientists and some (in fact, only one) had problems remembering that a spirit spell needs a POW*5 roll to be cast.

Standard recurve fiberglass training bow and steel tipped fiberglass arrows, 18 meters range, 40 cm targets (straw or plywood). I don't remember the exact pull, but it was around 20 pounds.

IIRC, if you cast a spell on someone, whether himself or his equipment, you have to do a POW vs POW roll. RQG p244: "A target always resists a spell unless that target voluntarily and knowingly accepts the spell.". At least, we always played it that way, but perhaps we were wrong it was just a house rule. P.S. Note, it does not matter if this is a house rule or not because Dullblade also affect the target, by removing 5% to his weapon skill by level of the spell, so the POW vs POW roll is mandatory.

Does a tall Agimori counts (when tossing ducks) for Yelmic wrath? I'm asking because we had one in our last RQ3 campaign.

I both agree and disagree. I for sure agree that penetration on wood is better than on steel plate. The few time I practiced archery on wooden targets, it was less than 10 mm (see, I've remembered) plywood, and the arrow never went deeper than 100 mm through the target. The only experience I have with shield is roman reenactment. The scutum is 6 mm thick pine wood, and is carried around 150 to 200 mm away from the body. That means an arrow that penetrates 100 mm will not touch the soldier behind, even without armor. What I said is that if (and that is a big if, I agree with you) an arrow pierce the plate, even by 10 mm, there will be a wound, and not with a shield. On this we agree. Agreed, but here, we are in the domain of period generals and current historians, not of standard roleplayers. I'm perfectly happy with crunchy, but simple rules, where a plate armor or a shield protects you from a single arrow, whatever the real physics are. On that matter, RQ3 rules are almost perfect for me.

Sorry. My fencing experiences don't cover much armor, and I have never shoot a bow (or seen a bow shot) on an armored target (except aforementioned car). But I think that if a target arrow shot by a light standard bow (I don't remember the pull, but as it was during an outdoor activity in a vacation spot, it should not have been a lot) can pierce a car body work, an ancient war bow should be able to pierce a not-too-thick (to be wearable) pre-industrial sheet of metal.

Yes, because the protection would be penetrated, whatever, but the shield is at least 10 cm away from you, which means the arrow has to penetrate at least 15 cm to do heavy damage, as the plate almost touches your body, and 3 cm are sufficient to do damage. For the BRP aspect, I'm sure I don't want that level of complexity in any RPG.

It does, if it is cast on the weapon of an unvoluntary target, which is most often the case (not always because of @AndreJarosch)