Jump to content

Cultural weapon skills are a bit vague?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Okay, hopefully this clarifies things for everyone:  If a cultural skill modifier refers to a specific weapon, then apply that to the specific weapon . For example, a bonus to Lance is just Lanc

It is confusing and is meant to be flexible, but isn't really. First, a bit of history. RQ2 had single skills for every weapon, so 1H Bastard Sword was different to 1H Broadsword and 2H Bastard S

In my FrankenQuest all the weapons in the same class, eg. 1H swords, use the same skill. And the weapon classes use the same rules as related languages, ie. you get half of your skill to all other cla

4 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

Attack and parry are not separate in RQG - you simply use the weapon skill for the weapon you're using

Yeah, Fook that for a game of soldiers. Dumb as a bag of spanners, makes the system more complex in my honest, not less.

As this thread gives some indication of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think it can be summarized as:

  • skills are always for a specific weapon, if a weapon can be used in multiple ways (2 vs 1 hands, melee vs missile), its two separate skills.
  • if a culture/rune/occupation gives a bonus to a weapon category, you must choose ONE weapon from that category.
  • if a culture/rune/occupation gives a bonus to a weapon, it applies to all skills for that weapon
  • any increases via customisation points or improvements during play must be against a specific skill for the specific weapon (if you use it 1 handed, increase that, if you throw a javeline, increase missile weapons javeline etc).

To me, the only real ambiguity is around the weapon categories with the same name as one of the weapons as its unclear if the intent is a bonus to the weapon of the name, or one of the weapons of the category.

 

3 minutes ago, Orlanthatemyhamster said:

Yeah, Fook that for a game of soldiers. Dumb as a bag of spanners, makes the system more complex in my honest, not less.

As this thread gives some indication of.

really? attack vs parry didn't seem complicated at all? use the skill for the item you're trying to attack or parry with?

Edited by Blindhamster
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

Really? attack vs parry didn't seem complicated at all? use the skill for the item you're trying to attack or parry with?

Not sure I get you, but, no, we never found it so.
I roll for my attack and parry, you do the same. If my weapon/shield is unusable I either equip a new one while attacking/frantically parrying with what I have equipped or I don't.

 

3 hours ago, Shiningbrow said:

They certainly (can) do! Check the book...

Anyone can do for a short while, till they get whatever punishment the tribe meets out to a Warlock/Witch. ;)  If they weigh the same as a duck...

I thought in most Orlanthi socs, it would be regarded as one step below Chaos, if that. I know all cultures blur around the edges sometimes but I would have thought Sartar was a bit far from that.

St Lhankor?

Edited by Orlanthatemyhamster
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Orlanthatemyhamster said:

Not sure I get you, but, no, we never found it so.
I roll for my attack and parry, you do the same. If my weapon/shield is unusable I either equip a new one while attacking/frantically parrying with what I have equipped or I don't.

Thats kinda what i was getting at, if you have a broadsword and try to parry, you parry with broadsword skill. If you have a small axe and try to parry, you parry with small axe skill.

Seems nice and simple, and means fewer skills to manage and improve than if you have a separate parry skill.

 

But, kinda off topic!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Blindhamster said:

Thats kinda what i was getting at, if you have a broadsword and try to parry, you parry with broadsword skill. If you have a small axe and try to parry, you parry with small axe skill.

Seems nice and simple, and means fewer skills to manage and improve than if you have a separate parry skill.

 

But, kinda off topic!

I like the idea of fewer skills, but for a system that has just introduced Philosophy (Yelm knows why) to its printed character sheet, and has a skill that enables you to build a boat and decorate a cabinet without blinking an eye, having an separate attack and parry skill doesn't seem that complex. Tons more (skills)rolls added (or some needlessly retained) in magic too.

Most people in the past fought with a shield, how does one skill cope with that? What if I drop it? Do I still parry at the same amount? What if I keep the shield and decide to attack with a flail that I just picked up and want to carry on using instead of the Battleaxe I've been using for the past 15 years, same skill? Half of my combo is still there...

Two extra skills aren't that much esp when most groups have fights on a reg basis,.
I think in 2 decades of regular and intense RQ only 4 times did we ever formally talk about philosophy, we didn't need a skill, we just role played our character's views.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you use your shield skill for defending with the shield. So if you drop it, you'll need to use your weapon to parry instead - parrying with a weapon and blocking with a shield are pretty different!

shields are their own skills, your skill isnt sword and shield. Your skill is sword, and a separate skill would be shield.

So your example when they find a flail, but keep using their old shield, their ability to hit or parry with the flail will be lower than with their battleaxe. But their ability to hit or parry with the shield doesn't change.

Edited by Blindhamster
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Orlanthatemyhamster said:

Not sure I get you, but, no, we never found it so.
I roll for my attack and parry, you do the same. If my weapon/shield is unusable I either equip a new one while attacking/frantically parrying with what I have equipped or I don't.

 

Anyone can do for a short while, till they get whatever punishment the tribe meets out to a Warlock/Witch. ;)  If they weigh the same as a duck...

I thought in most Orlanthi socs, it would be regarded as one step below Chaos, if that. I know all cultures blur around the edges sometimes but I would have thought Sartar was a bit far from that.

St Lhankor?

Have you actually read the latest iteration of Runequest???

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

you use your shield skill for defending with the shield. So if you drop it, you'll need to use your weapon to parry instead - parrying with a weapon and blocking with a shield are pretty different!

shields are their own skills, your skill isnt sword and shield. Your skill is sword, and a separate skill would be shield.

So your example when they find a flail, but keep using their old shield, their ability to hit or parry with the flail will be lower than with their battleaxe. But their ability to hit or parry with the shield doesn't change.

Yes, but the issue here is that you need two skills to fight with a shield, while you only need one when you fight with only one weapon, either one-handed or 2-handed. 

I agree that a character used to fight with a sword ought to be able to parry with it efficiently. I also agree attack and parry split is not a good idea.

But IMHO, someone used to attack with a sword and parry with a shield should in general have better parry chance with his shield than with his sword. And it's tthe case in RQG only if your shield skill is superior to your sword skill.

Edited by Mugen
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Shields base % probably should have been a bit higher, I generally agree on that.

The reason for parrying with a shield rather than a weapon is you dont really want your weapon getting damaged, which will happen if you're parrying with it.

 

Using a sword and shield also allows you to parry twice without any penalties (as the cumulative penalty is per weapon not per overall parry attempts) 

 

Shields also allow you to parry thrown projectiles which weapons do not, and to protect areas without actively rolling vs other ranged attacks too.

Large shields are also more durable so less likely to break and protect from more damage than any weapon can. I personally think the shield hp should be based on material but that's a different issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

Using a sword and shield also allows you to parry twice without any penalties (as the cumulative penalty is per weapon not per overall parry attempts) 

That would be an excellent way to make parry with a shield far more interesting, but it's not how the official rule works. The malus is cumulative no matter what weapon you use to parry. 

 

Anyway, that was not my point here.

Edited by Mugen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Literally isnt the wording in the book

 

"An adventurer may make a subsequent parry with a weapon they have already parried with. Any subsequent parry is at a cumulative –20% penalty for each additional parry."

 

But fair enough if its RAI to not be per hand, I guess the logical thing to do is have shields base chance be higher than weapons base chance, which I think it is anyway (5-10% higher depending on weapon?)

 

I get what you mean though, a shield should be easier to defend yourself with than a weapon is, but that's only really possible with the fairly simple rules of RQG by having its base chance even higher. 

I guess with RQG the advantages or parrying with a shield are that you:

- dont risk damaging your offensive weapon

- larger shields typically have more hp than weapons so absorb more damage and take longer to break (although imo, small and medium should be 2hp more each)

- can parry thrown attacks without penalty

- can defend against ranged attacks against some locations without even rolling.

 

But have the obvious downside of requiring 2 skills to use for offense and defense 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mugen said:

I agree that a character used to fight with a sword ought to be able to parry with it efficiently.

I don't. In my fencing days (some 35 years ago), I of course, to use Jeff's words, learned to attack and parry with my foil or my sabre. But I was a far better attacker than defender, so I had to finish the fight quite quickly to avoid losing due to my lack of good defense. This is why I could take part to but never win a french championship.

7 hours ago, Mugen said:

I also agree attack and parry split is not a good idea.

I don't, exactly for the reason above.

5 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

Shields base % probably should have been a bit higher, I generally agree on that.

Agreed.

5 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

The reason for parrying with a shield rather than a weapon is you dont really want your weapon getting damaged, which will happen if you're parrying with it.

Also agreed. And the weapon is far more expensive to repair or replace.

5 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

Using a sword and shield also allows you to parry twice without any penalties (as the cumulative penalty is per weapon not per overall parry attempts) 

No, penalty is per parry, not per weapon.

5 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

Shields also allow you to parry thrown projectiles which weapons do not, and to protect areas without actively rolling vs other ranged attacks too.

Large shields are also more durable so less likely to break and protect from more damage than any weapon can.

Yes, but

5 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

I personally think the shield hp should be based on material but that's a different issue.

I think RQ is complicated enough, even if, basically, you are right. The material could also, but this is an extra layer of complexity, affect the way the shield interact with weapons: Wicker is ideal against swords slash, but as persians learned it the hard way versus macedonians, is useless against pikes.

Edited by Kloster
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Kloster said:

I don't. In my fencing days (some 35 years ago), I of course, to use Jeff's words, learned to attack and parry with my foil or my sabre. But I was a far better attacker than defender, so I had to finish the fight quite quickly to avoid losing due to my lack of good defense. This is why I could take part to but never win a french championship.

I wrote "efficiently", not "as efficiently as he is at attacking with it. That is, he should not have base chance of success.

Later in my post, I say I consider a fighter used to parry with his shield should have a better parry chance with his shield than his sword.

Edited by Mugen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I would always rule that a weapon that is easily usable either one- or two- handed, such as some axes or spears etc, share the same skill % either way (but not necessarily the same stat requirements).

2H weapons that can be used one-handed, but probably shouldn't be, I'd impose a penalty.

Also if you use a weapon easily usable either one- or two- handed in your off-hand.

----

Then again, there are heroic exceptions in fantasy literature galore, such as Gandalf the White's preferred fighting stance of Longsword in one hand, Quarterstaff in the other, both of which are 2H weapons.

So I'd say, even if the rules might seem to suggest otherwise, go with the MGF where it seems thematically right and character appropriate.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mugen said:

I wrote "efficiently", not "as efficiently as he is at attacking with it. That is, he should not have base chance of success.

I was NOT efficient in parrying. Using RQ terms, I was about 75% to 80% attack and 40%to 50%  parry. Better than base, but lower than attack. And I knew opponents that were a real wall to attack, but real slow, and thus inefficient attackers. Hence my taste for different skills.

8 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Later in my post, I say I consider a fighter used to parry with his shield should have a better parry chance with his shield than his sword.

And in this; you are right, just because the shield is designed for parry. Yhis can be simulated by a higher parrying base. Another reason to separate the skills: You should not be able to attack and parry with your shield with the same efficiency. A real bronze age shield (the one used by the greek hoplites) is a very effective weapon, but very difficult to use offensively.

10 minutes ago, Julian Lord said:

Personally, I would always rule that a weapon that is easily usable either one- or two- handed, such as some axes or spears etc, share the same skill % either way (but not necessarily the same stat requirements).

I like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/6/2020 at 8:51 PM, Blindhamster said:

isn't it just a case that battle axe is a specific skill. you should add it as it's own row, and really its the 1h axe, 2h axe, 1h spear and 2h spear skills which are incorrect on the character sheet, as those arent weapons, they're categories.

In the RW, there is huge overlap between the various weapons and their associated fighting techniques.

Knife ; 1H with a hilt ; 1 or 2 handed with a hilt ; hafted ; basic 2-handed with a hilt ; full 2-handed ; pole arm ; bracer ; shields ; etc etc etc.

But as to axes, there are axes that can be used 1 or 2 handed, but also long axes where you need 2 hands and different techniques, plus even pole arm versions of the weapon.

I'd say that the first question to ask your player is, what kind of axe is your character using ? From there, from his description of its length between anything from a short hand axe to a lengthy pole axe, work out what exact skill to use in that particular and individual case.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Blindhamster said:

The reason for parrying with a shield rather than a weapon is you dont really want your weapon getting damaged, which will happen if you're parrying with it.

erm, the reason for parrying with a shield is to deflect or less happily block a blow because you really don't want your body to be wounded, even potentially severed into pieces, maimed, or killed.

The other major uses of a shield are of course in a shield wall, or as mobile cover against incoming missile fire.

The BBC/Netflix series The Last Kingdom is a generally good illustration of these matters, though Season 4 ditched a good deal of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mugen said:

That would be an excellent way to make parry with a shield far more interesting, but it's not how the official rule works. The malus is cumulative no matter what weapon you use to parry. 

1 hour ago, Blindhamster said:

Literally isnt the wording in the book

"An adventurer may make a subsequent parry with a weapon they have already parried with. Any subsequent parry is at a cumulative –20% penalty for each additional parry."

That actually says nothing about the situation under discussion, which is parrying with a different weapon, and we have had clarification that parrying with a different weapon also incurs the -20% for additional parries after the first. If you treat the two sentences as unrelated, then the rules are clear. Inferring that the second sentence is constrained in its application by the first leads to a misunderstanding.

Edited by PhilHibbs
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

That actually says nothing about the situation under discussion, which is parrying with a different weapon, and we have had clarification that parrying with a different weapon also incurs the -20% for additional parries after the first.

You're right, the rulebook says if parrying with the same weapon it incurs subsequent penalties. The Implication being that it doesnt with a different weapon (otherwise referring to the same weapon is redundant phrasing that confuses the matter). I also already accepted that there has been clarification that actually the wording could have been simpler and simply said -20 for subsequent parties without reference to the same or different weapons. However that requires someone that is running the game trawled through posts to find as there isnt a formal errata or FAQ doc anywhere yet.

So yeah, I'm fine with it working the way it does, but it isnt how the rules read, the specificity used with "the same weapon" implied that it meant a different weapon wouldnt apply the same penalty. Which would have been more realistic too, as the primary reason for dual wielding (with a shield or typically a long dagger) is actually defense, not offense in the real world.

 

 

As far as parry being a separate skill is concerned, I guess if it were a separate skill per weapon, it would make sense. So broadsword, parry etc.

But if you just have a separate skill called "parry" that is no more logical than using the weapon skill to parry with, because much as a it was mentioned that attacking and defending with a weapon are different skills, defending with different weapons would logically be different skills.

For me personally, I prefer the abstraction  that RQG uses where the weapon skill is used for both attack and defense.  Rather than a separate catch all parry skill that I guess has been used in some other editions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blindhamster said:

Literally isnt the wording in the book

"An adventurer may make a subsequent parry with a weapon they have already parried with. Any subsequent parry is at a cumulative –20% penalty for each additional parry."

But fair enough if its RAI to not be per hand, I guess the logical thing to do is have shields base chance be higher than weapons base chance, which I think it is anyway (5-10% higher depending on weapon?)

As a matter of fact, my understanding was the same as yours before Jason Durall clarified things.

To me, the text on pg 224 is a leftover from a previous version of the rules, which was closer to RQ2/RQ3.

1 hour ago, Blindhamster said:

I get what you mean though, a shield should be easier to defend yourself with than a weapon is, but that's only really possible with the fairly simple rules of RQG by having its base chance even higher. 

My point was in part about shields, but it was in fact a general reflection about the weapons you're used to fight with.

I think a fighter who usually fights with a shield should end up having a better parry chance with his shield than with his sword. But I also think a character used to fight with just one sword should have better chance to parry with his sword.

However, in the example I gave earlier, I mentioned 1H Sword and 1 H Axe as sub-skills of a Melee skill, and not fighting styles...

Edited by Mugen
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Julian Lord said:

erm, the reason for parrying with a shield is to deflect or less happily block a blow because you really don't want your body to be wounded, even potentially severed into pieces, maimed, or killed.

The other major uses of a shield are of course in a shield wall, or as mobile cover against incoming missile fire.

The BBC/Netflix series The Last Kingdom is a generally good illustration of these matters, though Season 4 ditched a good deal of it.

Sorry, to be clear, I was talking from the way the rules are setup currently. Not from a real world perspective.

At least mobile cover is a thing with the rules in RQG. I'd probably allow a shield wall to provide cover to more locations (basically making the only area without the cover the legs as far as rented attacks went).

 

P.s. I love the last kingdom!

Edited by Blindhamster
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Mugen said:

As a matter of fact, my understanding was the same as yours before Jason Durall clarified things.

Yeah, I honestly think I'd ignore the ruling for home games. It doesn't match the wording to me and makes less sense to me. And is definitely how I read it prior to the quoted response from Jason.

 

On that note, I wonder if there will be a proper Errata/FAQ any time soon that pulls all these things into one place.

Edited by Blindhamster
Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, my understanding of the rules was consistent with what Jason Durall said.

Regarding splitting attack/parry skills, it doesn't make much sense to me. I understand that there is real-world/simulationist reasons to do it, but it's not for me, and a game designer has to draw the line somewhere. I don't see anybody arguing for splitting Play Instrument, Orate, or Survival into more skills to better represent what kind of detailed things a character may be better or worse at in that given activity (and I think we could easily slice and dice those skills into a dozen more skills, especially for those of us with personal experience in these things). The level of abstraction vs crunch is what it is, decided according to how the game should feel, what the core activity of the game is, etc. And sure, if the core activity of your game is hyper detailed tactical combat and not much else, then go crazy with extra rules. If I were to add combat crunch, it wouldn't be there (it would be about adding optional maneuvers and movement in melee).

If anything, I think the weapon skills are a bit too detailed for my tastes. I'm tempted to only use categories as skills (1H Sword, 2H Sword, 1H Axe, 2H Axe, etc.) as mentioned by Jason, or at least merge a couple skills (like Broadsword & Shortsword). I don't do it because I'm not sure it would change much in practice (except to make me feel better because I did a house rule :)). The main thing that bothers me is that a swordmaster (say, 150% in Rapier) is as useless as any other newbie when picking up a dagger or a 2H sword. The rule about being able to use other weapons at half skills seems less effective than it should be because of the high number of weapon skills (which can be solved by either extending that rule, or reducing the number of weapon skills).

As for the OPs (which, we should notice, haven't posted much since, maybe because the thread went on a big tangent right away... not super awesome), I had some similar questions when I did my first RQG characters. I agree that those bonuses, along with the character sheet, are quite confusing, but I really took the cultural weapon skill bonuses at their broadest. I figured, for example, that young Sartarites are exposed to all kinds of dagger techniques and one-handed spears, and that, as such, the listed bonuses applied to skill categories. Probably when they get a bit older they settle on a specific spear, for instance, and then spend their cult and personal points in that.

Edited by lordabdul
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...