Parry, Dodge, Block

[Baron Wulfraed]

1 hour ago, pulpcitizen said:

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.  🙂

At that point it sounds like one should just use opposed rolls to summarize the entire melee round and forget about attack/parry differences, and even strike ranks.  Or even simpler -- compare the skill %ages via some table (similar to the Resistance Table?)  and use a single die roll to determine which character succeeded ("my 80% sword skill vs your 60% dagger skill means I need to roll under 70 to score damage, otherwise you scored against me")

 

ADDENDUM: We could just forget about weapon %age completely, we already have a skill suited for opposed rolls: Battle

We'd only need weapon stats for damage delivered, damage received/breakage!

Edited November 27, 2021 by Baron Wulfraed
Added ADDENDUM paragraphs

[Atgxtg]

8 hours 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.

Possibly. I'm not a fan of RQG, and am not that familar with the rules. 

8 hours ago, Mugen said:

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.

I think that is fallout from combining attack and parry into a single skill. Doing so makes shields much less useful. That's one reason why shields were not of much use in Elric!

 

 

8 hours ago, Mugen said:

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

Exactly. IMO, if you combine attack & parry into one skill then there should be a bonus to having a shield (like say +20% to parry for a medium shield), or maybe something like a "Sword & Shield" skill so that shields make some sense. 

[Atgxtg]

18 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

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).

Yeah. I though RQ3 shields were tough enough, although I think the best version I've seen was from Greg Porter's Timelords/Warpworld.?Spacetime RPGs. He gave shields hit locations which allowed for sections to get hacked off. RQ3's armor points did something similar but the hit locations left you with a great visualization of what was happening to your shield during the fight. 

 

Come to thick of it, that method might be the way to offset the combined attack & parry skills. Each hit location of a shield in worth +2 (approximately +10%) to block

18 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

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).

Yeah, it's RQ2 re-branded. Not that that is a bad thing. There are some people who will buy it that wouldn't have bought RQ2. There is a tendency to think of the latest iteration of a game as the best one, and to ignore previous editions in favor  the latest, but that latest edtion isn't always better than the previous edition.  Most RPGs seem to work out the bugs and stabilize into a final form in the first two or three editions. After that, later version tend to alter things and make more radical changes, which player may or may not view as improvements.  SO at that point it becomes more a matter of preferences than necessarily improvements.

 

For those of us who have and are familiar with older editions, there is always the option to go back to a previous edition if we prefer it to the "current" one. Plus we can mix 'n match features from other editions. 

[Alex]

3 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

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.

Don't quote me on this as a) it was a loooooong time ago, and b) we might well have been playing it "wrong", but I was sure Shield Attack was a separate skill, back in the (RQ2) day!

While I've played RQ3 a fair bit more recently, have no memory whatsoever of how that was handled...

10 hours 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.

That's only a great "skill economy" saving if you're using a 2H weapon, which has a significant tactical downside.  And a bigger one if your high-DEX enemies start to SoI "I delay my attack to the same SR as the PC with greatsword so they can't parry."  The biggest upside in RQG is for people dual wielding 1H weapons, but then you're back to needing two separate skills.

[Atgxtg]

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

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

Yes, as an optional rule. In RQ3 is was part of the main rules stats. Now I don't think either version handled it all that well. You'd basically have to learn another skill to attack with the sield, and the shield probably did less damage that the main weapon, especially with battle magic. But that's another can of worms.  

 

 

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

Well, Chaosium sells it as classic, i bought classic,

Yes, they call it that now, but it is RQ2. 

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

and i think it's a better name than RQ2.

But is isn't a better name. The game is RQ2 and has been since 1978? Changing the name just clouds the issue.

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

"RQ" doesn't work since that can be like 10 different games.

That's why it should be called RQ2.

Now if Chasoium's defense, they probably wouldn't have renamed if if Mongoose didn't produce a second RQ2, and confuse things. 

 

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

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.

Player book page 63 allowed you to cover specific hit locations with your shield (for full value). Passive armor at half value was in effect for shields slung on the back, and was also used for 2H spear & shield. Combined with missile hit locations is was rather effective. Certinaly more protection that in RQ2.

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

Also in 2nd Ed you can totally party and defend with the same weapon in the same SR

THat rules might be  an Wyrms Footnotes or something. I'll look. 

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

, and it makes very little sense that you can with a 2h weapon but not with a 1h weapon in 3e.

I agree. 

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

 

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.

No, shields are better. They can defend against projectiles, which weapons cannot, they tend to have more armor points. Weapon parries are a bit better in RQ3 too, as the weapons aren't made out of silly putty. 

 

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

No, I'm very familiar with RQ3.

Well you seem to be a bit rusty.

 

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

> 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.

Yeah, because formation fighting isn't very practical in normal adventuring scenarios. But then neither is standing still while being peppered with arrows. Usually players will either be shooting back with their own missile weapons, ducking behind cover, or, if close, charge into melee. 

 

Come to think of it, I've seen more PCs drop from charging archers when out of reach, in both RQ2 and RQ3 than I wish. A lot of players learned about impales the hard way. I still remember the group that did a frontal attack on a fort only to be surprised to find the gate barred. 

 

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

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

No. Not really. It was just better than standing there doing nothing. The romans used to routinely take apart oppoents that had shields with a voelly or two of pilia. Go get some friends and play around with some nerf toys and a piece of cardboard. See how open the one with the shield gets hit, especially when the archer targets the exposed areas. Then consider that real missile weapons had much greater speed and range.

Basically shields kinda suck against missile weapons, they just suck less than not having shields. Moreso in RQ.

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

•  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? 

Oh yeah, but it is more prevalent in RQ2 as hit points are tied more closely to CON. It's pretty much true in any BRP game that uses hit locations. It's what I meant about all RPGs having flaws. In this case, it'ss really just a byproduct of CON affecting hit points. Realistically, being healthier doesn't make it any harder to slice off one of your  body parts, except perhaps in that you can put of a better active defense.

A high CON would probably make a huge difference in surviving such an injury, and you probably should heal faster, but RQ mostly doesn't do that. RQ3 does make it a bit more likely that you will stabilize before bleeding to death, but that's about it.

Realistically, I think hit should probably be based on SIZ with a slight adjustment for CON, pretty much the reverse of what RQ2 does. 

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

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

HMmmm... Armor is indestructible on both editions.

True, although I did.t mention armor.

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

Shields are indestructible in 2 because they absorb less damage than weapons

Not really. A medium shield can stop 12 points on every parry. The best weapon can't stop 12 points more than once. 

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

, and are kinda an armor piece.

And are thus indestrubible. Since you brought up how unrealistic things are in RQ3, I'd like to point out that historically weapons, even bronze ones, tended to hold up better in a fight than shields. In fact bronze weapons probably shouldn't break, but intend bend. In the bronze (and iron) age Straightening swords after a battle was a thing. Now Gloranthan bronze isn't terrestrial bronze, so maybe it's more brittle. 

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

Btw I'm not sure equipment durability is worth the extra bookkeeping...

Neither am I. But the fact that RQ2 did it for weapons but not for shields, led to wooden shields being tougher than metal weapons. I you really wanted to game the system, just fight with two shields, and never have a broken weapon ever again.

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

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

This is realistic.

No it isn't. Elephants are not master combatants. They are just big and strong. T-Rexes shouldn't automatically hit with their bites just becuase they are 6 ton monster with the STR to match.In fact, now that I think about it, their STR scores are probably unrealistic. Strength changes in proportion to the square of the length where as mass changes with the cube.  

 

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

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.

Because that is the smartest, most efficient  way to fight such beasts, not because it can't be done any other way. Look at medieval hunting. Knights wore hunting leathers and fought beasts one on one to prove their manhood and skill. When they just wanted meat, they've use traps and bows. 

There is no land animal that a single human cannot beat in single combat, it just that bigger animals are far more likely to get a telling blow in than smaller ones. Plate isn't going to do much for you if an elephant steps on you. But that is no reason to give elephants 90%+ fighting skills.

 

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

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.

Yes evidence that disproves your point. Bulllfighting is a show. If the bullfigher wanted to a needed to kill the bull more quickly they could. But the whole thing is drawn out to entertain the crowd. We pretty much know who is going to come out of the fight alive (the bullfighter) and who isn't (the bull). Yes, accidents happen, and bulls are dangeous animals, but the bullfighter has the upper hand.

 

A bullifght is also a good way to illustrate the differences between RQ2 and RQ3. In RQ2 the bull gets around +20% to it attack from high STR, and the bullfighter's cape is, well, worthless. The bullfighter is probably toast unless he has a phenomenally high defense stat.

 

In RQ3 the bull isn't quite as good in melee,the bullfighter can dodge, and the cape is only next to worthless (okay realistically it's used to confuse the bull by making it think that it is part of the bullfighter, but neither 2 or 3 really cover that. I think we'd have to go to Bloode Tide or some such to get veronica cloak maneuver from fencing). 

 

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

Better is relative and based on personal taste.

Yes and no. Something can be proven as better, if there is some sort of consensus about what is desired. There are a few rule changes that came out over the years that pretty much everyone agree was a step in the right direction (you don't see any RQ1 holdouts who thought RQ2 was a misstep), but yeah, a lot of it comes down to personal preferences and play styles. Somethings, something that is a big problem with one group of players, never happens with a different group, or even with the same group under a different GM.

 

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

For example, i like RQ2 skillset better

Could you clarify that a bit? Better that what? RQ3, RQG, Strombrnger? All three?

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

, since there are fewer skills and they have more adventure-y names to them.

Again, fewer compared to what? I think RQ2 had just as many skills as RQ3, maybe even more, it just that there were fewer skills on the character sheet. 

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

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

Better than what?

Better than RQ3? I'd disagree. RQ3 handles high level 1 on 1 fights as good or better than RQ2 Between defense and attack over 100% coming off of parry, RQ2 slows down a bit a high level. 

Better than RQG? I Agree. I consider RQG to be somewhat buggy.

Better than Strombringer? Early editions of SB, with the riposte rule handed high level 1 on 1's marvelously. Perhaps it is the closest in feel to a cinematic duel.

 

 

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

Battle magic i also like way way way more than spirit magic

Many did, although it is pretty much the same magic system. The differences are the requirement of a POWx5%-ENC casting roll, the removal of some spell limits, and the easing of restictions on some some spells, such as fireblade.

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

(which removed all the "broken" spells to immediately allow fireblade without concentration

Yeah, I didn't like that particular change. I thin  it was probably done to offset the easing of limits of some of the variable spells. 

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

, or bladesharp-10 (defeat a 15 pow average  spirit and pay a pittance... What a joke)

There was more to it than you mention.

• First you had to find a spirit with the spell you wanted, at the point value you wanted.
• Then you had to beat it in spirit combat, which wouldn't be quite as easy as you make out. Plus you run the risk of being possessed by the spirit and possibly dying.
• The cost being about a month's pay was hardly a pittance. In fact adventueres tended to get more treasurein RQ2 than in RQ3.
• Then, if everything wen't as you wished, you got the spell, but that probably mean't you didn't have INT left over for much else in the way of spells.  Nor much POW left over to cast anything else, either. I'd say that overall Bladesharp 10 wasn't worth it. 

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

, or characters with +2d6 damage bonus (permanent if you got sorcery yo!). 

Was quite possible in RQ2. You just had to roll good, or play a troll. 

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

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.

Yup, I'll agree with you 100% on that. RQ3 never handled the cults as well as RQ1-2 did. Just about everything that made the cults so interesting in RQ2 got dropped in favor of getting the most stuff out. We never got RQ# Longform writeups of most cults. 

But we were free to use Cults of Prax with RQ3. Which Is what I think most of us did.

 

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

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.

Not really. Remember Glorantha has pantheons with associated cults. So if you were a member of a Lightbringer cult, if Orlanth not not have a spell you wanted, Lhankhor Mhy or Challla Arroy probably did did and you could go get the spell from those cults. The only real difference there was that RQ3 emphasized where those spells were really coming from.

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

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

Not unless you were Arkat. 

I think you forgot the various obligations that came with the ranks. Namely that you can only give 90% of your time and resources to one cult. Yes, there were ways to be associated with multiple cults, but that was true in RQ2. Even then, you were limited by the relatioships between the cults. No one was going to be a memeber of Humakt and say, Zorak Zoran, unless they were Arkat.

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

> 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.

Probably not that good a strategy. Unless they have very limited ammo, they can and will "pin cushion" you. Especially in RQ where impales tend to punch through and impair shield use. It might be a good idea for a round or so, but that's about it. After that you just become target practice.

Now if you are taking units of troops on a battlefield, as opposed to a group of adventures, maybe. There are other considerations in large scale battles. For isntance the importance of keeping a unit together as opposed to everyone scattering for cover. Mind you the game rules tend to be unkind for large scale battles. Crticals and Specials become more of a set statistical effect. Missile weapons tend to be much more effective  in RQ than in just about any other RPG. 

21 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

Would you let your PCs get extra cover if they do this?

Sure, at the expense of mobility. It would probably depend on their SIZ though and the size of their shield. A SIZ 13 man ducking down behind a tower shield, yeah, I might gives him arm+4 hit locations. I figure there will probably be something sticking out.

A SIZ 18 man trying the same thing with a buckler, nope. 

Of course I'd also be using RQ3 missile locations here, and that also makes a big difference in the effectiveness  of shields. When arm+2 locations includes RQ missile chest (11-15) and abdomen (7-10)makes a huge difference.

Oh, and I'd probably allow for shield walls by adapting the phalanx rules for Agrimori and Sundomers, if people were trying to put together some sort of shield wall. Maybe even a little more for Romans using a tetsudo. Realistically the overlapping shields of that formation worked because the back ranks were covered by the front, which meant they only had to protect their upper bodies. Somebody in rank 5 didn't have to worry all that much about taking an arrow in the leg.  

 

 

[Atgxtg]

10 minutes ago, Alex said:

Don't quote me on this as a) it was a loooooong time ago, and b) we might well have been playing it "wrong", but I was sure Shield Attack was a separate skill, back in the (RQ2) day!

No you had it right. Shield Attacxk was in the appendix. Not there was much incentive to do so.

10 minutes ago, Alex said:

While I've played RQ3 a fair bit more recently, have no memory whatsoever of how that was handled...

Pretty much the same as RQ2, excpet the numbers were a little different.

10 minutes ago, Alex said:

That's only a great "skill economy" saving if you're using a 2H weapon, which has a significant tactical downside.  And a bigger one if your high-DEX enemies start to SoI "I delay my attack to the same SR as the PC with greatsword so they can't parry." 

Probably not that likely to happen though as 2H weapons usually have a low SR modifier. 

[Alex]

4 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

No you had it right. Shield Attacxk was in the appendix. Not there was much incentive to do so.

Good to know there's some functional memories in there from the late 70s...  albeit not very personally useful ones!

1 minute ago, Atgxtg said:

Probably not that likely to happen though as 2H weapons usually have a low SR modifier. 

Less likely to, hence my sly specification of "high DEX".  And pity the poor STR 10 Babeester cultist using a Battle Axe 2H'd.  Or against other people with 2H weapons, I suppose, but then we're really getting into glass hammer territory.

Probably a rule I'd just ignore in actual play, as if people start using it as a game-mechanical tactic that's not adding anything to the fiction, that's not a good thing.  That you only have one "pool" of weapon hitpoints you have to double-dip into for attacks and for parries is likely sufficient downside.

[Alex]

23 hours ago, icebrand said:

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.

Not a system difference, and RQ3 did get some "long form" cults published is a number of places.  And RQG is in the process of winning that particular battle with 400+ ox-stunning pages...

[Atgxtg]

13 minutes ago, Alex said:

Good to know there's some functional memories in there from the late 70s...  albeit not very personally useful ones!

LOL! I know the feeling. Quite a few times I been surprised not to see a rule that I remembered as being in there. Usually said rule turns up eventually, usually in a supplement or later edition or some such. Porting over rules from realted games probably doesn't help.

 

13 minutes ago, Alex said:

Less likely to, hence my sly specification of "high DEX".  And pity the poor STR 10 Babeester cultist using a Battle Axe 2H'd.  Or against other people with 2H weapons, I suppose, but then we're really getting into glass hammer territory.

Yeah, look at the weapons too closely and you're bound to find some that lag behind the others. 

13 minutes ago, Alex said:

Probably a rule I'd just ignore in actual play, as if people start using it as a game-mechanical tactic that's not adding anything to the fiction, that's not a good thing.  That you only have one "pool" of weapon hitpoints you have to double-dip into for attacks and for parries is likely sufficient downside.

. I think the thing is the swordman should be able to  parry but his attack gets delayed 1SR. I think that was the original intention of the rule and makes the most sense. 

[Atgxtg]

4 minutes ago, Alex said:

Not a system difference, and RQ3 did get some "long form" cults published is a number of places.  And RQG is in the process of winning that particular battle with 400+ ox-stunning pages...

Oooh, longform cult write ups. That might even get me to break down and buy a RPG product. Is there something like Cults of Prax for RPG?

[Alex]

29 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I think the thing is the swordman should be able to  parry but his attack gets delayed 1SR. I think that was the original intention of the rule and makes the most sense. 

I was thinking more of the flipped case, where you've attacked already in that SR, at which point three different guys go "ah-hah!  no parry this SR!" and hit you exactly then.

Could always also borrow the (RQG) multiple parries rule, and allow it at that (or some other) penalty,

[Mugen]

1 hour ago, Alex said:

That's only a great "skill economy" saving if you're using a 2H weapon, which has a significant tactical downside.  And a bigger one if your high-DEX enemies start to SoI "I delay my attack to the same SR as the PC with greatsword so they can't parry."  The biggest upside in RQG is for people dual wielding 1H weapons, but then you're back to needing two separate skills.

A dual wielding character can use his main hand for attack and parry, and only use the off-hand weapon for its extra attack. Which means the need for a good off-hand skill is lower than if you intend to use a shield as your parrying weapon.

It won't even stop you from using a Shield just for its passive defensive uses.

[Alex]

24 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Oooh, longform cult write ups. That might even get me to break down and buy a RPG product. Is there something like Cults of Prax for RPG?

Nochet! 😄  But "soon"!  For some definition of soon...

But that's essentially the plan, 100 cults, all longforms, plus a hugely expanded Prospedia.  Almost everything in GoG, and "many, many more", as they say on the ads.  There is (or was) a list of all the deities to be included, but can't find it right now, and the forum's seriously playing up on me right now.

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Alex said:

I was thinking more of the flipped case, where you've attacked already in that SR, at which point three different guys go "ah-hah!  no parry this SR!" and hit you exactly then.

Can't really happen in RQ. Statement of intent comes before the round. So either they would all have to declare it before hand and have the soeed to do it, or it becomes a reaction and loses 3 SR. 

Of course even without the cheesy attack on the same strike rank stunt, three against one is a pretty bleak situation in RQ3. Unless you got some skills over 100% you're facing at least one un-parried or undodged attack, and possibly two. 

 

1 hour ago, Alex said:

Could always also borrow the (RQG) multiple parries rule, and allow it at that (or some other) penalty,

Could but why? I mean really, in RQ3 you should know better than to fight three opponents at once. Same with RQ2. RuneMasters even made a point about Runelords not taking on multiple foes. Basically one Runelord vs. three average warriors pretty much gives away most of the Runelord advantages, and  probably means somebody is going to be rolling for DI on 1D10.

 

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

A dual wielding character can use his main hand for attack and parry, and only use the off-hand weapon for its extra attack. Which means the need for a good off-hand skill is lower than if you intend to use a shield as your parrying weapon.

It won't even stop you from using a Shield just for its passive defensive uses.

One...two..three hands? I'm confused.😳

[Mugen]

5 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

One...two..three hands? I'm confused.😳

No, I meant you can use your off-hand to hold a second weapon OR a shield even if you only has base chance with it. 🙂

However, I just realised the best choice here is certainly to use a shield in your off-hand fo the extra attack, if your SR is low enough. Its higher base skill will give you a better attack chance.

[Atgxtg]

50 minutes ago, Mugen said:

No, I meant you can use your off-hand to hold a second weapon OR a shield even if you only has base chance with it. 🙂

Oh, I thought you meant a secondary weapon and a shield.

50 minutes ago, Mugen said:

However, I just realised the best choice here is certainly to use a shield in your off-hand fo the extra attack, if your SR is low enough. Its higher base skill will give you a better attack chance.

I assume you mean with RQG rules, as earlier editions had attack and parry as separate skills. Plus earlier versions were a bit more restrictive on multiple actions.

[Alex]

58 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Can't really happen in RQ. Statement of intent comes before the round. So either they would all have to declare it before hand and have the soeed to do it, or it becomes a reaction and loses 3 SR.

I take your point on trying to do this 'tactically'.  I'll file that rationale away in case this ever actually comes up in play. 🙂  I don't think I'm yet thrilled about it occurring incidentally, either.

58 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Of course even without the cheesy attack on the same strike rank stunt, three against one is a pretty bleak situation in RQ3.

Sure, but I was throwing that in to emphasise just how "swingy" a decision that is.  If my three terrible-skilled-but-low-SR opponents attack either on an earlier SR, or a later one, then I get to (under the various old regime rules) split my 285% weapon skill optimally between them.  (In RQG I'll be relatively fine with just 155%, given a fair wind!)  If they strike in the same SR as I just killed the fourth one in, but after I did, then I don't get any chance to parry.  Is this years of expert SCA and HEMA knowledge going into brilliant simulation, or is it pure game-mechanical attack?  But the number of attackers is fairly incidental to the essence of the scenario I was describing.

I suppose another way to fudge it  a little is to give the player the option:  attack on their "correct" SR, and get no parry that SR, or to attack a SR later, as with the scheduled-to-parry-first case.

[Alex]

1 minute ago, Atgxtg said:

Oh, I thought you meant a secondary weapon and a shield.

If you feel that's not a valid option, you need to HeroForm Orlanth harder! 😄

[Baron Wulfraed]

6 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

No you had it right. Shield Attacxk was in the appendix. Not there was much incentive to do so.

And still doesn't invalidate, say, sword skill -- since in RQ2 ALL weapons had separately tracked attack and parry "skills". Regardless of whether one is using a shield for parry and a sword for attack, or using just a sword for both attack and parry, it comes down to tracking experience in two skills. An experience check for a sword attack does nothing for sword parry.

[Atgxtg]

23 minutes ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

And still doesn't invalidate, say, sword skill -- since in RQ2 ALL weapons had separately tracked attack and parry "skills". Regardless of whether one is using a shield for parry and a sword for attack, or using just a sword for both attack and parry, it comes down to tracking experience in two skills.

Except that in RQ2 if you use sword to parry you probably won't have a sword to attack or parry with for very long as parrying weapons take damage, they don;t have a lot of hit points.  In RQ2 parrying with your sword to get an extra attack with your shield isn't a very good idea. Your much better off parrying with your shield, because it won't break.

23 minutes ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

An experience check for a sword attack does nothing for sword parry.

Yup. It does nothing for move quietly either. The same holds true for shield parry. It's why in older RQ games characters that used a shield tended to have lower parry shills with their weapon. It probably makes some sense too, as someone who normally fought with a shield probably wouldn't parry as well with their sword. 

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, Alex said:

If you feel that's not a valid option, you need to HeroForm Orlanth harder! 😄

Well, idle hands lead to chaotic features, and vice versa. 

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Alex said:

I take your point on trying to do this 'tactically'. 

I think that is the most likely way it would happen. Three people ganging up on one person and trying to time things just so.

2 hours ago, Alex said:

I'll file that rationale away in case this ever actually comes up in play. 🙂  I don't think I'm yet thrilled about it occurring incidentally, either.

I'm not that worried about it, mostly because fighting three opponents at once is mostly suicidal in RQ anyway. Even when the strike ranks are right and Rhy'leh rises from the ocean the lone warrior gets a parry, there are still two undefended attacks to worry about. 

2 hours ago, Alex said:

Sure, but I was throwing that in to emphasise just how "swingy" a decision that is.  If my three terrible-skilled-but-low-SR opponents attack either on an earlier SR, or a later one, then I get to (under the various old regime rules)

It would have to be on the same SR but after the lone warrior attacked, which would mean that he had a higher DEX, and ignored the risk. Then someone else would have to remember the attack & Parry on the same SR thing. So it seems higehly unlikely. If anything the warrior would probably delay his attack so he could parry, which might turn into a wating game, but probably not as the three warriors still have an advantage by attacking.

 

2 hours ago, Alex said:

split my 285% weapon skill optimally between them. 

285%?! Then shame on you for getting into this situation, you knew better. 😁

Really at that skill level I'd expect you have an allied spirit befuddle then to break up this sort of tactic, or have worked out some other counter- like say raise your dodge to 250%, and sidestep them.

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Alex said:

 

(In RQG I'll be relatively fine with just 155%, given a fair wind!)  If they strike in the same SR as I just killed the fourth one in, but after I did, then I don't get any chance to parry.  Is this years of expert SCA and HEMA knowledge going into brilliant simulation, or is it pure game-mechanical attack?

Probably a bit of both. SCA and HEMA experience probably show that three vs. one odds are telling, with the rest being moot. Give the lone guy a sword & shield and the results won't be that different.

2 hours ago, Alex said:

 

  But the number of attackers is fairly incidental to the essence of the scenario I was describing.

In that case let's remove that, because it is a fairly telling setup. What if we have two characters (twin brothers?) armed with swords who can each attack each other on SR7 at the same DEX? Since they both attack on the same SR and DEX do neither get a chance to parry? 

I think the most logical outcome would be that one attacks the other opts to parry and his attack is delayed a SR, much like with casting or movement. 

2 hours ago, Alex said:

I suppose another way to fudge it  a little is to give the player the option:  attack on their "correct" SR, and get no parry that SR, or to attack a SR later, as with the scheduled-to-parry-first case.

I don't think it is really fudging it. I think that is what was intended. The reason for the "not on the same SR" rule seems to be that the weapon is busy parrying at that strike rank and isn't free for attacking, or vice versa. Not that the weapon can't attack during that round. I think the attack just get's delayed. it's not an intentional delay, but one that is forced by circumstances. After all, you don't declare what Strike Rank you attack on, you just attack on the first strike rank that you are allowed to. So if the lone warrior declared a parry during the declaration phase, he'd have two things happening on the same SR and doing one would mess up the other. Since he would know exactly what was happening that round, he probably be able to prioritize. 

 

I think the situation only looks so bad because of the three vs. one situation. In RQ2 or RQ3 that's a bad spot to be in and I expect the lone guy to go down even if he gets the parry. Neither game was big on the idea of a long warrior taking on multiple opponents. Even lone warriors with 285% skill. What the 285% warrior is supposed to do is have a retinue to keep opponents busy while he takes single foes apart one at a time. 

 

In a one on one situation it's not so bad, because the single opponent is in the same boat. Unless they have a shield or secondary weapon. But then the first warrior probably would have a decent dodge skill to fall back on for just such a situation.

[Alex]

1 hour ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

And still doesn't invalidate, say, sword skill -- since in RQ2 ALL weapons had separately tracked attack and parry "skills".

Right, and so did shields, hence my confusion at this comment:-

11 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

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.

If you were using a shield at all, and suddenly decided to extemporise attacking with it, without separate experience or training, you were doing so at [Base Chance] + [Category Modifier], not at your existing Shield Parry.  In fact, it wasn't even the same category modifier!

1 hour ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

Regardless of whether one is using a shield for parry and a sword for attack, or using just a sword for both attack and parry, it comes down to tracking experience in two skills. An experience check for a sword attack does nothing for sword parry.

So the change is:-

• RQ2/3/G, fighting with weapon (attacking) and shield (parrying), two skills needed;
• RQ2/3/G, fighting with weapon (attacking) and secondary weapon (parrying), two skills needed;
• RQ2/3, fighting with 2H weapon (attacking and parrying), two skills needed;
• RQG, fighting with 2H weapon (attacking and parrying), one skill needed;
• RQ[edition], fighting with 1H weapon (attacking and parrying) and 1H handkerchief/hand behind back in an ostentatious fencing-balance pose/other stylistic choice, as with 2H weapon.

With the caveat I was just discussing with @Atgxtg, which is the "same SR" glitch, and of course the "oops, out of HPs in the one candle I'm burning at both ends", so make that one-and-half skills needed, weapon and dodge.

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, Alex said:

So the change is:-

• RQ2/3/G, fighting with weapon (attacking) and shield (parrying), two skills needed;
• RQ2/3/G, fighting with weapon (attacking) and secondary weapon (parrying), two skills needed;
• RQ2/3, fighting with 2H weapon (attacking and parrying), two skills needed;
• RQG, fighting with 2H weapon (attacking and parrying), one skill needed;
• RQ[edition], fighting with 1H weapon (attacking and parrying) and 1H handkerchief/hand behind back in an ostentatious fencing-balance pose/other stylistic choice, as with 2H weapon.

With the caveat I was just discussing with @Atgxtg, which is the "same SR" glitch, and of course the "oops, out of HPs in the one candle I'm burning at both ends", so make that one-and-half skills needed, weapon and dodge.

It's a little more complicated than that though, as there are related systems that work a little differently. Elric! for instance, where you can get by with just one skill, or Mythras where I think you learn  fighting styles instead of individual weapon skills, or Pendragon which uses an opposed roll, with shields soaking damage on a partial success.  And even with the systems you listed it's more complicated. For instance RQ2 had a Defense skill that got subtracted from the opponent's attack skill. Plus most character who used a 2H weapon probably knew a 1H weapon too just in case one of thier arms got injured. 

 

As for the same SR glitch, it was something that was in the errata not the core rules. It was probably going to be explained better later, but, well, it didn't happen.