Jump to content

Ripostes


Jason D

Recommended Posts

I tested it yesterday, and the rule is workable although it requires some extra attention. But I did not find it totally satisfactory: it allows a master to disable a lot of mooks in a short time, but it is another rules that discourages fighting with two weapons. My Storm Khan was using hammer and shield, and shield ripostes were barely useful, while my buddy's Wind Lord with a single axe was way more effective.

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally Posted by RosenMcStern

Could we add the option of allowing a riposte at any skill level on a special roll, as per Rod's version of the rules?

I'd like to avoid changing the fundamental nature of BRP combat as it currently stands with such a rule, without playtesting it considerably.

Just to be clear, my version of the rule was verbatim from page 113 of Stormbringer 5th edition. It wasn't something I made up or wasn't playtested, unless Stormbringer 5th edition wasn't playtested. For Classic Fantasy, I changed it from requiring a Critical to a Special to give a slightly better chance of an extra attack however.

Now, Jason appears to have based his rule on Stormbringer 1st through 4th edition, which I do not have but equally like the sounds of, but I feel its important for people to know that I didn't just pull it out of a hat.

Rod

Edited by threedeesix

Join my Mythras/RuneQuest 6: Classic Fantasy Yahoo Group at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/RQCF/info

"D100 - Exactly 5 times better than D20"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I want to 'stat' a lightsabre for a BRP game.

WoW-Future World has a Force sword doing 2d10 damage

RQI-III has Fireblade spell doing 3d6 damage

I could choose either, both have no doubt been playtested. Both are a doddle to swipe from an already published BRP game. Both give a very similar range of damage. Either would be equally 'right'.

'Fair enough you blithering oaf but why bring this up here you thread-derailing-buffoon?' you may ask

Well.........because we have a variety of previously written rules for ripostes in BRP:

A Critical Parry gives you a Riposte IFF you have two weapons* (Elric!/SBV)

* or by extension: if you are unarmed

A Successful Parry gives you a Riposte IFF you have a skill of 90%+ (SBI-IV)

A Successful Parry gives you a Riposte IFF you are using a Shield (BASIC Conan)

Oi reckons that choosing any one of those would be equally 'right' and is pretty much a matter of taste.

Only a complete, completist and pedant would try and use all three in one game (that'd be me then!)

Al

  • Like 1

Rule Zero: Don't be on fire

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be clear, my version of the rule was verbatim from page 113 of Stormbringer 5th edition. It wasn't something I made up or wasn't playtested, unless Stormbringer 5th edition wasn't playtested. For Classic Fantasy, I changed it from requiring a Critical to a Special to give a slightly better chance of an extra attack however.

Now, Jason appears to have based his rule on Stormbringer 1st through 4th edition, which I do not have but equally like the sounds of, but I feel its important for people to know that I didn't just pull it out of a hat.

Rod

This is a prime example of the "I know it so well I don't even need to read it" syndrome that the playtest suffered from. I didn't know that Elric!/SB5 even had ripostes!

As it stands, I'm fonder of the older version of the rule for balance reasons, because it's the rule I'm more familiar with, and also because it doesn't add yet another effect to the already substantial Attack/Parry/Dodge Matrix.

On a related note, the primary addition to the rule is the DEX rank cost. I'd love to hear convincing arguments against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a related note, the primary addition to the rule is the DEX rank cost. I'd love to hear convincing arguments against it.

The primary reason I wouldn't use it is book-keeping. Game flow is also an issue.

Using the suggested riposte rules you would have to keep track of defence reductions, attack reductions and DEX rank reductions That's an awful lot more book-keeping. Furthermore it happens either never or several times a round.

Game Flow wise, I would rather deal with all the ins-and-outs of a single attack sequence at once rather than having to keep interrupting it to go back to something else. Would be even worse if multiple masters are involved in riposte sequences.

Finally, the concept behind attacks in BRP is that they are a flurry of attacks, not a single swing and the DEX/SR is a timing sequence not a speed chart. Having each riposte "take" 1 SR implies otherwise so it goes against the underlying structure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your Disthpicable!

I might be. Although I am giving this thread some background thought.

Certain martial fighting styles have a discipline of "every punch is a block, and every block is a punch", while others just "block" and do nothing with the result.

Wing Chun and "Sticky Hands" would be something to consider, relating the the first. Other styles also turn a block into throw or joint lock, such as Eagle Claw or Aikido.

The first thing to consider would be whether a practitioner knowingly acts with the intent of follow-through action or whether this happens by chance.

It would complicate a system if it took into account the degree of "follow through" that a practitioner had trained in and developed though experience. And which player would deliberately choose a "weaker" skill that represents a fighting style that does not encourage riposte? I guess a riposte capable skill would be more expensive (although once understood, the concept is easy, and becomes an attitude), or a secondary complementary skill could be used, such as the "martial-art" skill.

I like how Steve's SPQR uses "levels of success" with one of the options being riposte. Such that a really good parry leaves the opponent open for a counter action. Maybe a "special" result for a parry could allow the chance to riposte, but then a skilled practitioner aims for all blocks to follow-through, which means that it should occur more often than "special" when a counter-action is intended.

If (in a fight) I have the opportunity to shield-jab (with edge or corner) someone in the face, I would take it. Part of the skill of "fighting" or combat strategy is making those opportunities.

Just some food for thought.

Edited by dragonewt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The primary reason I wouldn't use it is book-keeping. Game flow is also an issue.

I think he has a point here, Jason.

My suggestion would be to drop the DEX rank reduction and make the penalties for attack and parry cumulative, not separate. Maybe it is less realistic, but it is easier.

I would also suggest to apply the penalty only to attacks made with the parrying weapon, not to all attacks.

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the concept behind attacks in BRP is that they are a flurry of attacks, not a single swing and the DEX/SR is a timing sequence not a speed chart.

Indeed, and to tie that into another thread – that is why a combat round can be 6 to 12 seconds in duration. I however go with the “a round in an abstract portion of time, lasting as long as it takes’ theory.

…just say that a riposte/counter-attack is an attack using a defensive reaction. A riposte thus subtracts 30% from your next defense (just like any parry or dodge) and the attack can be any sort of attack.

I like this and it is a version of what I run. Honesty anything to streamline the flow of the combat helps. Not everyone (ie my players) are grandiose bookkeepers.

...SPQR uses "levels of success" with one of the options being riposte. Such that a really good parry leaves the opponent open for a counter action. Maybe a "special" result for a parry could allow the chance to riposte, but then a skilled practitioner aims for all blocks to follow-through, which means that it should occur more often than "special" when a counter-action is intended.

I need to look into Steve’s SPQR. I like set levels of success, which could tie into a good amount of other areas. I will likely use the idea and make my own charts. I think we all do that as GMs, give a little here and there if the percentile roll is good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having gone back and read Stormbringer 4e and 5e versions of the rules, I have to say that I like both a bit more than the current proposed rule. Both are easy to follow, and NEITHER require the riposte to be conducted by the parrying weapon. In fact, 5e states:

Not more than once a round... a critical parry allows the parrying character to make a riposte with the weapon (or shield) that didn't parry.

So how about this. We adapt the 5e rules for general, perhaps (but not necessarily) reducing the threshold to a special rather than a critical.

We then adapt the 4e version, very similar to what Jason has proposed but simpler from a bookkeeping aspect, for those at Master skill level. That is, at that level we allow riposte by the parrying weapon with the cumulative penalties for combined defense and riposte.

SDLeary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, sounds good. Should be elaborated a bit more, but methinks it could work.

Skill 01-90, special parry -> riposte with other weapon (Difficult if weapon is offhand)

Skill 91+, normal parry -> riposte with same weapon at -30% (or more if it is not the first riposte)

Skill 91+, special parry -> choose one of the above

  • Like 1

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how about this. We adapt the 5e rules for general, perhaps (but not necessarily) reducing the threshold to a special rather than a critical.

We then adapt the 4e version, very similar to what Jason has proposed but simpler from a bookkeeping aspect, for those at Master skill level. That is, at that level we allow riposte by the parrying weapon with the cumulative penalties for combined defense and riposte.

SDLeary

This is something I have been toying with for Classic Fantasy for the last couple days now. The problem is that I like both rules from SB 1-4 and SB 5. I'm thinking about including them both but with some modification to allow them to work side-by-side. To differentiate between them, call the SB 1-4 rules riposte and the SB 5 rules counterattack.

Essentially a riposte allows an extra attack with the parrying weapon while a counterattack allows an extra attack with the non-parrying weapon. This will allow a sword and shield fighter to parry with the shield and counterattack with the sword, while a fencer can parry with a foil and riposte with the same weapon. Edit: A fencer that rolls a Special parry could also choose to punch his opponent in the face, not very sporting but optional.

I did decide against the -1 DEX penalty for ripostes as one less thing to keep track of and combined the -30% penalty so its cumulative with parrying and riposting for the same reason. Finally, I also noted how it could interact with the optional rule for extra attacks with skill over 100%.

Here is what I have written up for Classic Fantasy right now. Please provide feedback. I want to add it to the players book which has already been turned in. Dustin said that whoever does the layout will contact me when Classic Fantasy comes up in the rotation and I hope to be able to add it then. If not I will have to add it to Volume 2: Gamemastery.

This is just a rough draft and subject to change.

Spot Rule Changes

Additions

Two Weapons (Addendum): The rules for fighting with two weapons are detailed in Basic Roleplaying on page 233. However several new rules have been detailed to further define the tactic.

• As noted in Basic Roleplaying, unless the weapon is a shield, parrying dagger, or some other weapon designed to be used in the offhand, the skill begins at half the characters normal skill level (Difficult). An offhand weapon may be trained and improved just as any other weapon skill.

• Not more than once per round per opponent, a Special success on a Parry allows the defender to make a counter-attack with the non-parrying weapon (or shield). The counter-attack is a free attack that does not count against the normal maximum number of attacks per round - it occurs on the DEX rank the parry was performed in, right after the successful parry. This extra attack can be parried or dodged, and armor defends normally against it. If the GM feels that a Special success is too frequent a chance for an extra attack, he or she may rule that a riposte requires a Critical parry result instead.

If the GM’s campaign is utilizing the optional rule for multiple attacks for weapon skills over 100%, these attacks still take place 5 DEX ranks later and may be performed with either weapon assuming both are over 100%. This extra attack may itself be used to counterattack in the result of a Special success.

Riposte: When your character becomes a master (a skill rating of 91%+) with a hand-to-hand weapon skill (or attack and parry if attacks and parry skill ratings are being handled separately), he or she can attempt to riposte attacks. Unlike a counter-attack, as detailed under Two Weapons on page XX, your character may automatically riposte if he or she has first made a successful parry with a hand-to-hand weapon against a hand-to-hand weapon attack. If the parry is successful, he or she can immediately make a riposte against the attacker. The riposte is resolved as a normal attack, and the original attacker can attempt to parry the riposte.

A riposte can be attempted once per successful parry made by your character, though each subsequent riposte is at -30%, this is cumulative with the penalty for multiple parries. The riposte does not take the place of your normal attack, but any penalties for multiple ripostes will modify your normal attack if has not already occurred. If your character has already attacked in a round, the initial riposte is at a cumulative -30% per prior attack.

If the GM’s campaign is utilizing the optional rule for multiple attacks for weapon skills over 100%, these attacks still take place 5 DEX ranks later and may be performed with either weapon assuming both are over 100%. This extra attack may be used to riposte or counterattack as normal, but the -30% penalty for each previous defense or riposte still applies.

Clarifications

• A shield can be used as a riposting weapon.

• A Brawl attack (fist or kick, etc.) can be used to riposte.

• The weapon riposting must be the weapon the parry is made with. Your character cannot parry an attack with one weapon and riposte with another, that is a counterattack as detailed under Two-Weapons (Addendum) on page XX.

• When penalties for multiple parries and ripostes reduce a chance to 0%, no further actions of that type may be attempted in that combat round.

• The penalties for multiple parries and ripostes stack together.

• A riposte can be parried and riposted in turn, and that riposte can be parried and riposted.

• If the attacker’s original attack roll is a Special success, he or she must choose at that point if the extra attack will be a riposte or a counterattack. A Special success on a riposte cannot be used to counterattack.

Edit: Just to clarify as you can't really tell from reading it above, Two Weapons (Addendum) and Riposte will each be a seperate Spot Rule. The way it looks above is that Riposte falls under Two Weapons and that is not the way it is intended.

Rod

Edited by threedeesix
Clarification

Join my Mythras/RuneQuest 6: Classic Fantasy Yahoo Group at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/RQCF/info

"D100 - Exactly 5 times better than D20"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the simplest, most general rule is:

If you are a master of a weapon and manage a special success while parrying with that weapon then you may immediately counter-attack with that weapon as a free action. This counter-attack may be parried or dodged as normal.

Spot rules.

You don't have to counter-attack with the same weapon you parried with. You may make any sort of viable attack as a counter-attack. (E.g. you could attempt to knock someone down by tripping them as a counter-attack.)

Counter-attacks can be counter-attacked in turn should two weapon masters find themselves facing each other.

Counter-attacks are resolved on the same DEX (or SR) rank as the initial attack. This could mean one attack may be followed by a series of counter-attacks that are all resolved as part of the same attack.

Counter-attacking and parrying counter-attacks are exceptions to the rule forbidding multiple uses of the same weapon on the same SR.

Although there is no penalty for making multiple counter-attacks in the same round, the usual penalty for making multiple parries applies.

Implications. Counter-attacks are a huge boost for weapon masters but the requirement for a special success means that long chains of counter-attacks will be extremely rare in all but super-powered campaigns.

This is more of an example of incorporating new 'technology' into BRP rather than picking and choosing between pre-existing rules so it goes somewhat against the grain of the BRP rulebook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As noted in Basic Roleplaying, unless the weapon is a shield, parrying dagger, or some other weapon designed to be used in the offhand, the skill begins at half the characters normal skill level (Difficult). An offhand weapon may be trained and improved just as any other weapon skill.

Difficult cannot refer to a skill, but only to a roll. The correct system for handling this is explained on page 258 (Using Weapons of Different Classes): if you want to make a separate entry for a weapon skill that is similar but not exactly the same as one that you already have, then your base skill is the base chance and you start training it from that point - however, you can still use half of the higher one, until your lower skill exceeds half of the other skill. I fail to see the advantage of putting in a new mechanics when a similar, working one is already in the rules. Plus the fact that this makes skill points allocated at character creation worth 1.5, as 50% of them is permanently added to the offhand weapons skill: why?

Furthermore, your ruling excludes the option of not splitting the skill and keeping it unique as in the rules as written - why should having a separate skill be mandatory? You should add this.

For the rest, I feel that your rules are interesting but we are making things a bit too messy. Shouldn't all this be playtested a bit more? Ripostes are a good mechanics that should definitely be included in the errata, but if something as messy as one of the above suggestions is published in some monography, this will just add noise.

Honestly, I am rather in favour of allowing ripostes on a special success, rather than when you are 91+. I feel it is more in line with BRP if skill "levels" are not used, regardless of what was in SB, whatever edition.

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Difficult cannot refer to a skill, but only to a roll. The correct system for handling this is explained on page 258 (Using Weapons of Different Classes): if you want to make a separate entry for a weapon skill that is similar but not exactly the same as one that you already have, then your base skill is the base chance and you start training it from that point - however, you can still use half of the higher one, until your lower skill exceeds half of the other skill. I fail to see the advantage of putting in a new mechanics when a similar, working one is already in the rules. Plus the fact that this makes skill points allocated at character creation worth 1.5, as 50% of them is permanently added to the offhand weapons skill: why?

Thanks, I totally forgot about this. The sad part is I even use it when a character finds a new but similar weapon in our Fallout game.

For the rest, I feel that your rules are interesting but we are making things a bit too messy.

I get that too.

Shouldn't all this be playtested a bit more?

Thats what I was hoping for.

Ripostes are a good mechanics that should definitely be included in the errata, but if something as messy as one of the above suggestions is published in some monography, this will just add noise.

Which is exactly what I don't want. But if you don't post em you don't get feedback.

Honestly, I am rather in favour of allowing ripostes on a special success, rather than when you are 91+. I feel it is more in line with BRP if skill "levels" are not used, regardless of what was in SB, whatever edition.

I guess the best bet for Classic Fantasy is to choose the best fit and detail that rule, but make reference to the other. I'm really leaning toward my original suggestion (SB5), but with the skill information as suggested by yourself. I will continue to mention counterattack instead of riposte so as to not confuse it with the rules from the errata.

Optional: Two Weapons (Addendum): The rules for fighting with two weapons are detailed in Basic Roleplaying on page 233. However several new rules have been detailed to further define the tactic.

• As noted in Basic Roleplaying, unless the weapon is a shield, parrying dagger, or some other weapon designed to be used in the offhand, the skill roll is Difficult. An offhand weapon may be trained and improved just as any other weapon skill, and uses the rules for Using Weapons of Different Classes from page 258 of Basic Roleplaying. In short, your base skill is the weapon's normal base chance and you start training it from that point - however, you can still use half of your normal weapon skill until your offhand skill exceeds half your primary skill.

• Not more than once per round per opponent, a Special success on a Parry allows the defender to make a counter-attack with the non-parrying weapon (or shield). The counter-attack is a free attack that does not count against the normal maximum number of attacks per round - it occurs on the DEX rank the parry was performed in, right after the successful parry. This extra attack can be parried or dodged, and armor defends normally against it.

If the GM’s campaign is utilizing the optional rule for multiple attacks for weapon skills over 100%, these attacks still take place 5 DEX ranks later and may be performed with either weapon assuming both are over 100%. This extra attack may itself be used to counterattack in the result of a Special success.

The official errata for Basic Roleplaying details rules for the Riposte, which is a different form of counterattack. These rules may not be compatable with those as detailed, and the individual GM may need to determine which is to be utilized in his or her campaign.

This way I don't have to worry how Jason's riposte rules develop nor what effect it will have on what I have written.

Edited by threedeesix

Join my Mythras/RuneQuest 6: Classic Fantasy Yahoo Group at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/RQCF/info

"D100 - Exactly 5 times better than D20"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This last formulation is very good IMO. Its only problem is that it is totally incompatible with Jason's ripostes :(

I think Rod's rule detail two-weapon combat better, while the riposte rules from Jason are a superior depiction of typical fencing techniques. Is there a way to allow using both rules with different fighting styles? Perhaps stating that you can only use ripostes when you have one weapon?

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This last formulation is very good IMO. Its only problem is that it is totally incompatible with Jason's ripostes :(

I think Rod's rule detail two-weapon combat better, while the riposte rules from Jason are a superior depiction of typical fencing techniques. Is there a way to allow using both rules with different fighting styles? Perhaps stating that you can only use ripostes when you have one weapon?

I would say that just add them to the toolbox and note their incompatibilities. I don't think you really need to make them work together. I would say of Rod's depiction that banning the parrying weapon from being used is a mistake as it makes using a 2H weapon or a 1H weapon by itself pretty sub-optimal. It's a classic image of fantasy combat when the hero with a 2h sword deflects an attack and immediately strikes back with the weapon.

That said, the counter-attack rule as written suddenly gives meaning to unarmed combat skills because now there's a way to parry with a weapon then immediately make a knockback attack or kick to the chest without using up your normal attack. So maybe I've just argued against my original point... :innocent:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, ripostes and counterattacks with natural weapons are. I think Charles is planning to insert extensive options ripostes into Dragon Lines.

As for not alowing to use the parrying weapon, I wish to add that what Jason depicts is a typical fencing technique that requires skill and a quick reaction weapon. I think that ripostes should be limited to kendo and fencing and follow Jason's rules, while counterattacks could be used with less elegant fighting styles and lower skills, giving some (but limited) importance to using two weapons in melee.

The tone of the campaign should dictate what optional rule is used.

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, ripostes and counterattacks with natural weapons are. I think Charles is planning to insert extensive options ripostes into Dragon Lines.

As for not allowing to use the parrying weapon, I wish to add that what Jason depicts is a typical fencing technique that requires skill and a quick reaction weapon. I think that ripostes should be limited to kendo and fencing and follow Jason's rules, while counterattacks could be used with less elegant fighting styles and lower skills, giving some (but limited) importance to using two weapons in melee.

The tone of the campaign should dictate what optional rule is used.

That was the primary reason for the counterattack rule, to give some small advantage to fighting with two weapons beyond just having an extra available if one is lost, with out saying that an extra weapon grants an extra attack all the time.

RosenMcStern must be reading my e-mail as I was communicating with Jason last night and said this about how I envision the counterattack rules.

I see the SB5 rules as poorly named as they specifically state that the extra attack is with the weapon that was not used to parry. So I'm going with counterattack to differentiate between them. I picture it more as a overpowering extra attack, where the fighter bashes his opponent's weapon out of the way with his shield (or offhand weapon) and takes advantage of the opening with his primary weapon. Better fitting the fighters, paladins, and barbarians of Classic Fantasy.

Your riposte rules on the other hand better reflect skill and finesse and do not require a second weapon.

In an e-mail to another playtester I also mentioned that a combatant with a single weapon could use the extra attack to punch his off balance opponent right in the face. Something I can easily envision. "Two knights, one with sword and shield and one with a single war hammer. The knight with the war hammer deflects his opponents sword attack downward and into the dirt and strikes his armored gauntlet squarely into his helm."

Whether both counterattacks and ripostes would work together or not will require playtesting, but personally I don't see a problem and tend to use many BRP rules together that others may find objectionable. They should be based on fighting styles however.

Rod

Join my Mythras/RuneQuest 6: Classic Fantasy Yahoo Group at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/RQCF/info

"D100 - Exactly 5 times better than D20"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That said, the counter-attack rule as written suddenly gives meaning to unarmed combat skills because now there's a way to parry with a weapon then immediately make a knockback attack or kick to the chest without using up your normal attack. So maybe I've just argued against my original point... :innocent:

Excactly. Clever players could attempt other things as well with the approval of their GM of course, like using the extra attack to trip their opponent or even throw a handful of dirt in their face. I see the Special parry as meaning you have in some way left your opponent open and have a chance to take advantage of it.

Of course, the main reason I incorperated it into Classic Fantasy was for the small chance of an extra attack for those fighting with two weapons. Anyone coming over to BRP from some other obscure classic fantasy role playing game that is used to their old ranger character and his two-weapon fighting style is going to be bummed to not have even a slight chance of two attacks.

Clearification: In the 1st ed. of the classic fantasy role playing game that Classic Fantasy is based on, rangers were not any better with two weapon fighting than any other fighter type. But the rule needed to be there for any who may be converting a classic fantasy campaign from some later edition.

Rod

Join my Mythras/RuneQuest 6: Classic Fantasy Yahoo Group at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/RQCF/info

"D100 - Exactly 5 times better than D20"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This last formulation is very good IMO. Its only problem is that it is totally incompatible with Jason's ripostes :(

I think Rod's rule detail two-weapon combat better, while the riposte rules from Jason are a superior depiction of typical fencing techniques. Is there a way to allow using both rules with different fighting styles? Perhaps stating that you can only use ripostes when you have one weapon?

I have a solution:

As I noted, the system I posted (derived from SB1-4) was explicitly from the fencing rules presented in Interplanetary.

The alternate system (deriving from Elric!/SB5) that has been presented is equally workable.

How about:

  • The rules I posted are explicitly for the fencing move called the riposte, requiring Martial Arts (Fencing) 91%+.
  • The other system is called a counterattack, and is used in the manner described.

This keeps the fencing system special and adds some value to two-handed weapon combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a solution:

As I noted, the system I posted (derived from SB1-4) was explicitly from the fencing rules presented in Interplanetary.

The alternate system (deriving from Elric!/SB5) that has been presented is equally workable.

How about:

  • The rules I posted are explicitly for the fencing move called the riposte, requiring Martial Arts (Fencing) 91%+.
  • The other system is called a counterattack, and is used in the manner described.

This keeps the fencing system special and adds some value to two-handed weapon combat.

I like it, can we rest now? :thumb:

Join my Mythras/RuneQuest 6: Classic Fantasy Yahoo Group at https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/RQCF/info

"D100 - Exactly 5 times better than D20"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a solution:

As I noted, the system I posted (derived from SB1-4) was explicitly from the fencing rules presented in Interplanetary.

The alternate system (deriving from Elric!/SB5) that has been presented is equally workable.

How about:

  • The rules I posted are explicitly for the fencing move called the riposte, requiring Martial Arts (Fencing) 91%+.
  • The other system is called a counterattack, and is used in the manner described.

This keeps the fencing system special and adds some value to two-handed weapon combat.

That sounds right, with one exception. I think that it goes way too far in the other direction.

If your version is going to require a Marital Art skill, then it should be a feature of the art. That is, a successful parry that rolls both below the sword skill and the martial art should then allow the riposte. Requiring both a main skill, a martial art, and the martial art at master level is a bit much. The natural mechanism of having to make both skills with a single roll will keep the occurrence of success down until both skills are of sufficient level anyway.

Riposte should be listed as an optional rule, with the requirement that it requires a marital arts skill of some type to pull off... Kung-fu, Sojitsu (spear fighting), Kenjitsu, Fencing, 2-h sword fencing, etc.

SDLeary

Edited by SDLeary
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it was exactly what I meant. It is also similar to what is written in the Interplanetary playtest draft. But having Martial Arts (Fencing) is a high requirement, as it is a separate skill which is usually learned when you have already mastered your weapon skill, so you are supposed to have two skills at 91+ in order to use this advanced technique. What about allowing a riposte, with the same weapon and on the same DEX rank or SR, on a Parry that is also a Martial Arts (Fencing), or Martial Arts (Kendo), or Martial Arts (any suitable) success?

Note that the Kendo rules described in Dragon Lines are slightly different (they use a Power to achieve the same result), but it makes sense there, and I suppose I will ask Charles to review some of the techniques after this useful debate.

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about allowing a riposte, with the same weapon and on the same DEX rank or SR, on a Parry that is also a Martial Arts (Fencing), or Martial Arts (Kendo), or Martial Arts (any suitable) success?

I think that rolling double damage (as per a success for a weapon attack roll that's under your Martial Arts skill) and another attack is somewhat unbalanced.

Link to comment
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...