Parry, Dodge, Block

[Atgxtg]

12 hours ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

As long as it's not a vampire rabbit. Those are too OP! 😮 😛 

No problem. I need to deal with some noisy knights in the daytime, anyway. BTWwhat can I get to protect myself against area effect weapons, say,I dunno,  holy hand grenades?

[Atgxtg]

12 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Bunnies and Burrows it is, let me get my dice!

They added a beserker rabbit? Strangely enough there are multiple rabbit RPGs now. So many Python fans.

 

12 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

or T&T... same author as Stormbringer!

One of the same authors. Don't forget that Steve Perrin co-wrote Strombringer and obviously did most of the game mechanics, as they are very similar to RuneQuest. 

12 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Honestly though, I do not decry the dark side. Some do prefer D&D, who am I to judge.

Oh, I agree. It's just that I think that street so run both ways. If the BRP crowd can go exist with the D&Ders then the D&Ders should coexist with the BRPers. Although considering how D&D is going these days, I'm not sure it they can even coexist with each other. At least not at GenCon. 

[olskool]

On 7/15/2021 at 11:53 AM, Atgxtg said:

 

Oh, I agree. It's just that I think that street so run both ways. If the BRP crowd can go exist with the D&Ders then the D&Ders should coexist with the BRPers. Although considering how D&D is going these days, I'm not sure it they can even coexist with each other. At least not at GenCon. 

YOU'RE NOT WRONG!  Now that D&D 5.5 has been announced for 2024, we will see how watered down newer editions can get.  Three death saves... hold my beer.   

[icebrand]

On 6/24/2021 at 1:47 PM, Kloster said:

In Runequest 3, you can parry with your hands. The armor points of the parrying weapons are the AP of the arm, and the damage is not substracted from AP, but from the arm hit points. A successful Martial Arts roll adds 6 points to the arm HP. As far as I have understood, RQG is same.

You cannot parry with natural weapons in CE, which is the compatible with RQG game. I think CE > 3 if you want to see the "previous" rule versions and infer something from that.

In rq3 fist parries 3, or 6 with martial arts.

[Atgxtg]

55 minutes ago, icebrand said:

You cannot parry with natural weapons in CE, which is the compatible with RQG game. I think CE > 3 if you want to see the "previous" rule versions and infer something from that.

Yes, there are differences between BRP games. It's not really a case of a latter edition supersedes an earlier one through, although a lot of gamers act that way. In reality, each GM is free to use whatever ruleset they wish, provided they have access to it. They can even pick and choose from among various rulesets. In fact, I suspect most BRP GMs swipe the odd item here and there from other games. 

55 minutes ago, icebrand said:

In rq3 fist parries 3, or 6 with martial arts.

Yes, although success level can adjust that a little, or a lot if the campaign has Ki skills. 

 

[icebrand]

4 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

In fact, I suspect most BRP GMs swipe the odd item here and there from other games. 

BRP is magic and special, very few people play RAW and i read many reviews where people literally spend paragraphs on how rules *should be* instead of what's in the book hahaha.

For example, we play CE but with rune points, 1 weapon skill for attack+parry and increased characteristics + personal skill points from BGB. Also  XP bonus = INT

[SDLeary]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, there are differences between BRP games. It's not really a case of a latter edition supersedes an earlier one through, although a lot of gamers act that way. In reality, each GM is free to use whatever ruleset they wish, provided they have access to it. They can even pick and choose from among various rulesets. In fact, I suspect most BRP GMs swipe the odd item here and there from other games. 

Yes, although success level can adjust that a little, or a lot if the campaign has Ki skills. 

 

As can Vambraces

SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

7 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

As can Vambraces

Maybe. Depends on if parry changes the hit to the limb or not, and I think that varies by game. In some BRP games arm parries work like shields (the excess damage goes on through to the orginal location struct), and in others the damage hits the parrying arm.

 

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, icebrand said:

BRP is magic and special, very few people play RAW and i read many reviews where people literally spend paragraphs on how rules *should be* instead of what's in the book hahaha.

That's not so much that BRP is magical and special, but that the people who play it are. Since RQ and to alesser extend Stormbringer were "orphan" RPGs (no support) for a long time, fans of those games got into the habit of filling in any gaps in the rules on their own, and making do with what they already had.

As a result, GMs of BRP and related games are more independent than those of other, better supported RPGs. BRP GMs are used to deciding all this stuff for themselves and decide what rules to run, rather than just going with whatever the latest release says. We have to be convinced to switch to RQG, CoC7, KAP6, etc, and if some GM prefers to run RQ2 or RQ3 rules over latter editions they will.

1 hour ago, icebrand said:

For example, we play CE but with rune points, 1 weapon skill for attack+parry and increased characteristics + personal skill points from BGB. Also  XP bonus = INT

Exactly my point. You've got lots of mostly compatible rule sets to pick and choose from, and took the stuff you prefer. If I were running a BRP game, I'd probably start with RQ3 rules and probably take selectable special successes from Mythras, a tweaked damage bonus (+1D2/+1d4/+1D6/+1D8/+1D10 etc. per 4 or 5 points instead of +1D6 per 16) and a few other bits and pieces depending on the setting. But I got used to doing that sort of thing in the 90s, when BRP games outside of CoC didn't get much support. 

[icebrand]

15 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

That's not so much that BRP is magical and special, but that the people who play it are. Since RQ and to alesser extend Stormbringer were "orphan" RPGs (no support) for a long time, fans of those games got into the habit of filling in any gaps in the rules on their own, and making do with what they already had.

As a result, GMs of BRP and related games are more independent than those of other, better supported RPGs. BRP GMs are used to deciding all this stuff for themselves and decide what rules to run, rather than just going with whatever the latest release says. We have to be convinced to switch to RQG, CoC7, KAP6, etc, and if some GM prefers to run RQ2 or RQ3 rules over latter editions they will.

Exactly my point. You've got lots of mostly compatible rule sets to pick and choose from, and took the stuff you prefer. If I were running a BRP game, I'd probably start with RQ3 rules and probably take selectable special successes from Mythras, a tweaked damage bonus (+1D2/+1d4/+1D6/+1D8/+1D10 etc. per 4 or 5 points instead of +1D6 per 16) and a few other bits and pieces depending on the setting. But I got used to doing that sort of thing in the 90s, when BRP games outside of CoC didn't get much support. 

And this is why BRP > Rest imho. Yeah, sure, many games do specific things better, or run specific settings in a more streamlined way, but BRP, for me at least, has a magic no other system captures.

Edited November 25, 2021 by icebrand

[SDLeary]

45 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Maybe. Depends on if parry changes the hit to the limb or not, and I think that varies by game. In some BRP games arm parries work like shields (the excess damage goes on through to the orginal location struct), and in others the damage hits the parrying arm.

 

True, though it looked like we were talking about RQ (insert version here), CE = Classic Edition(?); so using locations.

As to where the rest of the damage goes, it depends on how "parry" is being defined, knocking-away vs blocking, and so on. Even if playing a version of BRP without locations, this part would be how I would determine where the damage that got past the parry (vambraces or no) went.

SDLeary

Edited November 25, 2021 by SDLeary

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, SDLeary said:

True, though it looked like we were talking about RQ (insert version here), CE = Classic Edition(?); so using locations.

As to where the rest of the damage goes, it depends on how "parry" is being defined,

Usually an arm parry is treated the same as a shield parry. That is it blocks up to a certain amount of damage and then the rest continues onto the hit location rolled for the attack, just like a shield parry. It kinda has to work that way or else hand parries can become better than shield parries, as it could bump the location struck from head, chest, abdomen to someplace less lethal.

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, icebrand said:

And this is why BRP > Rest imho. Yeah, sure, many games do specific things better, or run specific settings in a more streamlined way, but BRP, for me at least, has a magic no other system captures.

LOL!. Rose tinted glasses aside, it funny that much of BRP's flexibility comes from a few bad business decisions, and lack of support. Had the system gotten more support in the late 80s and 90s, it probably wouldn't be as open a freeform as it is today.  It might not be as popular! Or maybe it could have overtaken AD&D when the latter faltered. RQ being gone, is what helped to save it. Or foruse the fact that it was an very good and very influential RPG had a lot to do with that.  

[icebrand]

13 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Usually an arm parry is treated the same as a shield parry. That is it blocks up to a certain amount of damage and then the rest continues onto the hit location rolled for the attack, just like a shield parry. It kinda has to work that way or else hand parries can become better than shield parries, as it could bump the location struck from head, chest, abdomen to someplace less lethal.

I never liked shields in BRP.

Classic is the "best" at it (personal opinion), but it still makes "noise" to me. I toyed with the idea of giving weapons "absorb" and halving the HP (so they would end up pretty similar to RQ3) and then double the shield absorb as HP (and let them break like weapons) but this caused issues with impales vs shield (nothing unmanageable but it got less elegant real quick) so i never tested this 

[Atgxtg]

4 hours ago, icebrand said:

I never liked shields in BRP.

They are great in RQ, and tend to be useless in anything other BRP game. RQ3 probably had the best shield rules since it allowed for shields to act as cover, and work as passive armor. 

 

4 hours ago, icebrand said:

Classic is the "best" at it (personal opinion), but it still makes "noise" to me. I toyed with the idea of giving weapons "absorb" and halving the HP (so they would end up pretty similar to RQ3) and then double the shield absorb as HP (and let them break like weapons) but this caused issues with impales vs shield (nothing unmanageable but it got less elegant real quick) so i never tested this 

I think the difficulty lies in the difference between parrying (deflecting/redirecting an attack) and blocking (sticking something else in the way to take the hit). I think if blocking were easy, and shields stopped a little less, it might work out better. 

[icebrand]

46 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

They are great in RQ, and tend to be useless in anything other deBRP game. RQ3 probably had the best shield rules since it allowed for shields to act as cover, and work as passive armor. 

 

I think the difficulty lies in the difference between parrying (deflecting/redirecting an attack) and blocking (sticking something else in the way to take the hit). I think if blocking were easy, and shields stopped a little less, it might work out better. 

Relying on my vast melee combat knowledge from years of watching YouTube... Apparently (don't quote me on this) you are not supposed to block, but deflect/redirect instead (at least in single combat).

Also attacking with the shield is normal, not an exotic maneuver (again, according to YouTube melee fighting dude).

I like classic because shield and weapon mechanics are different. In rq3 shield is strictly worse than melee weapons until you go big enough for them to be overpowered (16+ ap you may as well just roll parry and save yourself the damage/location rolls).

The cover thing worked vs missiles only afaik, and mathematically it wasn't the best unless its your only option. Also the rules are wrong, I'm pretty sure the big shield covers way more than shield arm+2 locations, you can literally see it on YouTube.

Also according to this novel i read the Romans had a turtle formation (testudo) that wouldn't be defeated by archers hitting 60% of their shots on unconvered hit locations.

 

Edited November 26, 2021 by icebrand

[Atgxtg]

Just now, icebrand said:

Relying on my vast melee combat from years of watching YouTube... Apparently (don't quote me on this) you are not supposed to block, but deflect/redirect instead (at least in single combat).

Parrying is the ideal goal, but it's harder to pull off. It's why you get a lot of partial parries. Blocking doesn't get you the advantage, but it does keep you from getting your heart stabbed or your head cut off. 

Just now, icebrand said:

Also attacking with the shield is normal, not an exotic maneuver (again, according to YouTube melee fighting dude).

Yup. although doing so is a bit risky as it tends to leave you open, since while you are batting the opponent with your shield, you're not using it to defend yourself.

Now as for shields in RuneQuest, you actually get attack and damage stats for shields in RQ3, not in RQ2.

 

Just now, icebrand said:

I like classic because shield and weapon mechanics are different.

Not really. The only differences are that shields are indestructible (which is silly), and weapons cannot parry missiles. BTW, It's RQ2. There is really nothing that make it "classic" compared to RQ or RQ3. "Classic"  is just a rebranding/marketing trick. Like with Coca-Cola. 

Just now, icebrand said:

 

 

In rq3 shield is strictly worse than melee weapons until you go big enough for them to be overpowered (16+ ap you may as well just roll parry and save yourself the damage/location rolls).

Not at all. In RQ3 shields are better defensively than melee weapons, as shields not only parry but count as cover and passive armor. Plus, as an off hand weapon, they can parry on the same strike rank that you attack with your weapon, something that you otherwise cannot do.

 

 

Just now, icebrand said:

The cover thing worked vs missiles only afaik

Then you're not all that familiar with RQ3. Two Handed Spear & Shield is an option in RQ3 and even goes back to RQ2. The tactic was in RQ3 and even used in some latter BRP supplments for handling ancient soldiers who mostly got by with a helmet,shield, and maybe greaves. 

Just now, icebrand said:

, and mathematically it wasn't the best unless its your only option.

And realsticalyl it's not your best option either. Standing there with a bit of wood or wicker in front of you whiel someone shoots at you is never your best option.

Just now, icebrand said:

Also the rules are wrong
 

Wrong in what way? They are game rules.Are you saying they don't simulate reality perfectly, well of course they don't. No RPG rules do. There used to be a comic strip that regularly picked apart the weak spots in various RPGs.

Any experienced GM can rip the RPGs they are familiar with to shreds. We know where the weaknesses are. Let's look at some of RQ2's shortcomings:

•  a guy with a CON of 4 can survive having both his arms severed while one with a CON of 18 cannot.
• The guy with the 4 CON will heal from it faster, too. 
• Weapons are very fragile, two or three parries will trash a weapon
• Shields are indestructible.
• Large creatures were combat masters due to thier incredible STR bonuses to melee.

Now all of the above are "wrong" from a reality standpoint.

t RQ3 was pretty much written to fix some of RQ2's shortcomings. Yes RQ3 had some flaws of it own, but  most of RQ3 shortcomings were inherited from RQ2, and that RQ2 has a long more that is "wrong" with it.

 

If you prefer RQ2 (you call it CE), that's fine. Like I said earlier there are a lot of diffient version of BRP and we are all fre to pick and choose which bits we like. If you want to prove that RQ2 is superior in some way or other, you got to back it up with evidence of how RQ2 does something better. 

 

The thing is though, RQ2's shield rules are even weaker than RQ3's. 

 

Just now, icebrand said:

 

, I'm pretty sure the big shield covers way more than shield arm+2 locations, you can literally see it on YouTube.

Youtube is hardly a source of anything. There are some good sources on youtube, but also some rather poor ones. But just saying "on Youtube" is like saying "somebody told me." Without know who told you, we can't tell how good your source is.

As far as what a shield covers it really depends on exactly what particular shield (they weren't standardized), the size of the people using it, and how they use it.  It rather difficult to get complete coverage without curling up into a ball behind the shield.

 

Just now, icebrand said:

Also according to this novel i read the Romans had a turtle formation that wouldn't be defeated by archers hitting 60% of their shots on unconvered hit locations.

The read a bit more. The tetsudo formation is more than just someone ducking down behind thier shield, but instead required multiple soldiers to overlap their shields in a pattern. It was augmented by the soldier weaning armor, too. 

But it's kinda moot because RQ2 doesn't have any rules for handling that.

[icebrand]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Your quote here

I have the same multi-quote prowess as a drunken telmori on wildday, but here it comes!

 

> Now as for shields in RuneQuest, you actually get attack and damage stats for shields in RQ3, not in RQ2.

ackshually shield damage appears on RQCE pg113 (appendix c, optional combat rules).

 

> BTW, It's RQ2. There is really nothing that make it "classic" compared to RQ or RQ3. "Classic"  is just a rebranding/marketing trick. Like with Coca-Cola. 

Well, Chaosium sells it as classic, i bought classic, and i think it's a better name than RQ2. "RQ" doesn't work since that can be like 10 different games.

 

> Not at all. In RQ3 shields are better defensively than melee weapons, as shields not only parry but count as cover and passive armor. Plus, as an off hand weapon, they can parry on the same strike rank that you attack with your weapon, something that you otherwise cannot do.

As far as I remember passive armor only works if the shield is on your back (so, it doesn't matter) and cover only works by declaring and spending your action. I don't have my rq3 books on me, but that's what I remember.

Also in 2nd Ed you can totally party and defend with the same weapon in the same SR, and it makes very little sense that you can with a 2h weapon but not with a 1h weapon in 3e. It's not that the shield is better, but they made some weapons worse. Also it's a really fringe case that doesn't really come up that much unless you are gaming the system.

 

> Then you're not all that familiar with RQ3.

No, I'm very familiar with RQ3.

 

> Two Handed Spear & Shield is an option in RQ3 and even goes back to RQ2. The tactic was in RQ3 and even used in some latter BRP supplments for handling ancient soldiers who mostly got by with a helmet,shield, and maybe greaves. 

That's a rule I'm aware of, but can't remember it well since it didn't come into play much. It wasn't very practical in normal adventuring scenarios.

 

> Standing there with a bit of wood or wicker in front of you whiel someone shoots at you is never your best option.

Weren't shields historically kind of very good against missiles?

 

•  a guy with a CON of 4 can survive having both his arms severed while one with a CON of 18 cannot.
• The guy with the 4 CON will heal from it faster, too. 

This holds true for both editions? 

 

• Weapons are very fragile, two or three parries will trash a weapon
• Shields are indestructible.

HMmmm... Armor is indestructible on both editions. Shields are indestructible in 2 because they absorb less damage than weapons, and are kinda an armor piece. Btw I'm not sure equipment durability is worth the extra bookkeeping...

 

> Large creatures were combat masters due to thier incredible STR bonuses to melee.

This is realistic. Big bears (like grizzly and polar) are possible to defeat in single combat (and there's at least one report of a guy killing a grizzly barehanded, but the bear choked on the guys arm and died, so that's a fumble).

Anything bigger is pretty much impossible to defeat, there's no scenario where a single human defeats a rhyno / hypo / elephant in melee combat. These were hunted in groups and "exploiting" the animals instinct, not dodging it's attacks.

Also you have bullfighting as evidence, where a highly trained, morally reprehensible human fights a beaten down, exanguined, scared and young bull and even then when they fail they sustain grievous injuries or death.

 

>  If you want to prove that RQ2 is superior in some way or other, you got to back it up with evidence of how RQ2 does something better

Better is relative and based on personal taste. For example, i like RQ2 skillset better, since there are fewer skills and they have more adventure-y names to them.

Also RQ2 handles high level 1v1 fights better, and high level vs low level 1vX fights are much more heroic.

Battle magic i also like way way way more than spirit magic (which removed all the "broken" spells to immediately allow fireblade without concentration, or bladesharp-10 (defeat a 15 pow average  spirit and pay a pittance... What a joke), or characters with +2d6 damage bonus (permanent if you got sorcery yo!). 

Cults are much better too, gods of gloranthan is a joke compared to Cult compendium (Or even cults of prax). Yeah yeah, they have 60 gods, but each has like 10 lines of text.

battle vs spirit magic cult access is also BIG, since RQ2 lets you build whatever character you like, while 3 has a very small selection on almost all cults.

Also you can be runelord *and/or* rune priest in almost every single cult, and the ranks have better perks, like increased pow gain and magic resistance

 

> It rather difficult to get complete coverage without curling up into a ball behind the shield.

But that actually sounds like a good strategy if you are facing some ranged dude(s) and can't retaliate. Would you let your PCs get extra cover if they do this?

Edited November 26, 2021 by icebrand

[Baron Wulfraed]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Not really. The only differences are that shields are indestructible (which is silly), and weapons cannot parry missiles. BTW, It's RQ2. There is really nothing that make it "classic" compared to RQ or RQ3. "Classic"  is just a rebranding/marketing trick. Like with Coca-Cola. 

As long as one doesn't overcorrect for RQ2 "indestructible" and end up with the metal trash can lids used in "Ivanhoe" movie (no mass to absorb any impacts, and so thin a few hits end up with it wrapped around one's arm).

I'd also tend to agree with regards to "Classic" -- it's RQ2 in a new skin (eg: the pagination is a bit different as the runic header/footer takes space away from text on a page).

[Mugen]

15 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

They are great in RQ, and tend to be useless in anything other BRP game. RQ3 probably had the best shield rules since it allowed for shields to act as cover, and work as passive armor. 

But RQG made a step in the wrong direction, as you now need two skills when using a shield, whereas you only need one when using the same weapon to attack and parry.

Shields are still great against missile weapons, and are easier to replace, but I'd rather try to reach 100+ with my main hand than increasing both skills.

Dropping the attack and parry skills is IMHO a good thing to do, but the consequences are not that good.

[David Scott]

54 minutes ago, Mugen said:

But RQG made a step in the wrong direction, as you now need two skills when using a shield, whereas you only need one when using the same weapon to attack and parry.

I'm unsure how you came to that conclusion, RQG page 187:

Quote

Shield (all) (15)

[...] An adventurer may use their shield skill to parry or attack with that weapon. [...]

Edited November 27, 2021 by David Scott

[Baron Wulfraed]

6 hours ago, Mugen said:

Dropping the attack and parry skills is IMHO a good thing to do, but the consequences are not that good.

Whereas I consider RQ:RiG's unified parry/attack %age to be the big mistake vs separate parry/attack for each weapon. After all, it technically implies someone with <x>Bow @ 75% can also parry with that bow at 75%... But who in their right mind would even attempt to train a bow parry (must be a noble who can afford all the broken/damaged bows 😈 ). Parry with a bow in desperation, yes -- but it should be at a fairly low level, since it just isn't done normally.

[Mugen]

5 hours ago, David Scott said:

I'm unsure how you came to that conclusion, RQG page 187:

If you have a weapon in one hand and a shield in the other, you'll need to use 2 différent skills to use the weapon to attack and the shield to parry (or the other way around, but it's rather unusual).

[pulpcitizen]

31 minutes ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

Whereas I consider RQ:RiG's unified parry/attack %age to be the big mistake vs separate parry/attack for each weapon. After all, it technically implies someone with <x>Bow @ 75% can also parry with that bow at 75%... But who in their right mind would even attempt to train a bow parry (must be a noble who can afford all the broken/damaged bows 😈 ). Parry with a bow in desperation, yes -- but it should be at a fairly low level, since it just isn't done normally.

Counterpoint: is the combined attack/parry into a single value markedly different from non-combat skills which may include both theory and application of knowledge, and at advanced levels the generation of new approached? Fine degrees of differentiation of combat skill types (sword-fighting would be the sum of defensive and offensive application for example), versus a broader skill definition for other skills.  🙂

[Baron Wulfraed]

3 minutes ago, Mugen said:

If you have a weapon in one hand and a shield in the other, you'll need to use 2 différent skills to use the weapon to attack and the shield to parry (or the other way around, but it's rather unusual).

Which is also true of RQ2 and RQ3 as well. No change there. If you are using a shield, at all, you had a Shield skill to apply to that use.