Twohanded weapons and parrying

[Barak Shathur]

I need some help interpreting the rules for 2H weapons. Are you able to attack and parry in the same round with a twohander? In RQ3 you can. It's not clear to me how it works in BGB. Under "Parrying", it says "A character armed with a parrying weapon or shield can block the damage from an attack". Should "parrying weapon" be interpreted as "any weapon that can be used to parry with", or a specialty weapon such as a main gauche? If the former, does this mean that you can in effect parry with any weapon you have also used to attack with in the same round? If this is the case, a twohanded weapon is much superior to a onehanded weapon with shield combination, since you'll do much more damage with the twohander but still be able to deflect attacks completely as per the parrying rules (only benefit to a shield being the ability to parry missiles).

The same thing goes with combining Dodge with an attack. Can you attack (with any weapon) and also dodge freely? Again, using a twohanded weapon seems to carry only benefits and no drawbacks here. Or am I missing something?

[svensson]

OK, taking my experience as a heavy fighter in the SCA, yes you can do both with some great weapons, but not all of them.

Most great weapons [greatswords, halberds, pikes, etc.] are not fought from the shoulder and arm muscles, but from the thighs, hips, and stomach muscles. If the fighter doesn't over-commit and unbalance himself, then parrying and dodging are no big deal. Most strikes are short [!] chopping motions or thrusts that are easily recovered back into a guard position if the fighter keeps his footing and balance.

The two-handed weapons with the most 'parry potential' in my experience are swords and spears, as they are fought with quick short strikes. Axes and mauls, not so much. They require some 'oomph' behind them, longer arcs with more muscular commitment to the strike.

To put it another way, fighting a man and chopping a tree are two VERY different things.

So, in a rules sense, I personally feel it's entirely reasonable for an attack and parry /dodge to occur in the same round.

Note that I don't hold my experiences in the SCA to be the final word on medieval combat. There are a lot of very smart people out there who've done some very stellar work in recreating many treatises on personal combat and some organizations who have other ideas just as valid as my experiences. And let's be honest here... the only 'experts' in medieval combat are people who faced an opponent over a bare blade and lived. But the SCA is the experience I have, and I think it taught me a couple things of value to the discussion.

Edited June 6, 2021 by svensson

[Barak Shathur]

I'm a scadian fighter too :). Or was, I have maybe around 10 years' experience spread out in intervals since 1988, but now I'm largely retired (I think the pandemic was the killing blow, but you never know...). My experience with greatswords and halberds was that when fighting against such an opponent, with me using sword and shield, they would often get the first attack in due to greater weapon length, which I however was usually able to quite easily parry with my shield. Once I started pressing the attack, they would largely have to be on the defensive, getting in maybe a third or a quarter of the amount of shots that I did. This was because once they've attacked and I've blocked, it's fairly easy for me to strike them before they have time to recover their weapon fast enough to parry, so in order to survive they had to either just focus on parrying until I missed, overextended, left an opening or something like that, or try to maneuver away from and around me in order to stay out of my weapon's reach and strike from that distance, which is hard to do when you're in heavy armour. Thus it was very rare for me to lose to such a fighter, and you also almost never saw great weapons or polearms in our duel style tournaments. They are just at too great a disadvantage against sword and shield. 

In real life, however, several things would be different. We use rattan weapons in the SCA. With a steel greatsword or greataxe, you might break the shield and change the dynamic entirely. Also in mass combat, they are very effective since they can use other fighters as cover. But my question was not one of realism, it was regarding rule interpretation. What does the BGB say? By the way, I hate their parrying rule, which says all the damage in an attack is deflected by any successful parry. And with most weapons and shields having 15-20 HP they're almost impossible to break, even with a greatsword with its 2d8 damage. For this reason I use RQ3 for weapon stats, where a shield has 8-16 AP and deflects that many points of damage, so a great weapon has a good chance of getting some damage through and even breaking it. But I've griped about this in another thread.

But regarding BGB. Can you both attack and parry with a given weapon in the same round?

[svensson]

On 6/6/2021 at 9:10 PM, Barak Shathur said:

I'm a scadian fighter too :). Or was, I have maybe around 10 years' experience spread out in intervals since 1988, but now I'm largely retired (I think the pandemic was the killing blow, but you never know...). My experience with greatswords and halberds was that when fighting against such an opponent, with me using sword and shield, they would often get the first attack in due to greater weapon length, which I however was usually able to quite easily parry with my shield. Once I started pressing the attack, they would largely have to be on the defensive, getting in maybe a third or a quarter of the amount of shots that I did. This was because once they've attacked and I've blocked, it's fairly easy for me to strike them before they have time to recover their weapon fast enough to parry, so in order to survive they had to either just focus on parrying until I missed, overextended, left an opening or something like that, or try to maneuver away from and around me in order to stay out of my weapon's reach and strike from that distance, which is hard to do when you're in heavy armour. Thus it was very rare for me to lose to such a fighter, and you also almost never saw great weapons or polearms in our duel style tournaments. They are just at too great a disadvantage against sword and shield. 

In real life, however, several things would be different. We use rattan weapons in the SCA. With a steel greatsword or greataxe, you might break the shield and change the dynamic entirely. Also in mass combat, they are very effective since they can use other fighters as cover. But my question was not one of realism, it was regarding rule interpretation. What does the BGB say? By the way, I hate their parrying rule, which says all the damage in an attack is deflected by any successful parry. And with most weapons and shields having 15-20 HP they're almost impossible to break, even with a greatsword with its 2d8 damage. For this reason I use RQ3 for weapon stats, where a shield has 8-16 AP and deflects that many points of damage, so a great weapon has a good chance of getting some damage through and even breaking it. But I've griped about this in another thread.

But regarding BGB. Can you both attack and parry with a given weapon in the same round?

All very true in my experience as well.

I will say that a skilled pole arm fighter could account for your rush to contact and keep one at a distance if they were light on their feet and quick with their attacks. I knew one gent who would keep circling to your sword side and constantly wore you down with attacks at your face and legs. After awhile, you'd tire out from chasing him and shield blocking and then he had his opening. And the guy won Crown a couple times doing that.

But your point about unbreakable shields is well spoken. I also limit shield AP to RQ3 levels... Even the best shields in the medieval era were considered disposable after a fight or three. Tourney knights as early as 1200 AD were required to supply themselves with three shields, although jousting IS pretty abusive to them.

In the Bronze Age context of RQG, a Sartarite shield is just two thin layers of wood glued cross-grained to each other with a bronze center boss. If particularly well-constructed, a bronze rim is added to the edges and a leather 'skin' was stitched to the front [with a consequential weight increase].

As to attacking and parrying with a weapon in the same round, the RQG rules say you can -- but NOT in the same Strike Rank.

Edited June 15, 2021 by svensson

[Barak Shathur]

 

1 hour ago, svensson said:

I will say that a skilled pole arm fighter could account for your rush to contact and keep one at a distance if they were light on their feet and quick with their attacks. I knew one gent who would keep circling to your sword side and constantly wore you down with attacks at your face and legs. After awhile, you'd tire out from chasing him and shield blocking and then he had his opening. And the guy won Crown a couple times doing that.

Yes, a highly skilled polearm or great weapon fighter can get around the disadvantages, especially since he/she has a lot of experience fighting weapon and shield opponents, while the reverse is not true. Kind of like a left handed fighter. I've found that they are often able to figure out some trick that works well against people who haven't fought against them a lot, but eventually, once you've seen it enough times (and it enters the general knowledge of SCA fighters) it becomes less effective. I've seen a Crown tournament where a pole arm guy had a trick no one there had encountered before, and no one had time to figure out how to counter it during the brief time of the tournament, so it carried him all the way to the throne. But it was a one trick pony, and it wouldn't work forever. Against newbies however, it's a killer. 

This kind of effect is reflected well in the rules, where a highly skilled fighter gets specials more often, and it works especially well since the system is slanted toward the attacker since it forces the defender to score a special parry or dodge to counter fully. 

1 hour ago, svensson said:

As to attacking and parrying with a weapon in the same round, the RQG rules say you can -- but NOT in the same Strike Rank.

That's how RQ3 works too. It seems to me that it makes twohanded weapons a no-brainer choice, if as stated above you'll simply do more damage but have the same defensive ability as a weapon and shield fighter. I think I will limit all weapons to either attacking or defending during a round, but allowing dodging, since that is penalised when wearing armour. In addition to reflecting reality, it creates balance since a twohanded fighter then has worse defensive ability when attacking than a weapon and shield fighter, whose shield parry is unaffected by encumbrance. 

[Mugen]

2 hours ago, svensson said:

As to attacking and parrying with a weapon in the same round, the RQG rules say you can -- but NOT in the same Strike Rank.

It may be what is written, but is it how it's supposed to work ?

My understanding was that you could use any weapon to parry any attack.

[svensson]

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

It may be what is written, but is it how it's supposed to work ?

My understanding was that you could use any weapon to parry any attack.

It's called 'the riposte'.

When one attacks, you leave an opening in your defense. A riposte is a deflection in that attack, followed by a very fast strike through the opening.

Remember that an RQ combat round is longer than the roughly 6-second round of classic DnD/PF games and an RQ round is subdivided into smaller increments, so there is more detail to the fight.

[Kloster]

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

It may be what is written, but is it how it's supposed to work ?

My understanding was that you could use any weapon to parry any attack.

You can use any weapon to parry any attack, but you can not parry with a weapon in the same SR you attack with this weapon (or you can not attack with a weapon if you have parried with it in the same SR). This is very important because someone with a shorter weapon (=higher weapon SR) that enter the range of the longer will strike before his opponent (a bit like Barak described). As you can delay your attack, if the shorter weapon holding character delays his attack to SR 10, the longer weapon holding character has to choose if he attacks in SR10 after the short weapon or if he parries this attack, because they would both be in the same SR.

[Barak Shathur]

15 minutes ago, Kloster said:

You can use any weapon to parry any attack, but you can not parry with a weapon in the same SR you attack with this weapon (or you can not attack with a weapon if you have parried with it in the same SR). This is very important because someone with a shorter weapon (=higher weapon SR) that enter the range of the longer will strike before his opponent (a bit like Barak described). As you can delay your attack, if the shorter weapon holding character delays his attack to SR 10, the longer weapon holding character has to choose if he attacks in SR10 after the short weapon or if he parries this attack, because they would both be in the same SR.

Actually it's the other way round, the combatant with the lowest SR goes first. So the one with the longer weapon will be able to strike before the one with the shorter weapon.

[Kloster]

6 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

Actually it's the other way round, the combatant with the lowest SR goes first. So the one with the longer weapon will be able to strike before the one with the shorter weapon.

In RQ3, yes, until the shorter weapon close the range (a maneuver named 'Close Combat'). Either the long weapon steps away and the combat continues with same range (and iirc everybody adds 1 to SR), or he allows the closing range (to maintain formation, or if he can't backs away) and after that, he has to wait for the shorter's weapon to attack to be able to perform his attack (RQ3 player's book P57).

[Barak Shathur]

4 minutes ago, Kloster said:

In RQ3, yes, until the shorter weapon close the range (a maneuver named 'Close Combat'). Either the long weapon steps away and the combat continues with same range (and iirc everybody adds 1 to SR), or he allows the closing range (to maintain formation, or if he can't backs away) and after that, he has to wait for the shorter's weapon to attack to be able to perform his attack (RQ3 player's book P57).

Yes, if you're talking about closing. You said entering the longer weapon's range, which isn't quite the same thing. Thanks for clearing that up.

I'm thinking that as an alternative to limiting two-handed weapons to either attacking or defending, one can count an attack as using up one parry attempt, so that any parries later in that round start at -30%. And conversely, if you've parried and then attack, the cumulative penalty is added to that attack. I'm not sure which one harmonises best with the system.

[Kloster]

14 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

Yes, if you're talking about closing. You said entering the longer weapon's range, which isn't quite the same thing. Thanks for clearing that up.

I'm thinking that as an alternative to limiting two-handed weapons to either attacking or defending, one can count an attack as using up one parry attempt, so that any parries later in that round start at -30%. And conversely, if you've parried and then attack, the cumulative penalty is added to that attack. I'm not sure which one harmonises best with the system.

Sorry for the confusion. For your proposal, as I firmly dislike the multiple parry rules, I have no real opinion on them. I very much prefer staying with 2 actions per round among Attack, Parry and Dodge (not counting over 100% skills).

Edited June 7, 2021 by Kloster
typing mistake

[Barak Shathur]

4 minutes ago, Kloster said:

Sorry for the confusion. For your proposal, as I firmly dislike the multiple parry rules, I have no real opinion on them. I very much prefer staying with 2 actions per round among Attack, Parry and Dodge (not counting over 100% skills).

That's cool. I prefer a good fighter to have a chance to hold off two or three opponents rather than automatically being cut down. Again, it mirrors my SCA experience.

[Baron Wulfraed]

4 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

I'm thinking that as an alternative to limiting two-handed weapons to either attacking or defending, one can count an attack as using up one parry attempt, so that any parries later in that round start at -30%. And conversely, if you've parried and then attack, the cumulative penalty is added to that attack. I'm not sure which one harmonises best with the system.

As I recall from SCA lectures/demos (at gaming conventions in the 80s/90s), greatsword usage keeps the weapon on front of one -- unlike broadswords with their wide swings (possibly starting from behind the back). Parrying (more blocking I think, as one can't really deflect the attack) with a greatsword tended to involve twisting at the waist to put the near vertical sword into the path of the attack; low attacks being a tad harder to parry as one either dropped to the knee to get the blade closer to the ground OR one did a "quick" inversion of the blade (rather than hands near waist height with blade extending upwards -- think deep sea fishing rod -- one rotated the arms up to chest height, dropping the blade tip toward the floor). In either case, the blade is still in a position suited for an attack (or, vice versa, if an attack was done, the blade may not be near vertical, but moving to a parry should still be possible).

[Mugen]

5 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

Yes, if you're talking about closing. You said entering the longer weapon's range, which isn't quite the same thing. Thanks for clearing that up.

I'm thinking that as an alternative to limiting two-handed weapons to either attacking or defending, one can count an attack as using up one parry attempt, so that any parries later in that round start at -30%. And conversely, if you've parried and then attack, the cumulative penalty is added to that attack. I'm not sure which one harmonises best with the system.

I'd put the same malus to all "active" actions (those that are initiated by the player and decided in the declaration step) and put a cumulative malus on top of it for each "reactive" action (defenses, essentially).

I feel like declaring more than one action should make all actions "rushed", and as such harder to accomplish.

[svensson]

The way i handle it is that until the player gets 100+% in Dodge AND Parry, you only get to do ONE per combat round, selected at Statement of Intent.

[Lloyd Dupont]

23 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

That's how RQ3 works too. It seems to me that it makes twohanded weapons a no-brainer choice, if as stated above you'll simply do more damage but have the same defensive ability as a weapon and shield fighter. I think I will limit all weapons to either attacking or defending during a round, but allowing dodging, since that is penalised when wearing armour. In addition to reflecting reality, it creates balance since a twohanded fighter then has worse defensive ability when attacking than a weapon and shield fighter, whose shield parry is unaffected by encumbrance. 

That might seem to be a problem...
However, Shield can be used to parry missiles, whereas weapons, 2-handed or not, cannot (BGB page 231)

And also, when one close range against an opponent with a bigger weapon, the big weapon is at disadvantage (BGB page 219)

 

21 hours ago, svensson said:

It's called 'the riposte'.

When one attacks, you leave an opening in your defense. A riposte is a deflection in that attack, followed by a very fast strike through the opening.

Someone recently in another thread in that forum had a cool idea:
if you successfully parry a fail attack, you should get a bonus attack as a reaction (i.e. being a reaction it has the cumulative -30% applied to it, possibly)

Edited June 8, 2021 by Lloyd Dupont

[Kloster]

1 hour ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

However, Shield can be used to parry missiles, whereas weapons, 2-handed or not, cannot (BGB page 231)

I do not have my BGB at hand, but with RQ3, another advantage for the sword/shield combo vs 2H sword is the amount of AP (12 for 2H sword, 16 for kite shield and 18 for hoplite), plus the fact that if you parry with your attack weapon, it's AP will go down much more rapidly. Another is the cost (320p for 2H sword vs 150p for the most expensive shield, that has 50% more AP).

[Barak Shathur]

18 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

As I recall from SCA lectures/demos (at gaming conventions in the 80s/90s), greatsword usage keeps the weapon on front of one -- unlike broadswords with their wide swings (possibly starting from behind the back). Parrying (more blocking I think, as one can't really deflect the attack) with a greatsword tended to involve twisting at the waist to put the near vertical sword into the path of the attack; low attacks being a tad harder to parry as one either dropped to the knee to get the blade closer to the ground OR one did a "quick" inversion of the blade (rather than hands near waist height with blade extending upwards -- think deep sea fishing rod -- one rotated the arms up to chest height, dropping the blade tip toward the floor). In either case, the blade is still in a position suited for an attack (or, vice versa, if an attack was done, the blade may not be near vertical, but moving to a parry should still be possible).

Yes, this is certainly true. At the same time, the weapon and shield guy has one tool for parrying and another for attacking. Even if you two hands to control your zweihander, the other guy can parry and attack at the same time while you have to recover your weapon's balance so some degree between actions. However, we are trying to create an abstraction that works in a game. In my book, someone with a shield has a defensive advantage while the great weapon fighter has an offensive one. I want this to be reflected in the rules. 

[Barak Shathur]

17 hours ago, Mugen said:

I'd put the same malus to all "active" actions (those that are initiated by the player and decided in the declaration step) and put a cumulative malus on top of it for each "reactive" action (defenses, essentially).

I feel like declaring more than one action should make all actions "rushed", and as such harder to accomplish.

I think this is exactly what I was proposing.

[Mugen]

On 6/7/2021 at 8:40 AM, Barak Shathur said:

That's how RQ3 works too. It seems to me that it makes twohanded weapons a no-brainer choice, if as stated above you'll simply do more damage but have the same defensive ability as a weapon and shield fighter.

And that's not counting the fact a two-handed weapon only requires one skill outside RQ3, which means it's easier to be good at both attack and defense at character creation.

Afterwards, the fact you'll have 2 skill checks after each session involving a fight means you'll be more likely to increase your overall fighting capabilities.

10 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

I think this is exactly what I was proposing.

My understanding was that if you do 2 attacks, you proposed to apply the -30% to the second attack only, and defenses taking place after the second one.

I proposed to apply the -30% to all actions, including the first attack.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Mugen

[Barak Shathur]

3 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

However, Shield can be used to parry missiles, whereas weapons, 2-handed or not, cannot (BGB page 231)

Yeah, but this could be offset by carrying a shield while advancing and then just dropping it before entering melee.

3 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

And also, when one close range against an opponent with a bigger weapon, the big weapon is at disadvantage (BGB page 219)

I'm thinking more and more that this might be the solution. It's a bit more awkward to manage, but it's there in the rules and it seems it would work as in real life, so maybe BRP wins this one.

3 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

Someone recently in another thread in that forum had a cool idea:
if you successfully parry a fail attack, you should get a bonus attack as a reaction (i.e. being a reaction it has the cumulative -30% applied to it, possibly)

Like Harnmaster's Tactical Advantages!

1 hour ago, Kloster said:

I do not have my BGB at hand, but with RQ3, another advantage for the sword/shield combo vs 2H sword is the amount of AP (12 for 2H sword, 16 for kite shield and 18 for hoplite), plus the fact that if you parry with your attack weapon, it's AP will go down much more rapidly. Another is the cost (320p for 2H sword vs 150p for the most expensive shield, that has 50% more AP).

Yet another proof of how flawed BGB:s weapon system is compared to RQ3:s . In BGB, most weapons and shields have 15-20ish HP. Since you need to do more than that to even begin to damage a parrying implement, it's basically moot. And parrying deflects all damage anyway, so there is no advantage to shields as far as I can tell, apart from the ability to parry missiles. And like I already said, that can be countered by carrying a shield around until you're engaged in melee.

It's strange, when BGB is so good, that it's not better.

Edited June 8, 2021 by Barak Shathur
clarity

[Barak Shathur]

5 minutes ago, Mugen said:

My understanding was that if you do 2 attacks, you proposed to apply the -30% to the second attack only.

Not exactly. My proposal was actually that if you attack and parry in the same round with the same weapon, the attack (limited to one unless you have over 100% skill) is counted as one "parry" in terms of the cumulative -30%. For example, first you parry at full skill, then you attack at -30%, then you parry again at -60% etc. Or attack at full skill, parry at -30%, parry again at -60%, etc. 

9 minutes ago, Mugen said:

I proposed to apply the -30% to all actions, including the first attack.

I see.

[Algesan]

On 6/6/2021 at 6:29 PM, svensson said:

OK, taking my experience as a heavy fighter in the SCA, yes you can do both with some great weapons, but not all of them.

Most great weapons [greatswords, halberds, pikes, etc.] are not fought from the shoulder and arm muscles, but from the thighs, hips, and stomach muscles. If the fighter doesn't over-commit and unbalance himself, then parrying and dodging are no big deal. Most strikes are short [!] chopping motions or thrusts that are easily recovered back into a guard position if the fighter keeps his footing and balance.

The two-handed weapons with the most 'parry potential' in my experience are swords and spears, as they are fought with quick short strikes. Axes and mauls, not so much. They require some 'oomph' behind them, longer arcs with more muscular commitment to the strike.

To put it another way, fighting a man and chopping a tree are two VERY different things.

So, in a rules sense, I personally feel it's entirely reasonable for an attack and parry /dodge to occur in the same round.

Note that I don't hold my experiences in the SCA to be the final word on medieval combat. There are a lot of very smart people out there who've done some very stellar work in recreating many treatises on personal combat and some organizations who have other ideas just as valid as my experiences. And let's be honest here... the only 'experts' in medieval combat are people who faced an opponent over a bare blade and lived. But the SCA is the experience I have, and I think it taught me a couple things of value to the discussion.

Not to dis you or the OP's experience, since I share it, but the problem with SCA experience stems directly from its admirable record of low injuries, it limits what you can do with weapons.

HEMA is not immune to it, although a bit more open, depending on the rules in use.

Any two handed weapon has the ability to both parry/block and riposte/attack.  Sure, it isn't going to work if you try to play Mighty Casey with a baseball bat.  There are some advantages to using a weapon with two hands in terms of leverage.   This doesn't even cover "alternate" attack methods that fit right into using the weapon, including kicks, trips, throws, grappling, elbow smashes, punching, pommel strikes, butt spikes, etc.  That is actually one of the greatest things about the original D&D combat system, since it simulated a minute of combat to get one "damaging" blow in which included feints, parries, ripostes, "alternate attacks", etc.  IMO, a minute was too long, but it got out of all of this technical stuff.  There are other systems if you want to simulate that.

[svensson]

3 hours ago, Algesan said:

Not to dis you or the OP's experience, since I share it, but the problem with SCA experience stems directly from its admirable record of low injuries, it limits what you can do with weapons.

HEMA is not immune to it, although a bit more open, depending on the rules in use.

Any two handed weapon has the ability to both parry/block and riposte/attack.  Sure, it isn't going to work if you try to play Mighty Casey with a baseball bat.  There are some advantages to using a weapon with two hands in terms of leverage.   This doesn't even cover "alternate" attack methods that fit right into using the weapon, including kicks, trips, throws, grappling, elbow smashes, punching, pommel strikes, butt spikes, etc.  That is actually one of the greatest things about the original D&D combat system, since it simulated a minute of combat to get one "damaging" blow in which included feints, parries, ripostes, "alternate attacks", etc.  IMO, a minute was too long, but it got out of all of this technical stuff.  There are other systems if you want to simulate that.

Well, I did say my experience isn't the be all and end all. Any martial combat form is going to have safety rules for insurance purposes, even that Gawdawful Medieval so-called Combat League 'wail and flail' nonsense they're doing in Russia. Other viewpoints and voices are out there and all of them are reasonably valid.

The only real expert in blade combat is someone who's faced an opponent over bare blades with killing on their mind. As Musashi put it, 'The best techniques are taught by the winners'.

But for game mechanics purposes, both DnD and BRP/RQ don't do a bad job of reproducing the 'cut and thrust' [pun very much intended] of a medieval fight. And they're certainly not the most deadly systems out there. I've played a fair amount of Legend of the Five Rings RPG, for one example, and I tell players all the time that if the katana comes out of its saya, somebody gonna die.