Kloster

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

I don't remember Specials as being very impressive in RQ3, except with impaling weapons. However, broadswords are very popular, so in the end it's a very common case.

I was especially thinking to the broadsword, the most used weapon, by characters and NPCs.

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

But there were part of the system I never used, such as err... recul in French.

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.

4 minutes ago, AndreJarosch said:

We we ALL know what that means: "Left Leg" 😉

Yes, the wooden one.

5 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Nathem is holding his bow right-handed, so why do you think he's a lefty? Now that I check the RQG illustration on p97, is it me or is that a super weird way to draw a bow?

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.

6 hours ago, DreadDomain said:

Can you please elaborate what options and maneuvers from RQ3 you feel might resolve the potential issue. Also, are you using multiple defenses with a cumulative -20% from RQG or a single defense à la RQ3? RQ3 have long been my sweetheart so I am curious to hear about this.

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.

5 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

This is officially part of BRP. Except with cumulative -30% malus, instead of -20%....

Yes.

4 hours ago, Mugen said:

If that was the goal, it was IMHO not a very efficient method. "Combat Ping-Pong" is a problem that occurs essentially when both protagonists have a high skill, not when one has a much higher skill than the other.

Agreed.

4 hours ago, Mugen said:

In RQ3, if you have a skill of 150% and your opponent only has 50%, you won't wait long before you succeed and he fails (even if it's very likely to last much longer than with RQG :)).

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.

4 hours ago, Mugen said:

On the other hand, if you both have 150%, you'll have a long fight, both with RQG and RQ3 rules. It will even be faster with RQ3, as the protagonists will surely split their attack and parry skills at some point, making things much more random. In RQG, splitting your attack is possible, but it means your opponent can use his full skill for his first parry, and only gets a -20% for the second one.

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).

5 hours ago, lordabdul said:

"Anti-parry rule"?  Please elaborate 🙂

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.

5 hours ago, lordabdul said:

But yes, that >100% rule is, ahem, more of a guideline to be used as necessary I suppose.

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.

5 hours ago, lordabdul said:

But I mentioned it since we're on the BRP sub-forum so who knows what game people are playing in practice, and what rules they have. So I wanted to point out that other rules may affect the situation at hand.

On this, you are right.

12 hours ago, lordabdul said:

For instance, the aforementioned Allosaur (Claw 60%, Bite 60%) against a Rune Lord armed with a short sword (Shortsword 150%). The Allosaur chance to hit is reduced to 10% so it will most of the time be "failed attack vs successful parry". So no big dinosaur damage is even rolled.

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.

13 hours ago, Erol of Backford said:

Are there any references to a player character developing an immunity to scorpionman poison?

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.

7 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Bioth of which are somewhat more efficient that arrows.

Agreed. This is probably why french military stopped using them several centuries ago.

9 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, but just what is considered to be "fun" can vary. A player who is player an archer with Bow 90% is probably going to have lots of fun peppering the bad buys with arrows before they can exchange blows in melee. 

Agreed.

9 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Yeah, but individual efficiency is probably a bit higher in RQ than is probably should be. Conversely, individual efficiency is probably too low in games like D&D, where an archer could literal empty his quiver into a tough opponent before dropping them. Since bows typically get two attacks per round and can impale they give an archer a significant edge against melee fighters.

Also agreed. Bows are a stapple of RQ combat since RQ2 because of this.

5 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

We had a PC pick up greatsword skill specifically because of the times he lost his shield, either from damage, or from impaled weapons. He manged to get it up to 70% before he was disarmed on a stairway, and was forced to use it. Not quite was his opponent had hoped for. 😁 

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).

On 4/16/2021 at 9:20 PM, Bill the barbarian said:

Agreed with the gratitude to Scott for the clarification, sorry Kloster! Plus using it for CAs and Ernalda healers as he suggested earlier is great!

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

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

It's exactly the other way round. Since most hits are going to be parried, this rule allows a few more in, reducing the endless ping pong. Since players tend to have higher skill and better armour, it favours them slightly. And no, I don't use random armour (anathema!)

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

6 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

What does this mean? Why would you attack someone’s shield?

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.

On 4/16/2021 at 9:27 PM, Atgxtg said:

So it would be lighter that what we'd see on a battlefield, with considerably lighter and thinner arrows. 

Yes, correct, much lighter.

On 4/16/2021 at 9:28 PM, Atgxtg said:

Those number's I'm fine with. It's the 20% impale chance that I find suspect. With two arrows per round, an archer has a very good chance of getting an impale before an opponent can close the distance.

On this, we agree.

On 4/16/2021 at 9:28 PM, Atgxtg said:

This makes missile weapons (and other impaling weapons) much more effective against armor than in real life.

This, I don't know. My only experienc (much limited) of real combat is with 80 mm mortars and assault rifle.

23 hours ago, Joerg said:

Nope. Armor in RQ3 is for (everyday carbon) steel. Glorantha uses the same values.

My mistake. Thanks.

23 hours ago, Joerg said:

Missile weapons are the eternal step children of crunchy combat systems. Done realistically, they take out too much of the "fun" exchanging blows in melee.

Right, and as RPG are games, the fun is important.

23 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I suspect the real danger of bows is in mass. One bowman probably won't kill an armored knight, but a couple of dozen are probably going to ruin somebody's life. 

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.

13 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

A typical arrow does 1d6+1 and a typical longbow arrow does 1d8+1. Both can impale, making plate not all that effective against them.

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.

7 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

But there are spell a that specifically target items within someone's grasp - like Crack. Do you have POW v POW for those?

I can see that Dullblade could reduce weapon skill because it becomes more unwieldy, re/unbalanced, etc... Not directly affecting the user.

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.

9 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

What sort of bow/arrows were you using?

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.

27 minutes ago, Runeblogger said:

This is surprising. Is this specified somewhere? I have always thought casting a spell on an object required no POW vs POW roll, even if the object is being held by an unvoluntary target.

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.

1 minute ago, Joerg said:

Ducks riding sylphs (or getting tossed by them) might count as flying, and might incur Yelmic wrath...

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

24 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

No, because it is much easier for an arrow to penetrate 25mm of wood than 4mm of steel plate. Note I used mm not cm. 

The distance the arrow has to travel isn't really a factor here. If the arrow can reach the shield it can reach the armored warrior, and if it has enough energy to penetrate the armor, then it certainly has enough to punch through the wooden shield and still penetrate an unarmored warrior. 

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.

24 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Steel Plate actually protects better that a wooden shield, and more likely that not the arrow is going to break off of the armor rather than penetrate it.

On this we agree.

24 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

The problem for armored warriors is that when there tends to be more than one arrow the chances of an arrow finding a gap in the armor, or a fragment of a shattered one finding a gap becomes more of a threat. A volley of arrows that hit a group of armored warriors can send splinters of wood in all directions. It's almost like shrapnel.

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.

55 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Yeah, but it probably wouldn't impale a target who was well armored.

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.

42 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Now in real life I suspect we'd be safer in full plate than behind a roundshield, but in BRP not so much.

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.

1 hour ago, Dr. Device said:

and also doesn't require a POW vs. POW roll

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

2 hours ago, Joerg said:

The Guide uses "companion" for the former count of the County of the Isles.

Which shares the same latin etimology, cum ire, that gave Emperor Karl's Comites (= those that go with the emperor), that became both companion and count (through the french comte).

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

I have always felt uncomfortable with arrows doing impale damage. It makes more sense with a heavy weapon such as a spear or sword (or even a dagger) that would destroy more on its way through a body, but an arrow having such a narrow point doesn't seem to be in the same class IMO. It's a weakness of the system.

Even if I agree with your basic assumption (an arrow point is much narrower than a sword blade), I am sure (and I hope) you've never been impaled by something as thin as a broken foil. I have been (this is why I have stopped fencing some 30 years ago), and I can ensure this does a lot of damage. Contrary to Vladimir Smirnov, I had the chance to have it stuck in a not too dangerous part of my belly. I thought all previous to 1982 blades had been removed and discovered the hard way this was not the case, and never touched a (steel) sword since.

I have also practiced archery, and a competition arrow is much wider than a foil, although it can pierce several millimeters of steel (I am thinking to a car door I've seen pierced). A hunting arrow is even wider, producing centimeters wide wounds. If it impales it's target, the hit area is destroyed or badly damaged.