Parry, Dodge, Block

[Alex]

1 minute ago, Atgxtg said:

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. 

All merrily stipulated;  I was just trying to make the case analysis explicit down to the level of, when you need two skills (hence need to train both, if you're sinking money into that area), and when you potentially only need one (and hence can focus on just that one).

1 minute ago, Atgxtg said:

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. 

For clarity, the errata for which version?

[Alex]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

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. 

Not in RQG there's not.  I think the three-on-one thing is actually likely to happen; people are suckers for what was once (in rather dubious taste) called the "fuzzy-wuzzy fallacy" scenarios.  Just pick what skill and other kit levels taking on three trollkin, three rubble runners, etc, etc making gameable sense.

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

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.

You say "ignored" the risk, but exactly what are they supposed to do to avoid it?  Even after the first "test round" when it's established this is the pattern of SRs, come to that, where there seems to be especially little they can do other than to find out the hard way.  "Nope, no Parry for you!  I might generously allow you to change your SoI to 'Dodge', though."

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

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 it is indeed fudging, because you have a completely muddled race condition if the 2H-wielder needs to "swap" attack order with an opponent that'd rather they attack first, and have to sacrifice their parry from doing so.  In order to simulate...  some sort of Great Axe parry-riposte situation?  I'm really not sold on the concept.  Albeit in about three minds as to how and whether to "fix". 

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

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. 

It's a lot easier in RQG, of course, as I observed with my 155% skill aside (parry at 155%, then parry at 125%, then at 95%).  But I suspect we might be getting a tad deeper into the specifics than I'd intended.  My point was simply that the "can't parry due to SR 'timing', despite SRs not being 'times'" thing could apply to not just one but any number of parries.  Reverse-engineering to whatever several-on-one scenario you deem likely or gameable.

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

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.

In a one-on-one sitch you might have other asymmetries that make it more of an issue:  the other has a shield parry, or can soak damage in a way that makes them getting a no-parry hit in worth it, etc.  But I should stop trying to illustrate the point, as then we get bogged down in a particular offhand example for pages and pages. 🙂

I'll grant you the point about Dodge;  the 2H-wielder isn't in an all-or-nothing situation, they're in their all-or-their-backup-option one.  Unless they're in a real corner case, and can't do that either, for some reason.  Foot Glued to the floor, or something.  It just seems rather...  undue if it comes down to the breakpoints of SR calculation, or some sort of ludicrous zugzwang setup where it's not in either's interests to actually attack, for no especially logical reason.

[Atgxtg]

10 hours ago, Alex said:

All merrily stipulated;  I was just trying to make the case analysis explicit down to the level of, when you need two skills (hence need to train both, if you're sinking money into that area), and when you potentially only need one (and hence can focus on just that one).

For clarity, the errata for which version?

RQ3. I think it wasin the combined paperback version Chaosium relared in the 90s. I'm not sure how much further back it goes. I vaguely recall seeing it in one of the RQ3 supplements or a magazine, but not sure exactly when. I don't know exactly who came up with the "not on the same SR" restriction or where they were going with it.

 

I don't think the intention was to deny someone an action, or to prevent someone from attacking and parring at the same exact time (Strike rank).
 

[Atgxtg]

7 hours ago, Alex said:

Not in RQG there's not.

No, but RQG is a very differernt animal from every other version of RQ/BRP. They made a lot of changes, and it introduced a lot of new problems because of it.

7 hours ago, Alex said:

  I think the three-on-one thing is actually likely to happen

Not with experienced RQ players. D&Ders, sure. In RQ you had to develope good tactics or else you died. You didn't get hit point advatages over your foes, or guaranteed "balanced" encounters or all the stuff that modern D&Ders take for granted. 

7 hours ago, Alex said:

; people are suckers for what was once (in rather dubious taste) called the "fuzzy-wuzzy fallacy" scenarios.  Just pick what skill and other kit levels taking on three trollkin, three rubble runners, etc, etc making gameable sense.

Except it didn't make gamable sense. The rules warned you about double a triple teams, and until fairly recently BRP players knew that to be the big no-no.Yes, occasionally circumstances might result in the group being outnumbered, but then they were supposed to fight in ways that could minimize that. 

 

7 hours ago, Alex said:

You say "ignored" the risk, but exactly what are they supposed to do to avoid it?

Generally position themselves so as not to have to fight three opponents all by themself, maybe use magic to whittle down the foes. Boost thier DEX so they attack one SR earlier.  It depends on the character and  the situation. It's hard to give you a definitive answer because you just put the character into that situation. Heck if the guy has enough armor and protection up, he could just ignore the enemy attacks, hope they don't roll a critical, and hack away. 

As far as the player is concerned, they should avoid getting into this situation at all costs. 

Now if the GM sets them up into this situation, then the player should try their best but they will probably die.

It's kinda like an ambush. In D&D ambuhses are fun to spring on the players because they keep the players on thier toes and inconvience them. But ambushes ususally aren't much of a threat that's to balanced encounters and increasing hit points. In RQ, however, ambushes are deadly. Chances are some of the players are going to drop before they even get a chance to do anything. 

 

I'll throw something else into the mix too. It's pretty stupid for a character to rely soley on one skill. Especially a 2H weapon skill. It is just a matter of time before the character drops the weapon, or take a hit to an arm that prevents them from using a 2H weapon, or they get shot at by missile weapons, or some such. No adventure lives in a vacuum and can rely entiely upon a single combat skill.

 

7 hours ago, Alex said:

Even after the first "test round" when it's established this is the pattern of SRs, come to that, where there seems to be especially little they can do other than to find out the hard way.  "Nope, no Parry for you!  I might generously allow you to change your SoI to 'Dodge', though."

Except it doesn't make that much of a difference. Even if they could parry one opponent they couldn't parry all of them. except in RQG. 

7 hours ago, Alex said:

I think it is indeed fudging, because you have a completely muddled race condition if the 2H-wielder needs to "swap" attack order with an opponent that'd rather they attack first, and have to sacrifice their parry from doing so. 

I don't think it fuging, just phsyics. Thier 2H can only be in one place at a time, so if it's busy parrying an attack, or in RQG three attacks, then it's not ready to attack at that moment/strike rank. But it could be later.

7 hours ago, Alex said:

In order to simulate...  some sort of Great Axe parry-riposte situation?  I'm really not sold on the concept.  Albeit in about three minds as to how and whether to "fix". 

I don't think it needs fixing, at least not in RQ2 or RQ3. I'm not familar enough with RQG to say. In Earlier RQ the three on one situation is telling, and the lone warrior is sort of expected to drop unless they got more going on. 

7 hours ago, Alex said:

It's a lot easier in RQG, of course, as I observed with my 155% skill aside (parry at 155%, then parry at 125%, then at 95%).  But I suspect we might be getting a tad deeper into the specifics than I'd intended. 

Sounds like it is a lot easier in RQG. But then RQG is a very different animal - even the crtical chances are different. RQG has been heavily influenced by HeroQuest and Pendragon and goes for a more larger than life/heroic style of play than earlier editions of RQ. 

7 hours ago, Alex said:

My point was simply that the "can't parry due to SR 'timing', despite SRs not being 'times'" thing

Except SRs are timing.. Don't let RQG muddy the waters here. In earlier editions strike ranks were timing. Two events that happened on the same SR happened at approximately the same time. Two things that happened on the same SR and same DEX did happen at the same exact time. So while there wasn't an exact correlation between strike ranks and second, there was one between strike ranks and timing. 

7 hours ago, Alex said:

could apply to not just one but any number of parries.  Reverse-engineering to whatever several-on-one scenario you deem likely or gameable.

Except you didn't get any number of parries in previous edtions. You got one, unless you used two weapons or could split your skill. That's the thing. In RQ2 or 3 if you are fighting two foes, one of them is essentially getting free attacks. Yes, if you were a Runelord you could split your attack skill, but that mostly worked against you as two attacks at 70% weren't as effective as one at 140%.

7 hours ago, Alex said:

In a one-on-one sitch you might have other asymmetries that make it more of an issue:  the other has a shield parry, or can soak damage in a way that makes them getting a no-parry hit in worth it, etc. 

Oh yeah, that could and did happen. Enemy runelord in iron armor with protection 6 or some such. The big equalizer there was the crtical hit, since it bypassed armor.

The thing is, if the PCs are up against people who can ignore their attacks, then they are probably in over thier heads and are going to die anyway. That's why context is important. 

7 hours ago, Alex said:

But I should stop trying to illustrate the point, as then we get bogged down in a particular offhand example for pages and pages. 🙂

But without context the situation isn't really valid. 

 

For example, if a giant with a 22 DEX sneaks up behind a PC and can attack them with surprise with a firebladed dagger on SR 3, there is little the PC can do about it. Likewise, in your scenario, you, the GM, put the player into a 3 on one situation against oppoents who all just happen to attack at the exact time for this odd situation to pop up. And it is a very odd situation, just for the SR thing to work out. The character would have to have a higher DEX and weild a 2H weapon, yet still attack on the same Strike rank as his opponents, and let himself get maneuvered into a spot where all three can fight him.

7 hours ago, Alex said:

I'll grant you the point about Dodge;  the 2H-wielder isn't in an all-or-nothing situation, they're in their all-or-their-backup-option one.  Unless they're in a real corner case, and can't do that either, for some reason.  Foot Glued to the floor, or something.  It just seems rather...  undue if it comes down to the breakpoints of SR calculation, or some sort of ludicrous zugzwang setup where it's not in either's interests to actually attack, for no especially logical reason.

Actually it seems rather due to me. MAybe it a difference in play styles or something, but based on my experience with RQ2 and RQ3, I'd expect the lone warrior to go done and have no sympathy for him. Not for the "same SR" thing, heck I don't think we ever used that rule, but for the fighting three foes at once. In my experience that is usually some yahoo who sees "how good" he's gotten with a weapon and then bites off more than he could chew.

 

I really want to stress that in RQ2/3 that sort of thing was considered suicidal. If you had mentioned it on the forums ten years or so ago, most people would tell you the guy got what he deserved. The exception would be if the GM set up the encounter in a way that it was unavoidable in which case most would think the GM was trying to wipe out the group. Really triple teams are that nasty.

 

 

 

 

[icebrand]

On 11/27/2021 at 3:45 PM, Atgxtg said:

Your quote here!!!

Yes, as an optional rule

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

You seem very focused in technicalities. How does this stuff matter at all?

 

But is isn't a better name. The game is RQ2 and has been since 1978?

That's like... Your opinion. To me the name is better, and one would assume Chaosium thinks like i do. CE has some small extras btw, it's not just a reprint.

 

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.

If you get passive defense it's 1/2 armor. Covering hit locations isn't free, so the armor isn't passive. Your previous wording implied (to me; i have low% in english, and may have fumbled) shield gave passive armor in addition to blocking (that's why passive armor is only when on the back, aka not in use)

 

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

Yes, they most definitely can, check RQCE pg28 "weapon damage absorption". The best weapons for parrying have 20hp.

So i parry 12, and my weapon now has 16hp. So i can parry 12 damage 3 times before my weapon breaking; maybe i cast repair on my weapon before it breaks?

Do note that if damage is 15 instead, by the time my weapon breaks the dude with a shield is most likely unconscious on the ground (if they had average hp).

 

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.

Uh... Yes they should? An elephant has little to no trouble casually picking you up or stomping you. There's no "dodging" an elephant, and even if you could (which is pretty unbelievable), what are you gonna do? Because your spear ain't long enough or tough enough to go through its skin for a killing blow. Have you seen the weapons people use to kill them???

Also a T Rex just eats you, you don't move away because it's much faster and bigger, people defeating a t Rex in single combat is the realm of super heroes. Again, your weapons most likely aren't big enough for a killing blow.

 

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.  

SIZ progression fails hard, not an STR problem. Also, keep in mind that the biggest thing in CE (dream dragon) barely reaches 100% with an almost perfect rolled STR. Peak dragon SHOULD have 90%+ imho. The most % in a dinosaur is deinonychus @ 70% btw, and they don't have a great SIZ.

Unless you put in a super duper huge giant, but then... It should totally have the hit%. There's no way you would miss against a human the size of a newborn.

 

There is no land animal that a single human cannot beat in single combat

Please do cite me some sources about a single human defeating elephant, rhynoceros, hippocampus, saltwater croc, in melee combat (shooting them with a .50+ doesn't count) This claim seems WILD to me.

 

Plate isn't going to do much for you if an elephant steps on you.

Plate or no plate, if an elephant wants to step on you... You are kinda sol? Like, what are you gonna do, it runs faster than you, and if you manage to move aside, they can just stomp on you while you are on the floor (because i imagine you at least dropped to the ground, or are you gonna tell me you can just aikido dodge an elephant?) Or, you know, picks you up with it's trunk and throws you and you die.

But it could be worse!!! In DND a full plate would be several orders of magnitude better (45 to 15% better, depending of your DEX and not counting unarmored defense classes, magic, etc)

 

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

Yes, it's a show. No sane bullfighter would fight a grown bull without it being sapped of it's strength, because they would most likely die trying. Please read up on the barbaric stuff (literal torture) they do to the animals before the barbaric show.

 

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.

Can't find a bull in 2e, but a bison (which is a specially bred cult animal trained as war mount) has 50%, i would assume a bull, which should have either similar or less STR and is not war-trained to have more.

Also, in a gloranthan bullfight the bull would be sapped of it's strength (dullblade)* and the bullfighter has it's cape (shimmer focus) + training (at least some defense).

* In my glorantha people wouldn't do that unless for training because CLEARLY there's no honor in winning such a rigged contest, and the god would not see this as a good sacrifice. Either kill it at the altar or fight it a full strength.

Keep in mind that normal, non magic stuff in our world is definitely magic in (my?) Glorantha.

 

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

YES 🤪

RQ 2/CE has a ton of stuff i consider better, like:

Faster character progression with more chance to succeed in checks and 5% increases, which also means easier math.

Simplified successes (only normal, critical and fumble unless your weapon can impale (please never use the slash optional rule, it's broken and destroys the game, crush is fine)

As I said, skill names are more adventurous! Map making, lockpicking, set/disarm traps, find healing plants, speak with herd beasts sound way better than craft: mapmaking, devise, plant lore, animal lore.

It's weakness is chargen, which u fixed with INTx10 personal skill points from BRP. I also use increased characteristics, one skill for attack and parry and extra parries at -30% for a more heroic feel -its still pretty much a horror (sword and sorcery ackshually) campaign-

 

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. 

You disagree because you like 3 more. RQ2 is most definitely faster than 3 in my experience.

 

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.

I vaguely remember ripostes, but i haven played sb since the 90s... 

 

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.

No you don't, that's why you have spellteaching.

 

• 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.

Its laughably easy for someone that can actually use a 10pt spell (Aka a rune level) to defeat a 10d3 spirit. You ain't rolling much above 15 with those dice.

Am i the one whose rusty with rules? Please go check Gods of Glorantha, cult spirits will not posses you if you fail.

 

• The cost being about a month's pay was hardly a pittance. In fact adventueres tended to get more treasurein RQ2 than in RQ3.

You don't get THAT much more. In RQ2 a 4pt spell is worth a few years, not a month worth of wages.

 

• 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. 

Bladesharp-10 is clearly not meant for a starting character, but a rune level, which should have close to 0 issues casting it, defeating a 15 pow average spirit, or getting the money. If you want to stayat initiate-appropriate spells, rq3 is trivial compared to 2, both as starting spells and getting new ones.

Bladesharp-4 in 2 is worth 5000L and 4 instances of spellteaching.

Bladesharp-8 is worth 500L (can't remember the exact price, was it 60/pt?) and 1 instance of teaching. Rq2 characters do not get 10x as much money.

 

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

A character with 21 STR (14+ and strength spell) and 18 siz has +1d6. It's literally impossible to get +2d6 RAW. And trolls are glass cannons at high level, their extra damage gets more than compensated by their inability to use iron and taking double damage from it

 

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.

3rd edition is totally better you guys! I mean, most of us are using the 2nd ed book but i swear 3 is better!!! (Not your best argument btw)

 

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.

Not really, you can only get spells from associated cults as per RAW. Good luck getting any good spells with 75%+ of the cults. Of course almost every one of us allowed PCs to get spells from any god in the pantheon instead of associate cults, but that's not what the book says. 

 

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.

No, i meant runelord+priest of your cult.

Like rune lord+ priest of Orlanth, or lhankor mhy, or whatever. Also some cults literally lost the option to runelord in.

 

Edited November 29, 2021 by icebrand

[icebrand]

On 11/27/2021 at 11:03 PM, Atgxtg said:

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.

That's pretty dependant on a lot of stuff; no offense to SCA/HEMA dudes, but how many world class fighters do they have?

Do 3 random guys beat an UFC heavyweight champion in a fight? 

Do 3 random dudes with a saber beat an elite fencer? (I tried this in real life, and we got our ass beaten btw)

[Atgxtg]

2 hours ago, icebrand said:

That's pretty dependant on a lot of stuff; no offense to SCA/HEMA dudes, but how many world class fighters do they have?

Well, I doubt there is anybody who can use an arming sword and heater shield at "world class" ability. It's something of a lost art. And yes, that is one of several valid points raised over basing RQ combat on SCA experience. Rattan weapons, and plastic armor being two more. 

Still,  at least it was based upon some sort of combat experience, even if it's a mediocre simulation with a bunch of safety rules than prohitbit a lot of what would happen in a real fight so as to prevent/minimize actual injuries. Let's face it SCA and HEMA are more abotu having fun that actual combat, which is a good thing.

2 hours ago, icebrand said:

Do 3 random guys beat an UFC heavyweight champion in a fight? 

Do 3 random dudes with a saber beat an elite fencer? (I tried this in real life, and we got our ass beaten btw)

No but then three random dudes (skill probably below 40% in RQ terms) won't beat a master swordsman in RQ. Three veteran swordsmen, maybe. But most people aren't elite, and real combat isn't the same as a match. For instance, if you knew there was a good chance of getting killed would you have drawn steel against that elite fencer in the first place?

 

I'll admit though that RQ2/3 doesn't handle fencing weapons all that well, mostly because it was written to handle combat from an earlier era (bronze age). IN RQ2 your elite fencer would have very high attack and parry skills , probably an off hand weapon or shield, plus a really good defense skill. In RQ3 your elite fencer would probably have a main gauche and/or a good dodge skill. Strombringer would probably be a better system to handle fencing weapons, as it allows for multiple parries and has a riposte rule, which it odd in a way becuase I don't think we even see or hear of a rapier in any of the Elric stories. 

[icebrand]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

 if you knew there was a good chance of getting killed would you have drawn steel against that elite fencer in the first place?

My inner monologue: i have several years of martial arts training, of course i can hold my own against a girl fencer, or at least keep my distance!!!

What actually happened: oh, so i died 3 times in 2 seconds? Damn...

Edited November 29, 2021 by icebrand

[Atgxtg]

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

Yes, as an optional rule

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

You seem very focused in technicalities. How does this stuff matter at all?

It matters in a few ways. First it identify just what game you are referring too. It actually took a few minutes to figure out what you were referring to when you posted RQ CE. Secondly, it means your someone who prefers RQ2 to RQ3, which is a very old debate, and probably one we don't have to rehash. Thirdly, RQ CE is misleading. It like changing the name of a movie or book. 

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

That's like... Your opinion. To me the name is better,

Which is your option. My question to you is how is the name better? RQ2 is more accurate. It been RQ2 since it came out. Why change it? Oh, and to answer my own question, the only reason I can see for it would be to distance the game from Mongoose's RQ2

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

and one would assume Chaosium thinks like i do.

Since they are the ones who remaned it, yes they probably do. Not that it makes much of adifferece, as no one at Chasoium now had anything to do with RQ2. It's like someone at Lucasfilm today renaming Star Wars: A New Hope to Star Wars: Classic. 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

 

CE has some small extras btw, it's not just a reprint.

It's just areprint with the errrata tossed in. 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

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.

If you get passive defense it's 1/2 armor.

Nope.  Per page 63:

Parrying a Missile Attack
Thrown weapons can be parried if the parrier is aware of the attack and is ready to parry. Projected missiles cannot be parried. However, an adventurer may specify that he is holding his shield in one place, covering specific hit locations, and those hit locations will be protected with the shield. If a shield is slung on the back of a missile target, the shield will provide ‘1/2 of its armor points as protection against chest hits.

The 1./2 value is oily for a shield slung on one's back, probably because it's just sort of there and not actuively being used for protection.

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

Covering hit locations isn't free, so the armor isn't passive. Your previous wording implied (to me; i have low% in english, and may have fumbled) shield gave passive armor in addition to blocking (that's why passive armor is only when on the back, aka not in use)

Except it doesn't work the way you think. Once again, per page 63: 

an adventurer may specify that he is holding his shield in one place, covering specific hit locations, and those hit locations will be protected with the shield.

That doesn't halve the armor value, nor does it prevent the character from parring, and although projectile weapons cannot be parried thrown and melee weapons can. 

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

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

Yes, they most definitely can, check RQCE pg28 "weapon damage absorption". The best weapons for parrying have 20hp.

 

So i parry 12, and my weapon now has 16hp. So i can parry 12 damage 3 times before my weapon breaking; maybe i cast repair on my weapon before it breaks?

No if you parry 12 your weapon now has 8 hit points. In RQ2 per weapon damage absorption (page 28 or 27 dfepending on which edtion you have), weapons take damage when used to parry a successful attack or are succefully pairred when making an unsuccessful attack. Short stabbing weapons which lack the mass to damage other weapons, (like daggers) and long hafted weapons that parry with the haft (like poleaxes) being the exceptions.

 

So if you parry a 12 point attack with your 20 HP sword, you now have an 8 hit point sword, so you can't parry two 12 point attacks with it. Well, unless you roll a crititcal parry (which is an optional rule) or a special success (but that might only be in RQ3),

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

Do note that if damage is 15 instead, by the time my weapon breaks the dude with a shield is most likely unconscious on the ground (if they had average hp).

No If the damage was 15 you'd be left with a 5 point sword, which would probably break the next time you used it to parry.

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

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.

Uh... Yes they should? An elephant has little to no trouble casually picking you up or stomping you.

He does if I don't just stand there and let him.

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

There's no "dodging" an elephant,

Sure there is.  Not that it is a good situation to be in. 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

 

and even if you could (which is pretty unbelievable), what are you gonna do? Because your spear ain't long enough or tough enough to go through its skin for a killing blow. Have you seen the weapons people use to kill them???

Yes, they are called arrows and are even smaller and thinner than spears. Elephants are big strong and tough, and I certainly wouldn't want to have to fight one, but they aren't invincible. Elepaht hide is thick (but sensitive) and isn't the same as plate. 

Look at history, the side with elepehants didn't neccesarly win a battle. 

 

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

Also a T Rex just eats you, you don't move away because it's much faster and bigger, people defeating a t Rex in single combat is the realm of super heroes.

You mean like a RuneLord with magic? 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

Again, your weapons most likely aren't big enough for a killing blow.

Yes they are. It's just a qution of if  or not they kill him before he kills me. Living organisms have lots of vulnerable places that can be used to kill them. The problem is how fast it kills them. 

 

Heck there is a big debate in the scientific community about T-Rex being a hunter or a scavenger. Apparently if it were knocked down by another big dinosaur, it would probably break some bones and then wouldn't be able to hunt. 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

SIZ progression fails hard, not an STR problem.

Uh, what makes you think that? The SIZ progression in RQ3 is pretty stable, and consistent. Not quite as good as Superworld, but not in a way that matters for most creatures. 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

Also, keep in mind that the biggest thing in CE (dream dragon) barely reaches 100% with an almost perfect rolled STR.

There are bigger things in the supplements. Plus I'm not bothered by Dream Dragons so much as they are intelligent. I'm bothered by big dumb beats that are suddenly master combatant-ants just because they are big. In RQ2, an elephant could pick up a sword with it's truck and do all sorts of fancy fencing maneuvers!

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

Peak dragon SHOULD have 90%+ imho. T

 

I agree. Dream Dragon is an intelligent projection from an intelligent experienced creature. Pity that an RQ2 T-Rex can take one out so easily. 

That is exactly the sort of thing that RQ3 fixed. 

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

he most % in a dinosaur is deinonychus @ 70% btw, and they don't have a great SIZ.

 

Pick up Griffin Mountain or Gateway Bestiary. Tyrannosaur 180%. There is a very good reason why the same people who wrote RQ2 capped the STR mod to attack in RA3.

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

Unless you put in a super duper huge giant,

 

Or Gateway Beastiary, Girffin Moutain or any other supplement with a big creature.

The stats in RQ3 were give a better scale and the attack bonus capped specifically because of the ridiculously high percentage in RQ2 for big critters. Techincally speaking a T-Rex 9180%) would have to be a Runelord of some cult in RQ2 just to have a skill over 100%.

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

but then... It should totally have the hit%.

No it shouldn't. Look, people are much much bigger than insects. Proportionally much larger to insects than say the approximately  70 times larger T_Rex is to a human. Yet people can miss insects when they try to swat or step on them. We can miss small animals too. Just try to catch a mouse, cat or small dog by hand.  

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

There's no way you would miss against a human the size of a newborn.

Sure there is. Try swatting a fly by hand. It's alot easier for the small huma to hit the giant becuase it's so big.

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

Please do cite me some sources about a single human defeating elephant, rhynoceros, hippocampus, saltwater croc, in melee combat (shooting them with a .50+ doesn't count) This claim seems WILD to me.

I'll look. The problem is that it's not a situation that people try to get into. I doubt it's happened recently, and if it has it probably was done out someplace where there wasn't cameras and reporters. And it's not a situation that a person wants to get into.

It's like boar hunting or bear hunting with a spear. It was done and there are mentions of it, knights used to do it for sport! Still, no one has done it that way in years, or at least no one we hear about. 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

Plate isn't going to do much for you if an elephant steps on you.

Plate or no plate, if an elephant wants to step on you... You are kinda sol?

Probably. It does depend on what part of you he steps on, but it's like having a hit location destroyed in RQ. Best case scenario is you loose a finger or two. 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

 

Like, what are you gonna do, it runs faster than you, and if you manage to move aside, they can just stomp on you while you are on the floor (because i imagine you at least dropped to the ground, or are you gonna tell me you can just aikido dodge an elephant?)

You imagine poorly. Dropping to the ground is a bad way to dodge. You give up your mobility. Much better to try and sidestep, and get out of it's field of view. You have to remember than elephants structure limits them in ways than humans aren't. 

Being big hurts elephants in several ways. They legs are barely thick enough to supprt them, and if they loose thier footing and fall, they might not be able to get up again. Of coruse the same holds true for anyone they happen to fall on. 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

Or, you know, picks you up with it's trunk and throws you and you die.

Assuming you just stand there and let it. If you say, hack it truck when it comes at you (it might not pick you up.

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

But it could be worse!!! In DND a full plate would be several orders of magnitude better (45 to 15% better, depending of your DEX and not counting unarmored defense classes, magic, etc)

D&D has very different stats and game mechanics. Probably not worth trying to compare. Yes the armor works better, but then hit dice and Strength give the big animals more of a bonus, except that thier Stength socres tend to be nerfed. 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

Yes, it's a show. No sane bullfighter would fight a grown bull without it being sapped of it's strength, because they would most likely die trying. Please read up on the barbaric stuff (literal torture) they do to the animals before the barbaric show.

I'm not sure If it is barbaric, but it's not something I'd want to do do an animal.

 

But the thing is the matador can kill the bull many times over. He can (and does) dodge the bulls attacks (whcih you say is impossible), and ultimately kills the bull. Does he stack the deck heavily in his favor? Sure. Could he do so without all the tricks and set up. Probably, but it would be a lot risker. 

It's not that the matador can't dodge a bull, but that if he messes up just once he could be killed or maimed (and yes, Matadors have survived such encounters).

 

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

Can't find a bull in 2e,

Me either. The bison is probably the clsest analog in RQ2. RQ3 has cattle and even aurochs stats.

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

 

but a bison (which is a specially bred cult animal trained as war mount) has 50%, i would assume a bull, which should have either similar or less STR and is not war-trained to have more.

Why would you expect a animal that isn't war trained to have a higher combat skill? 

 

The thing is will bulls is that they don't fight, or hunt. They are aggressive, but theyt don't really have anything to be aggresive against. Comapre that to a lion, whih has to not only hunt, but also fight off rivals. 

 

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

Also, in a gloranthan bullfight the bull would be sapped of it's strength (dullblade)* and the bullfighter has it's cape (shimmer focus) + training (at least some defense).

* In my glorantha people wouldn't do that unless for training because CLEARLY there's no honor in winning such a rigged contest, and the god would not see this as a good sacrifice. Either kill it at the altar or fight it a full strength.

Then I think you are missing the point. It might not seem honorable to you (or to me come to think of it) but it most obviously is honorable to people from those cultures. If you were to go to Mexico or Spain and tell them that there was no honor in bullfighting you'd probably have a lot of people disagree with you. And that's with people in the same century with roughly the same technology, let alone a culture on a very differernt world with very differernt cultures.

if there is a Gloranthan culture than engages in some form of bullfighting, then that culture considers it quite honorable. You have to look at Gloranthan beliefs and customs the way a native would, not the way a 21st century person in a "modern" society would. 

It';s like how Chaos in viewed in Dragon Pass and Prax. To those people it's evil, pure and simple. Taking a more enlightened view is itself considered to be chaotic and thus evil. But that is how they look at things, and each of thier cultures considers itself to be correct. That even one of the readnos why MRQ Glorathan failed. Mongoose took a more tradtional FRPG approach to Law and Chaos that fit modern D&D much better than RQ.

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

YES 🤪

RQ 2/CE has a ton of stuff i consider better, like:

Faster character progression with more chance to succeed in checks and 5% increases, which also means easier math.

So you prefer 5% increments. Okay, you're probably in the minority there. Same with the faster character progression. 

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

Simplified successes (only normal, critical and fumble unless your weapon can impale (please never use the slash optional rule, it's broken and destroys the game, crush is fine)

Except it's not simplified success, since there is a slash and crush rule. You say they are broken, but the game designers certainly used them, and didn't think they were broken. There was a letter to Rurik where Steve Perrin agreed that crush rules were "unreasonable" and were supposed to be. And BTW, IMO would be a better way to handle bulls  elephants, and T-Rexes that ultra high attack skills. 

 

. Oh, and critical parries are an optional rule, too. 

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

As I said, skill names are more adventurous! Map making, lockpicking, set/disarm traps, find healing plants, speak with herd beasts sound way better than craft: mapmaking, devise, plant lore, animal lore.

Uh Map Making is better than mapmaking? How? Sorry I don't see your argument here.

 

Can you explain why you think any of this is "better", or is is just what you prefer. There is a difference. For instance if you think a rule better emulates combat or plays better  that's one thing. But so far your agrument is that you prefer RQ2 to RQ3 so therefore RQ2 is better.

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

It's weakness is chargen,which u fixed with INTx10 personal skill points from BRP

Again that is totally your option. Most people who didn't want to play inexperneced newbiew just used the previous experience rules in the appendix. Heck half the rules in RQ2 were probably in the appendex (in what 6 point font. I suppose toy think RQ2 was better typeset too).

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

. I also use increased characteristics, one skill for attack and parry and extra parries at -30% for a more heroic feel

Good for you, but how does you house rules factor into what RQ2 is compared to another game?

If you are going to take about a given game being better then you only really have what is the game to work with. You can;t judge RQ2 by something that is in, say M-SPACE. 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

-its still pretty much a horror (sword and sorcery ackshually) campaign-

Horror? What are you playingh RuneQuest or Call of Cthulhu? If your campaign is set in Dorastor or somesuch, okay, but other wise, RQ isn't really a horror game.

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

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. 

You disagree because you like 3 more.

Yup., and you disgree becuase you like RQ2 more. That's why when you say something is "better; you have to soemhow back up your point.

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

RQ2 is most definitely faster than 3 in my experience.

Isn't in mine. In RQ3 you just have to roll the attacks and parries, while in RQ2 you have to subtract defense, sattack kill over 100%, and so on.

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

I vaguely remember ripostes, but i haven played sb since the 90s..

In Old SB you could successive parries, each at 20% less skill than the previous. Masters (90%+) could also make an attack (riposte) after doing so. Ths meant that when two masters faced off, you get a wild flurry of attacks and parries between them, which was very cinematic.

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

 

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.

No you don't, that's why you have spellteaching.

Yes you do. per spellteaching other than the need for the ritual, every was exactly the same as with spirirt magic.  So finding a spririt with bladesharp 10 would require some work.

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

Its laughably easy for someone that can actually use a 10pt spell (Aka a rune level) to defeat a 10d3 spirit. You ain't rolling much above 15 with those dice.

Use yes, get... that's another story. I don';t see too many characters that sacrificed 10 points of POW to get a 10 point RUne Magic spell to beat up spirits, jus so they can learn a 10 point bladesharp spell. 

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

Am i the one whose rusty with rules? Please go check Gods of Glorantha, cult spirits will not posses you if you fail.

Can you give me page reference for that? I don't see it. 

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

• The cost being about a month's pay was hardly a pittance. In fact adventueres tended to get more treasurein RQ2 than in RQ3.

You don't get THAT much more. In RQ2 a 4pt spell is worth a few years, not a month worth of wages.

How do you figure that! A 4 point spell typically goes for about 2000L. How did you determine that 2000L is worth a few years wages? 

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

Bladesharp-10 is clearly not meant for a starting character, but a rune level, which should have close to 0 issues casting it, defeating a 15 pow average spirit, or getting the money. If you want to stayat initiate-appropriate spells, rq3 is trivial compared to 2, both as starting spells and getting new ones.

How is is clearly not meant, when you are the one who intridcued it. I don't see any RQ3 characters with Bladesharp-10. I'd also say it's probably not all that great for a rune level characters either. It take up a lot of INT to know, a lot of POW to cast, a long time (like don't expect to have it in the first round) to get up, and gives benefits that probably aren't all that great for a rune level. If someone has Sword a 185% they probably aren't going to benefit all that much from raising it to 235%. 

 

I think a rune level character would be better off with say Bladesharp 4 or 6, and some protection and/or countermagic. Heck Protection 10 is much more useful than Bladesharp 10.

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

Bladesharp-4 in 2 is worth 5000L and 4 instances of spellteaching.

Or half price or even free depending on what cult you join. Getting 5000L is also a lot easier in RQ2 than getting 5000p in RQ3. 

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

Bladesharp-8 is worth 500L (can't remember the exact price, was it 60/pt?) and 1 instance of teaching.

 

Depends on where you get it. 

In Gods of Glorantha the price varies based upon cult status.

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

Rq2 characters do not get 10x as much money.

Yeah they do. There was a lot more treasure in RQ2, because the economy wasn't a fleshed out. You'll tend to find a lot more money in an old RQ2 dungeon crawl than in most RQ3 adventueres. Thousands of lunars, and magical crystals all over the place.

 

And not-magic stuff is alot cheape rin RQ2. Mail hauberk 200L in RQ2, 1440p in RQ3. 

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

 

A character with 21 STR (14+ and strength spell) and 18 siz has +1d6. It's literally impossible to get +2d6 RAW.

Chaotic Features- come up a lotin RQ2 adventures. 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

And trolls are glass cannons at high level, their extra damage gets more than compensated by their inability to use iron and taking double damage from it.

I wouldn't say so. Only the damage that gets through is doubled while thier high db gives them a big edge on the damage out vs in.

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

 

 

 

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

3rd edition is totally better you guys! I mean, most of us are using the 2nd ed book but i swear 3 is better!!! (Not your best argument btw)

Only becuase you are taking it out of context. We weren't using the RQ2 book, we were using Cults of Prax, and that'ss becuase there was not RQ3 version of it. I think we might be taking cross arguments here.

 

If you want to debate the merits of the game mechanics, then yeah, I'll say RQ3 is superior to RQ2 it was designed to be. Now if you want to debate how they handled Glorantha, well, then RQ2 wins hands down. RQ3's Glorantha support mostly sucked. The best glorathan stuff for RQ3 was updated RQ2 stuff.Mof of the other stuff lacked the sort of details that had made Glorantha so interesting. Where RQ2 focused on a small region (Sartar and Prax) in detail, RQ3 started off with covering a wider net, butin much less detail, and IMO was much less useful. I mean maybe Elder Secrets added something, but most of the rest was too sketchy to really use. 

But then the better RQ3 stuff was non-Gloranthan. 

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

Not really, you can only get spells from associated cults as per RAW.

Which pretty much covered everything, becuase of all the associated cults. If you Oralthi you got the whole patheon to choose from.

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

 

Good luck getting any good spells with 75%+ of the cults. Of course almost every one of us allowed PCs to get spells from any god in the pantheon instead of associate cults, but that's not what the book says. 

 

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.

 

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

No, i meant runelord+priest of your cult.

Which you can only pull off in one cult. You can't be one in multiple cults due to be relationships and time/resorce requirements.

5 hours ago, icebrand said:

Like rune lord+ priest of Orlanth, or lhankor mhy, or whatever. Also some cults literally lost the option to runelord in.

Yes, but they either didn't need Runelord status anymore (becuase the 100% skill cap was gone), or they got something else instead (like a lot more spirit magic).

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, icebrand said:

My inner monologue: i have several years of martial arts training, of course i can hold my own against a girl fencer, or at least keep my distance!!!

Famous last words. Right up there with "I'd like to see you do that again." 

 

1 hour ago, icebrand said:

What actually happened: oh, so i died 3 times in 2 seconds? Damn...

Yup. Of course fencing is possibly the worst case scenario for the "three random guys". The weapons are fast, react quickly, and shields mostly get in the way. Plus "right of way" rules really favor  the combatant will greater speed and skill, and greatly reduce the chances of the lesser skilled fighter clipping the better warrior on the way out.  

Different weapons could go differently. If the three of you had had spears and shields she might have had a bit more trouble, and I wouldn't be surprised if she did get nabbed while getting to one of you. 

[icebrand]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Parrying a Missile Attack
Thrown weapons can be parried if the parrier is aware of the attack and is ready to parry. Projected missiles cannot be parried. However, an adventurer may specify that he is holding his shield in one place, covering specific hit locations, and those hit locations will be protected with the shield. If a shield is slung on the back of a missile target, the shield will provide ‘1/2 of its armor points as protection against chest hits.

The 1./2 value is oily for a shield slung on one's back, probably because it's just sort of there and not actuively being used for protection.

 

Except it doesn't work the way you think. Once again, per page 63: 

an adventurer may specify that he is holding his shield in one place, covering specific hit locations, and those hit locations will be protected with the shield.

That doesn't halve the armor value, nor does it prevent the character from parring, and although projectile weapons cannot be parried thrown and melee weapons can. 

I got schooled here! So, you can cover hit locations AND parry, thats a new one for me (dont get me wrong, i always knew how this worked, its just noone ever was attacked by missiles while using this option AND parried a melee attack.

 

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

No if you parry 12 your weapon now has 8 hit points. In RQ2 per weapon damage absorption (page 28 or 27 dfepending on which edtion you have), weapons take damage when used to parry a successful attack or are succefully pairred when making an unsuccessful attack. Short stabbing weapons which lack the mass to damage other weapons, (like daggers) and long hafted weapons that parry with the haft (like poleaxes) being the exceptions.

 

So if you parry a 12 point attack with your 20 HP sword, you now have an 8 hit point sword, so you can't parry two 12 point attacks with it. Well, unless you roll a crititcal parry (which is an optional rule) or a special success (but that might only be in RQ3),

 

No If the damage was 15 you'd be left with a 5 point sword, which would probably break the next time you used it to parry.

Hard nopes! (one for you, one for me haha 😉, i guess we out% each other at our favorite flavor of RQ?)

Quote

WEAPON DAMAGE ABSORPTION
Weapons absorb damage on a cumulative basis: 4 points
of damage taken in 1 melee round will stay with the weapon
throughout the fight and be added to any further damage it may
take. When the damage taken exceeds the amount the weapon
can take, the weapon is broken. 

So if you parry a 12 point attack with your 20 HP sword, the sword only takes 4 pts of damage, and you now have a 16 point sword. Next round you parry 12 and now you have a 12-point sword, and next round it breaks; with 15 points you parry 1st attack and then you still have a 16pt sword, the 2nd attack breaks and the 3rd one you take 3 pts. of damage.

Also, if im parrying pretty much ANYTHING but a sword my sword has virtually infinite HP (since the attacker doesnt even get to roll damage). Meanwhile the shield user took 3 pts of damage each time they got hit by 15, and if im fighting a troll with a polehammer the shield user died (or is on the ground, bleeding to death) at the 1st strike and i took 0 damage.

Keep in mind that:

Quote

1. Short stabbing weapons have insufficient mass to affect
another weapon.
2. Long-hafted thrusting, cutting, and smashing weapons such
as poleaxes, pikes, and spears do not damage other weapons
because their hafts are engaged, not the weapon heads.
However, they will affect parrying shields.

So parrying with a weapon isnt as bad as it sounds, and if you have weapon + shield you are better off parrying with a weapon many (most) times, since it works like in BRP and if you parry you parried and the opponent doesnt even get to roll damage, while they do vs shields.

 

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes, they are called arrows and are even smaller and thinner than spears. Elephants are big strong and tough, and I certainly wouldn't want to have to fight one, but they aren't invincible. Elepaht hide is thick (but sensitive) and isn't the same as plate. 

Look at history, the side with elepehants didn't neccesarly win a battle. 

Yes, using arrows is hardly considered "single combat". Single combat is a 1v1 melee fight and a honor thing. Also i specified melee several times, but i understand it gets lost on our 5000 word essays err... i mean posts XD

 

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

You mean like a RuneLord with magic? 

Yes, a RuneLord with magic is a super hero, and i see no issue about them manhandling any beast. Shimmer+Natural Defense (add coordination if you dont already have 21 DEX) + weapon skill over 100% should make it so pretty much any beast in the game has literally 5% to hit you (dont even need all that if you have good enough %s). Of course fighting an elephant will be always glorious because it has 5% chance to send you to your god every round, and you arent most likely killing it in less than 3 rounds unless you are a troll or something.

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes they are. It's just a qution of if  or not they kill him before he kills me. Living organisms have lots of vulnerable places that can be used to kill them. The problem is how fast it kills them. 

I couldnt google a single instance of one single person killing those kinds of animals with spears. You can kill them with groups of people of course.

 

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

In RQ2, an elephant could pick up a sword with it's truck and do all sorts of fancy fencing maneuvers!

Well, depends, is it a *magical* elephant from glorantha, or is it a *boring-ass* regular elephant from earth?

1st one can do all sorts of fancy maneuvers (and can probably speak and use magic too). 2nd cant, its an animal and won't even try, unless its playing, and then it can do all kinds of tricks a human cant because it has superior strength (?)

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Pick up Griffin Mountain or Gateway Bestiary. Tyrannosaur 180%. There is a very good reason why the same people who wrote RQ2 capped the STR mod to attack in RA3.

Or Gateway Beastiary, Girffin Moutain or any other supplement with a big creature.

The stats in RQ3 were give a better scale and the attack bonus capped specifically because of the ridiculously high percentage in RQ2 for big critters. Techincally speaking a T-Rex 9180%) would have to be a Runelord of some cult in RQ2 just to have a skill over 100%.

As you yourself note, the skill cap is 100%, and thats a misprint (or most likely an oversight). And 100% is pretty well justified for a t-rex. Remember you can lower its % with defense / shimmer and weapon skill. And as you already know, only runelords have weapon skill, and this is awesome because i dont want non-runelords downing t-rexes in melee combat.

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

No it shouldn't. Look, people are much much bigger than insects. Proportionally much larger to insects than say the approximately  70 times larger T_Rex is to a human. Yet people can miss insects when they try to swat or step on them. We can miss small animals too. Just try to catch a mouse, cat or small dog by hand.  

Sure there is. Try swatting a fly by hand. It's alot easier for the small huma to hit the giant becuase it's so big.

Insects are too small. The elephant is trying to hit something 50-100 times smaller. The insect is 10k-100k times smaller than you. The insect has 100+ times more relative strenght, agility and speed than a human

Insects also move several times their body lenght in the blink of an eye. An elephant wouldnt be able to hit a human that could leap buildings either.

There are many, many, many animals you can easily pick up (many reptiles, for example); a cat has several times the ability of an olimpic level athlete; A jaguar is way stronger, faster, more agile than a human while weighing the same, and a house cat is proportionally better than the jaguar at everything (it is stronger compared to its mass)

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Probably. It does depend on what part of you he steps on, but it's like having a hit location destroyed in RQ. Best case scenario is you loose a finger or two. 

Having a hit location destroyed means you just died, because you dropped to the ground and will bleed out unless you get healing. Also theres an elephant walking vigorously over you.

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

You imagine poorly. Dropping to the ground is a bad way to dodge. You give up your mobility. Much better to try and sidestep, and get out of it's field of view. You have to remember than elephants structure limits them in ways than humans aren't. 

Well, sidestepping an elephant? Serioulsy? Like... have you seen the size of an elephant IRL? theres nowhere to sidestep, theres elephant all over; sidestepping a car sounds easier (and the car doesnt have a trunk, tusks, and is harder to turn around). 

Like, lets go bigger, how do you dodge godzilla? YOU DONT, because everything where you are and an area 10x what you can move in the time godzilla stomps its gone. Well, the elephant is smaller, but i dont think you can "dodge" it (you may be able to outrun it if you are a high performance athlete though).

 

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

But the thing is the matador can kill the bull many times over. He can (and does) dodge the bulls attacks (whcih you say is impossible), and ultimately kills the bull. Does he stack the deck heavily in his favor? Sure. Could he do so without all the tricks and set up. Probably, but it would be a lot risker. It's not that the matador can't dodge a bull, but that if he messes up just once he could be killed or maimed (and yes, Matadors have survived such encounters).

The matador is not fighting a bull.

The matador is fighting a bull that has been exanguinated (aka stabbed by 6 people with pikes), had petroleum rubbed in the eyes so it cant see, had its horns shaved (they remove several cm so the bull cant aim). They also drug them, and soften them with other methods (like hanging them upside down and beating them in the kidneys).

No matador is going 1v1 against a bull with a sword, because theres a very real chance they aint seeing tomorrow if they do.

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

There was a letter to Rurik where Steve Perrin agreed that crush rules were "unreasonable" and were supposed to be. And BTW, IMO would be a better way to handle bulls  elephants, and T-Rexes that ultra high attack skills. 

Crushes are supposed to be unreasonable and are FINE. Theres no issue there.

Slash makes sword the best weapons by lightyears. You now have the same damage of a spear (difference is 3 pts on special, and non-existing on crits), but your weapon is easier to take out on impale, has more HP, and can damage other weapons. Its a joke, really.

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Horror? What are you playingh RuneQuest or Call of Cthulhu? If your campaign is set in Dorastor or somesuch, okay, but other wise, RQ isn't really a horror game.

RQ can do horror pretty well 😉 but its more like a sword and sorcery, Glorantha can easily be a crapsack world if you think about it! Players can be heroes and slay evil and stuff, but we are playing RQ and i know they always die horribly at the end...

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Yes you do. per spellteaching other than the need for the ritual, every was exactly the same as with spirirt magic.  So finding a spririt with bladesharp 10 would require some work.

Use yes, get... that's another story. I don';t see too many characters that sacrificed 10 points of POW to get a 10 point RUne Magic spell to beat up spirits, jus so they can learn a 10 point bladesharp spell. 

Can you give me page reference for that? I don't see it. 

How do you figure that! A 4 point spell typically goes for about 2000L. How did you determine that 2000L is worth a few years wages? 

Check out Divine Summons Spells. You can stack command cult spirit (2) pts with your summon spell (spellteaching in this case). The spirit is controlled without a roll, so it aint possessing anyone. Also spellteaching is 1pt non stackable, with just 1 point you can access all the magic of your cult.
 

A 4 point variable spell is 500+1000+1500+2000 in RQ2.

Edited November 29, 2021 by icebrand

[Atgxtg]

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

I got schooled here! So, you can cover hit locations AND parry, thats a new one for me (dont get me wrong, i always knew how this worked, its just noone ever was attacked by missiles while using this option AND parried a melee attack.

Wording is somewhat ambiguous. I could easily see a GM ruling that someone who is moving thier shield to parry isn't holding over a location. It is kinda moot though as you rarely get melee and missle combat at the same time.

My main points though were that the shield APs aren't halved, and that with RQ3 missile locations arm+2 other locations  locations is pretty decent. Especially if you've got some armor. 

 

 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

So if you parry a 12 point attack with your 20 HP sword, the sword only takes 4 pts of damage, and you now have a 16 point sword. Next round you parry 12 and now you have a 12-point sword, and next round it breaks; with 15 points you parry 1st attack and then you still have a 16pt sword, the 2nd attack breaks and the 3rd one you take 3 pts. of damage.

Nope. The example is if someone took 4 points of damage the weapon is reduced by 45 points. Not that every parry only reduced the weapon by 4 points. I think you might be mixing up BRP/Elric rules with old RQ here. In RQ2, if you parried 12 points of damage you weapon took 12 points of damage off it's hit points. In other words weapon hit points work just like character hit points. 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

Also, if im parrying pretty much ANYTHING but a sword my sword has virtually infinite HP (since the attacker doesnt even get to roll damage).

Yes, he does get to roll damage, unless he is using one of the two exceptions I noted above. Thus if you are using a boradsword and parry an opponent who is also using a boradsword then if the successfully attack they do get to roll damage and will damage you weapon, doing whatever they rolled to your weapon's hit points. So if they do 12 points of damage your 20 HP sword is reduced to 8 hit points.

Conversely if they fail their attack roll and you successfully parry, you get to roll damage on their weapon. 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

Meanwhile the shield user took 3 pts of damage each time they got hit by 15, and if im fighting a troll with a polehammer the shield user died (or is on the ground, bleeding to death) at the 1st strike and i took 0 damage.

Only because the troll is using a long hafted weapon. If he were using a mace or battle axe instead, he'd break your weapon after one or two parries.

 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

Keep in mind that:

So parrying with a weapon isnt as bad as it sounds, and if you have weapon + shield you are better off parrying with a weapon many (most) times, since it works like in BRP and if you parry you parried and the opponent doesnt even get to roll damage, while they do vs shields.

Only if the opponent is using a weapon that doesn't roll damage vs. other weapons, ushc as a long hafted weapon. If the troll was using a mace, sword, battle axe he's smash your weapon pretty quickly.

 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

Yes, using arrows is hardly considered "single combat". Single combat is a 1v1 melee fight and a honor thing.

Says you. Generally single combat is defined as combat between two people. That's not the same as a duel. It's combat. 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

Also i specified melee several times, but i understand it gets lost on our 5000 word essays err... i mean posts XD

But you also state that people cannot kill an elehant in melee. Peopel have. It doesn't happen all that much these days, becuase people rarely have a reason to do so. In the past people would usually hunt in packs, because it is far safer and more effcient to do so.

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

 

Yes, a RuneLord with magic is a super hero, and i see no issue about them manhandling any beast.

You're missing the point. In RQ@ only Runelords are supposed to have combat skills over 100%, yet many large animals end up with skills over 100% due to STR. The T-Rex in Gateway Beastiary with Bite at 180% being a prime example.

 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

I couldnt google a single instance of one single person killing those kinds of animals with spears. You can kill them with groups of people of course.

Not surprising.  Pretty much anything that has happened before the internet, film recording or such isn't going to be documented with accounts or people doing it. You probably aren't going tobe able to google any accounts of the Duke of York killing a boar on a hunt either. Or soldier accounts from the various battles fought against elephants. 

While some accounts might exist, they probably isn't that much that has been translated into modern tongues and posted on google somewhere. 

 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

Well, depends, is it a *magical* elephant from glorantha, or is it a *boring-ass* regular elephant from earth?

What makes you think Gloranthan elephants are magical?

But, since the elephant stats are from Gateway Beastiary, then it is a "boring -ass" regular elephant.

 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

1st one can do all sorts of fancy maneuvers (and can probably speak and use magic too).

How do you know that? Has there been anything printed on magical Glrothan elephants anywhere? You just make it up out of thin ass and give it whatever abilties you wish. For all we know Glorthan doesn't have elephants, or if it does they could be just like the ones on earth.

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

2nd cant, its an animal and won't even try, unless its playing, and then it can do all kinds of tricks a human cant because it has superior strength (?)

Elephants can't jump. They also run reals risks from falls. 

 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

As you yourself note, the skill cap is 100%, and thats a misprint (or most likely an oversight).

Mulitple large critters have the same problem. I think is is an oversight, not in terms of accidentally going over 100%, but that the authors didn't consider that situation until Gateway Bestiary. Which is why Steve and Sandy corrected that in RQ3.

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

 

And 100% is pretty well justified for a t-rex.

Not is isn't. Just becuase it big doesn't mean it is good. Want further evidentce, why do you think they capped the STR bonus to attack at +10% in RQ3? 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

Remember you can lower its % with defense / shimmer and weapon skill. And as you already know, only runelords have weapon skill, and this is awesome because i dont want non-runelords downing t-rexes in melee combat.

But you're contradicting yourself. On the one hand you say only RuneLords have skills over 100% then you say you like how T-Rexes have skills over 100%. 

 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

Insects are too small. The elephant is trying to hit something 50-100 times smaller. The insect is 10k-100k times smaller than you.

It's the same thing. If elepahts can eaily hit people becuase the elpahnts are 50-100 times bigger, then humans should have the same benefits to hit something that they are 50-100 times the size of, like say a cat, mouse or rat. And hitting something they are thousands of tmes larger than should be even easier. 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

The insect has 100+ times more relative strenght, agility and speed than a human

No it doesn't. 

Humans are much stronger relative to an insect. A human can pick up an ant, but an ant cannot pick up a human.  human can also outrun one too. 

Now if you want to talk about what would happen if humans and ants were the same size, well humans would be a lot stronger and tougher. Insects can lift several times their body weight only because they are so small. It's call the cube-square law, strength doesn't change as fast as mass. 

 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

Insects also move several times their body lenght in the blink of an eye.

Some instects can. SOme can fly too. But not all instects, and even the ones that can move quickly, don't move all that fast. 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

 

An elephant wouldnt be able to hit a human that could leap buildings either.

What about all the insects that don't make six foot leaps? Flies are't all that fast. Ant's and spdeirs crawl. Yet people do miss them all the time. 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

There are many, many, many animals you can easily pick up (many reptiles, for example);

And many many that you can't automatically do so when they don't want you too. 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

 

 

a cat has several times the ability of an olimpic level athlete;

Uh, no. Cats are small and agile but not superhumanly so. 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

A jaguar is way stronger, faster, more agile than a human while weighing the same,

How much stronger is "way"? 

A jaguar the same size as a human isn't all that much better phsically, and yes people have killed them in melee. Probably not recently, but it was done. 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

and a house cat is proportionally better than the jaguar at everything (it is stronger compared to its mass)

And a human is stronger compared to it's mass than an elephant (or ant). 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

Having a hit location destroyed means you just died, because you dropped to the ground and will bleed out unless you get healing.

Depends on the location. Limbs that are disabled do not render the character unconscious. Even if a limb is mained or severed the character is still conscious and can heal himself  (RQ2 page 20).

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

Also theres an elephant walking vigorously over you.

That would be a problem.

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

Well, sidestepping an elephant? Serioulsy? Like... have you seen the size of an elephant IRL? theres nowhere to sidestep, theres elephant all over; sidestepping a car sounds easier (and the car doesnt have a trunk, tusks, and is harder to turn around). 

Yes I have and yes you can sidetstep one. 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

Like, lets go bigger, how do you dodge godzilla? YOU DONT, because everything where you are and an area 10x what you can move in the time godzilla stomps its gone.

The same way you dodge evertyhing else. Yes it gets a lot tougher when you are dealing with something so big that is is essentially doing an area attack, but...we back to my insect analogy. 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

Well, the elephant is smaller, but i dont think you can "dodge" it (you may be able to outrun it if you are a high performance athlete though).

Of coruse you can. 

 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

The matador is not fighting a bull.

The matador is fighting a bull that has been exanguinated (aka stabbed by 6 people with pikes), had petroleum rubbed in the eyes so it cant see, had its horns shaved (they remove several cm so the bull cant aim). They also drug them, and soften them with other methods (like hanging them upside down and beating them in the kidneys).

No matador is going 1v1 against a bull with a sword, because theres a very real chance they aint seeing tomorrow if they do.

Yes, but that doesn;'t mean he cannot do it. Look when most people fight or hunt animals they stack the deck in thier fav or as much as possible becuase it is a dangerous thing to do. Even something like a wolf is dangerous. Doesn't mean that people can't kill them.

 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

Crushes are supposed to be unreasonable and are FINE. Theres no issue there.

You';re the one who said don't use the rule.

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

Slash makes sword the best weapons by lightyears. You now have the same damage of a spear (difference is 3 pts on special, and non-existing on crits), but your weapon is easier to take out on impale, has more HP, and can damage other weapons. Its a joke, really.

Every rule you don't like is a joke. Every rule you do like is the best. 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

RQ can do horror pretty well 😉 but its more like a sword and sorcery, Glorantha can easily be a crapsack world if you think about it! Players can be heroes and slay evil and stuff, but we are playing RQ and i know they always die horribly at the end...

It can do horror but that's not it's default. 

 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

Check out Divine Summons Spells. You can stack command cult spirit (2) pts with your summon spell (spellteaching in this case). The spirit is controlled without a roll, so it aint possessing anyone.

Check again, the caster has to overcome the spirit's magic points. 

 

Command Cult Spirit 2 points
special range, instant, stackable, reusable
This spell must be stacked with a divine Summon
[Species]. If the Summons roll is a suooess, this spell affects
the creature summoned. The caster may give the being
one command (only) and the being must obey if its magic
points are overcome by the master's.
No command given by this spell may exceed 10 words
in length. This spell is commonly used to forte a cult spirit
into a Binding Enchantment, but can be used for other
purposes.
This spell is effective with cult spirits of any type, in-
cluding elemenlals, ghosts, and similar beings. lt only
works on beings of the same cult as the caster.

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

Also spellteaching is 1pt non stackable, with just 1 point you can access all the magic of your cult.

But you still have to find the right spirirt and overcome it's Magic points. Spellteach notes that other than the rituaal it is exactly the same as learning a spell under spirrit magic. So the Priest would have to muddle aroun on the spririt plane to find the right spirit. 

On 11/29/2021 at 5:49 PM, icebrand said:

A 4 point variable spell is 500+1000+1500+2000 in RQ2.

Uneless your cult gives you a half off discount. Either way, getting tousands of Lunars in RQ2 is much easier than in RQ3. There is lot more money in those older adventuers.

[icebrand]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

I'm replying from my phone again

Nope. The example is if someone took 4 points of damage the weapon is reduced by 45 points. Not that every parry only reduced the weapon by 4 points. I think you might be mixing up BRP/Elric rules with old RQ here. In RQ2, if you parried 12 points of damage you weapon took 12 points of damage off it's hit points. In other words weapon hit points work just like character hit points. 

It is not an example, it's the rule (pg28 of CE, quote bolded). Theres no example of this anywhere in the book. Actually you could (wrongly i guess) interpret this as weapons taking a MAXIMUM of 4 damage per round, irregardless of actual damage done.

WEAPON DAMAGE ABSORPTION
Weapons absorb damage on a cumulative basis: 4 points of damage taken in 1 melee round will stay with the weapon 
throughout the fight and be added to any further damage it may take. When the damage taken exceeds the amount the weapon can take, the weapon is broken. 

 

Yes, he does get to roll damage, unless he is using one of the two exceptions I noted above.

Yes, i made an example of the rules. Weapons are better than shields vs long hafted or small weapons.

 

Thus if you are using a boradsword and parry an opponent who is also using a boradsword then if the successfully attack they do get to roll damage and will damage you weapon, doing whatever they rolled to your weapon's hit points. So if they do 12 points of damage your 20 HP sword is reduced to 8 hit points.

And after the round finishes, 4 damage stays with the weapon. Parrying several blows in the same round can break it faster though. This is RAW, as quoted above.

 

Only because the troll is using a long hafted weapon. If he were using a mace or battle axe instead, he'd break your weapon after one or two parries.

I don't understand what you mean; yes, the troll doesn't roll damage because it's long hafted. If this case it's better to parry with a weapon than a shield. Also the weapon doesn't break after two parries as per rules on pg28, unless the damage equals or exceeds its current HP.

 

Says you. Generally single combat is defined as combat between two people. That's not the same as a duel. It's combat. 

Single combat is a duel between two single warriors which takes place in the context of a battle between two armies. (Source: wikipedia). But call it a duel if you like.

 

But you also state that people cannot kill an elehant in melee. Peopel have.

Citation required. What's your source??? To be perfect clear, I'm speaking about 1 person using melee weapons, vs an elephant actively fighting them.

Sneaking doesn't count. Poison doesn't count. Ambush doesn't count, ranged attacks don't count. 

 

You're missing the point. In RQ@ only Runelords are supposed to have combat skills over 100%, yet many large animals end up with skills over 100% due to STR. The T-Rex in Gateway Beastiary with Bite at 180% being a prime example.

As I said, animals with over 100% is against the rules in the core book, so this is an oversight.

 

Not surprising.  Pretty much anything that has happened before the internet, film recording or such isn't going to be documented with accounts or people doing it. You probably aren't going tobe able to google any accounts of the Duke of York killing a boar on a hunt either. Or soldier accounts from the various battles fought against elephants. 

But my uncle hunted boars with dogs and knife, this isn't a stretch. Meanwhile, defeating an elephant in a 1v1 fight with melee weapons is completely unbelievable, and i seriously doubt it ever happened more than a couple of times (freak accidents).

Soldiers fought against elephants on 1v1 a grand total of 0 times, since, you know... Soldiers fought elephants in battles.

Also, if someone killed an elephant there would be a tale about it, like the duke of whatever killing a boar (only that the elephant is a much more impressive feat)

 

While some accounts might exist, they probably isn't that much that has been translated into modern tongues and posted on google somewhere. 

So your argument is "it probably happened"??? 

 

What makes you think Gloranthan elephants are magical?

Because every animal in Glorantha is, and elephants seem like they would be. If hadrosaurs are intelligent, why not elephants? Also there's elephant hsunchen (i think I read about those, don't know if canon), so at least they existed if they are currently extinct and i wasn't reading fan content

 

How do you know that? Has there been anything printed on magical Glrothan elephants anywhere? You just make it up out of thin ass and give it whatever abilties you wish.

The same you just made up out of thin air how a normal person with a melee weapons can defeat an elephant in single combat.

 

Mulitple large critters have the same problem. I think is is an oversight, not in terms of accidentally going over 100%, but that the authors didn't consider that situation until Gateway Bestiary. Which is why Steve and Sandy corrected that in RQ3.

Not is isn't. Just becuase it big doesn't mean it is good. Want further evidentce, why do you think they capped the STR bonus to attack at +10% in RQ3? 

But you're contradicting yourself. On the one hand you say only RuneLords have skills over 100% then you say you like how T-Rexes have skills over 100%. 

I like T-rexes at 100%. I already said its an oversight; i don't follow RAW when RAW is wrong, and if a bestiary contradicts core at basic game mechanics, then bestiary is wrong.

 

It's the same thing. If elepahts can eaily hit people becuase the elpahnts are 50-100 times bigger, then humans should have the same benefits to hit something that they are 50-100 times the size of, like say a cat, mouse or rat. And hitting something they are thousands of tmes larger than should be even easier. 

Ok, let's see... 

Elephant = size 6000, speed  11m/s

Human = size 75, speed 3m/s

Cat = size 3, speed 13m/s

An elephant can hit you because humans move "one and a half human" per second. A human can't hit a cat because the cat moves 7 humans per second.

The cat is very agile and strong compared to it's size, the human is not.

An insect can move as fast or faster than a human, while being very small, thus hard to hit. Proportionally a worm moves as fast as a human, i doubt you would have any troubles hitting that.

A fly on the other hand would move at supersonic speeds if it were as big as a human and still maintaining it's mass:speed ratio.

 

No it doesn't. 

Humans are much stronger relative to an insect. A human can pick up an ant, but an ant cannot pick up a human.  human can also outrun one too. 

Yes that's what I said *relative strength*, which is the mass: strength ratio, and not absolute strength, which is what you say.

Insects are absolutely and overwhelmingly stronger pound per pound, as you already know because...

Now if you want to talk about what would happen if humans and ants were the same size, well humans would be a lot stronger and tougher. Insects can lift several times their body weight only because they are so small. It's call the cube-square law, strength doesn't change as fast as mass. 

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. In this case it means it's trivial for an elephant to hit a human, and very difficult for a human to hit a cat.

There are plenty of videos on YouTube showing elephants freaking out and killing humans. It's plain to see you ain't dodging shit, they pick you up and kill you like it's nothing. The only way to survive is run away and pray it doesn't decide its you who it wants dead.

 

Some instects can. SOme can fly too. But not all instects, and even the ones that can move quickly, don't move all that fast. 

What about all the insects that don't make six foot leaps? Flies are't all that fast. Ant's and spdeirs crawl. Yet people do miss them all the time. 

Flies have 360 vision and insane maneuverability and acceleration. Also if you miss a spider it's called "fear"; theres no way a spider can avoid a healthy person with average coordination. I mean you can kill spiders by squashing them with your finger and they don't even get to bite you.

It's also trivially easy to slap a bee midair (don't do this). Because bees are slow.

Uh, no. Cats are small and agile but not superhumanly so. 

A cat can jump 5-6 times it's height. That's a human jumping 9meters+. If that ain't super human, what is?

Also, a cat moves FASTER than a human (in absolute speed). An untrained housecat is almost as fast as Usain Bolt, and a trained one owns him hard (they clock 48km/h vs 38 bolts average).

Cats have (super) human speed at 1/20th the mass, of course they are hard to hit.

 

A jaguar the same size as a human isn't all that much better phsically, and yes people have killed them in melee. Probably not recently, but it was done. 

A jaguar is pound per pound the strongest of all panthers, and they can grapple with anacondas at least as big as them. They have also the strongest bite of any feline, more than lions and tigers (which are like 2x the size). Oh, it runs at 80km/h.

If you believe jaguars are not much better than a similar sized human, then you know nothing about jaguars...

And yes of course you can kill them, because weapons. Thing is, weapons that can kill a jaguar don't do much to an elephant.

 

And a human is stronger compared to it's mass than an elephant (or ant). 

Compared to mass, humans are stronger than elephants and weaker that ants. If you disregard mass then it's the other way around. You can't be "stronger than both" because the elephant can lift/carry several hundred kg and humans can't, and ants can lift/carry several dozen times their weight and humans can't

 

Depends on the location. Limbs that are disabled do not render the character unconscious. Even if a limb is mained or severed the character is still conscious and can heal himself  (RQ2 page 20).

Incorrect again, you should read the rules you quote.

3. Location Receives 6 More Points Than Available

A limb hit for 6 points more than it can take in a single blow is severed or irrevocably maimed. Only a 6 point Healing spell or 
potion applied within 2 full turns, will reknit the limb. 
NOTE: This applies even if the points leading up to this severing would not ordinarily be counted under number 2 above.
Thus, if a character with a 2 point arm is struck for 8 points, he takes only 4 points of damage against his Hit Points, but the 
arm is maimed, Of course, the character is also functionally incapacitated.
A head, chest, or abdomen hit for 6 more than available is an instant death.

 

That would be a problem.

Yes I have and yes you can sidetstep one. 

The same way you dodge evertyhing else. Yes it gets a lot tougher when you are dealing with something so big that is is essentially doing an area attack, but...we back to my insect analogy. 

Your analogy is flawed because as i already explained, insects are (usually) much faster and can move dozens of times their length in the blink of an eye. The ones that can't are trivially easy to hit.

 

But you still have to find them right spirirt and overcome it's Magic points.

It has half the MP as the spirit variant, and If your temple doesn't already have spirit names on a book for priests to summon... Then you travel to one that does, you getting a 8+pt spell, it's worth.

Also having to MP vs MP is irrelevant, because otherwise you get nothing and need to try again.

Like, i fail to see what's your point here?

Edited December 1, 2021 by icebrand

[Ian_W]

It'd be good if people remembered the BRP combat system got written by a couple of SCA guys in the late 1970s.

 

This was post-Bellatrix, but we still weren't very good, so you had a system based around 'you attack, I parry OR block OR dodge', because in West Kingdom we weren't very good at that time.

 

By the time of RQ3, Jade and so on were parrying, blocking and dodging at the same time, and attacks became sequences of multiple moves that flowed into each other (or 'gunfighters' who set up single attacks with deceptive movement). 

 

But the BRP system stayed stuck with the fighting systems of around AS 10.

 

Similarly, it took a long time for the BRP systems to get a Battle skill, which is there to handle things like 'I'll hit for the legs to get him to lower his shield, and then when he does that, hit him inna head with the poleaxe'.

 

And this was well before people started reading and using the combat manuals that got written by people like di Grassi, Talhoffer, Fabris and so on.

 

So, yeah. It's a base that was kind of adequate at the time, but things happened within time.

Edited December 13, 2021 by Ian_W

[Mugen]

5 hours ago, Ian_W said:

Similarly, it took a long time for the BRP systems to get a Battle skill, which is there to handle things like 'I'll hit for the legs to get him to lower his shield, and then when he does that, hit him inna head with the poleaxe'.

What do you mean by "Battle skill" ?
The only Battle skill I'm aware of in BRP-related games is the Pendragon one, which does not covers this.
It seems to me what you describe is handled in BRP with attack skills, and in Mythras with Combat Style skills.

[Barak Shathur]

15 hours ago, Ian_W said:

It'd be good if people remembered the BRP combat system got written by a couple of SCA guys in the late 1970s.

 

This was post-Bellatrix, but we still weren't very good, so you had a system based around 'you attack, I parry OR block OR dodge', because in West Kingdom we weren't very good at that time.

 

By the time of RQ3, Jade and so on were parrying, blocking and dodging at the same time, and attacks became sequences of multiple moves that flowed into each other (or 'gunfighters' who set up single attacks with deceptive movement). 

 

But the BRP system stayed stuck with the fighting systems of around AS 10.

 

Similarly, it took a long time for the BRP systems to get a Battle skill, which is there to handle things like 'I'll hit for the legs to get him to lower his shield, and then when he does that, hit him inna head with the poleaxe'.

 

And this was well before people started reading and using the combat manuals that got written by people like di Grassi, Talhoffer, Fabris and so on.

 

So, yeah. It's a base that was kind of adequate at the time, but things happened within time.

Thanks for this wonderful glimpse into ancient SCA history. I was active 89-91, more or less, with many relapses over the years since. My experience of SCA fighting is a big reason I appreciate the BRP systems so much. 

Now to the subject at hand: it’s my favorite can of worms. I’ll restate what I’ve said here before. For me, RQ3 handles melee better than BRP in most respects, and this thread has confirmed me in that sense. For example, I like the parrying system with weapon AP absorbing some but not necessarily all incoming damage. I like it that weapons like broadswords and war hammers can impale. I like that crushing weapons halve the AP of flexible armour, so that mail is an excellent protection against swords but not so much against maces. What doesn’t work so well is that slashing and crushing weapons do knockdown on a special success. Here I prefer the BRP variants (though right now I’m learning towards allowing maximum damage for those weapons instead). And the multiple parry option is a must, I find it inconceivable that a highly skilled warrior (say at 90% skill) doesn’t stand a chance at holding off at least a couple of opponents simultaneously.

One problem I have with both systems is that damage bonus jumps too precipitously from 0 to 1d4, which means suddenly you do up to about 50% more damage with most one handed weapons. Another one is the attrition of weapon and shield HP. Apart from the book keeping, it disadvantages players whose equipment deteriorates while their foes always come to the fight with pristine weapons.

That said, I see the BRP system as containing a high level of abstraction. Not every move or random occurrence is codified in a rule. Rather, you roll for the most significant events: did someone get hit? Included in those rolls may be stuff like kicking dust in your opponent’s face etc, but it’s left to the imagination. 

I see hit points as somewhat similar. It’s not just a measure of how much tissue damage your limbs can sustain before falling off, but also how incapacitating the pain is. A higher constitution allows you to push through despite being wounded, up to a point.

All in all, a flexible and wonderful system!

Edited December 13, 2021 by Barak Shathur
Stuff

[Ian_W]

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

And the multiple parry option is a must, I find it inconceivable that a highly skilled warrior (say at 90% skill) doesn’t stand a chance at holding off at least a couple of opponents simultaneously.

Back in The Good Old Days of AS 10, a highly skilled warrior *was* at the 90% level, and yes, theory at the time said they don't have a chance of holding off three opponents.

However, once you as a sub-culture get good at fighting and 90% is decent to okay and highly skilled warriors are at the 300% level (so "average dice" is a Special hit) ... then there's a lot more Dodge and Parry to be split. But good fighters will still prefer to kill several worse ones with footwork, positioning and movement, so it's a sequence of one on one fights, rather than by being better at hitting and blocking.

 

Also, shields were absolutely designed to get enemy weapons stuck in them, and metal armor made you essentially sword-proof (cf the many illustrations from German fightbooks of people holding two handed swords by the blade and hitting them with the blunt bit). Get your players in the habit of bringing spare shields ...

Edited December 13, 2021 by Ian_W

[Barak Shathur]

1 hour ago, Ian_W said:

But good fighters will still prefer to kill several worse ones with footwork, positioning and movement, so it's a sequence of one on one fights, rather than by being better at hitting and blocking.

I see multiple parries as just that: the ability to use maneuvering in combination with parrying in order to avoid getting hit by multiple opponents. In my experience, staying within range of two or more enemies and trying to duke it out so to speak equals auto-death. And rhino hiding doesn't work in real life or role playing games!

 

1 hour ago, Ian_W said:

metal armor made you essentially sword-proof

Which, again, is why I like RQ3's weapons system, where maces halve the AP of mail and warhammers punch through plate by impaling, just as it should be.

[Ian_W]

16 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

I see multiple parries as just that: the ability to use maneuvering in combination with parrying in order to avoid getting hit by multiple opponents. In my experience, staying within range of two or more enemies and trying to duke it out so to speak equals auto-death. And rhino hiding doesn't work in real life or role playing games!

The issue is if you do, say, a back foot close that changes the relative positioning so that an attack launched down a particular line bounces off a shield, was that using Block skill, or was that using Dodge skill ?

 

That's my fundamental issue - once you get beyond 'Newbie with five lessons' then dodge, block and parry are used together, and roll into one combat(style) skill. Armor comes into this as well - if I have full leg harness and they are using a sword, then I should have a bonus on my combat skill as I can ignore anything aimed at my legs.

But thats not how we did things in AS 10, so thats not what the foundations of the BRP combat system does 🙂

Storm Bull says otherwise regarding rhinohiding, but that involves heavy use of cult magics 😉

 

[Questbird]

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

Which, again, is why I like RQ3's weapons system, where maces halve the AP of mail and warhammers punch through plate by impaling, just as it should be.

 

"Maces halve the AP of mail". I like this simple rule. It's easy to remember and apply to all BRP games.

[Raleel]

6 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

Thanks for this wonderful glimpse into ancient SCA history. I was active 89-91, more or less, with many relapses over the years since. My experience of SCA fighting is a big reason I appreciate the BRP systems so much. 

Where abouts? That’s when I was active as well, though active might be an overstatement.  
 

6 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

One problem I have with both systems is that damage bonus jumps too precipitously from 0 to 1d4, which means suddenly you do up to about 50% more damage with most one handed weapons. Another one is the attrition of weapon and shield HP. Apart from the book keeping, it disadvantages players whose equipment deteriorates while their foes always come to the fight with pristine weapons.

For these you can easily import a variant. Mythras has a flatter damage table, starting at d2, for example, and doesn’t deal with that bookkeeping outside of dramatic moments. 
 

3 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

In my experience, staying within range of two or more enemies and trying to duke it out so to speak equals auto-death. And rhino hiding doesn't work in real life or role playing games!

Ya, also available in variants. Mythras has an outmaneuver action to do this, and sundering shields is a thing. Others no doubt have their own versions.

a nice feature of the family to be able to largely mix and match. 

[SDLeary]

2 hours ago, Raleel said:

9 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

One problem I have with both systems is that damage bonus jumps too precipitously from 0 to 1d4, which means suddenly you do up to about 50% more damage with most one handed weapons. Another one is the attrition of weapon and shield HP. Apart from the book keeping, it disadvantages players whose equipment deteriorates while their foes always come to the fight with pristine weapons.

For these you can easily import a variant. Mythras has a flatter damage table, starting at d2, for example, and doesn’t deal with that bookkeeping outside of dramatic moments. 

This thought deserves a separate thread, but what if we use the Damage bonus tables as steps..? Steps that iterate the damage die of the weapon. So, rather than going from 0 to 1d4, a Sword goes from 1d8 to 1d10.

I think it's been suggested other places on this forum, but because it came up here and I was thinking about it, thought I should codify the thought.

SDLeary

[Alex]

19 hours ago, Mugen said:

The only Battle skill I'm aware of in BRP-related games is the Pendragon one, which does not covers this.
It seems to me what you describe is handled in BRP with attack skills, and in Mythras with Combat Style skills.

Also a little-known product called RuneQuest: Glorantha, but I agree on your observation about its (and their) scope.

[Alex]

On 11/28/2021 at 4:48 PM, Atgxtg said:

Except it didn't make gamable sense. The rules warned you about double a triple teams, and until fairly recently BRP players knew that to be the big no-no.Yes, occasionally circumstances might result in the group being outnumbered, but then they were supposed to fight in ways that could minimize that.

While it varies dramatically between different versions of RQ (and arguably fairly dramatically according to interpretation in some cases), it would be wrong to say "there exist no 'balanced' three-on-one encounters" in any of them.  We're just haggling over where that happens in each.  Pick a opponent, pick a version, work out how tuff you have to be kill fight three of them at once, then replay this in as much detail as you seem to wish to dig into, but without first controlling for version differences.

On 11/28/2021 at 4:48 PM, Atgxtg said:

I'll throw something else into the mix too. It's pretty stupid for a character to rely soley on one skill. Especially a 2H weapon skill. It is just a matter of time before the character drops the weapon, or take a hit to an arm that prevents them from using a 2H weapon, or they get shot at by missile weapons, or some such. No adventure lives in a vacuum and can rely entiely upon a single combat skill.

But there's a big difference between "not solely, I need situational backup" and "I need to focus pretty much equally on these two skills as I'll be using them both incessantly and indeed at the same time".

On 11/28/2021 at 4:48 PM, Atgxtg said:

I don't think it fuging, just phsyics. Thier 2H can only be in one place at a time, so if it's busy parrying an attack, or in RQG three attacks, then it's not ready to attack at that moment/strike rank. But it could be later.

We can pretty confidently rule out physics as a necessitating criterion here.  Even if you insist -- over the explicit protestations otherwise of the designers of multiple editions -- that SRs are timings, what they most definitely can't be is 0ns instants.  So this isn't a "two places at once" thing, it's a "can I move between two undefined places in an entirely undefined period of time, or indeed tactically co-locate the two things so I don't need to" one.

On 11/28/2021 at 4:48 PM, Atgxtg said:

I don't think it needs fixing, at least not in RQ2 or RQ3. I'm not familar enough with RQG to say. In Earlier RQ the three on one situation is telling, and the lone warrior is sort of expected to drop unless they got more going on. 

Sounds like it is a lot easier in RQG. But then RQG is a very different animal - even the crtical chances are different.

They are?  I missed that memo...  If you're referring to rounding rules here, well, you know what they say about rounding errors...

On 11/28/2021 at 4:48 PM, Atgxtg said:

Don't let RQG muddy the waters here.

You say "muddy the waters", I say "the case I'm by far the most concerned with, give or take some historical curiosity".  YRQWV.

On 11/28/2021 at 4:48 PM, Atgxtg said:

Two things that happened on the same SR and same DEX did happen at the same exact time.

That's firstly, an interpretation on your part, and secondly, an inconsistent one, as the "can't parry on your attack SR" rules doesn't take DEX into account.

On 11/28/2021 at 4:48 PM, Atgxtg said:

Not for the "same SR" thing, heck I don't think we ever used that rule, [...]

But that's the exact point at issue.  The "three opponents" case was entirely subsidiary to that point, not a prompt for an entire change of topic.

[Kloster]

7 hours ago, Questbird said:

"Maces halve the AP of mail". I like this simple rule. It's easy to remember and apply to all BRP games.

In fact, it was 'Crushing weapons halve non rigid armor'.