Parry, Dodge, Block

[Ian_W]

On 11/29/2021 at 3:48 AM, 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

Of course, if you're actually adequately trained, you attack in the instant down the line the attack is coming down in such a way to set aside their attack ... thus combining attack and parry like you should in the Lichtenaeur/Fiore tradition of using two handers.

 

But again, we didnt know that in AS 10, so thats not how the BRP rules work. Back then we really parried then attacked with two handers.

[Barak Shathur]

9 hours ago, Ian_W said:

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 ?

Up to you, of course, but I would say if the shield was in any way integral to preventing getting hit, then it's Parry (or Block, as you may prefer). If it wasn't, then it's Dodge.

 

9 hours ago, Ian_W said:

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.

Again, at the level of abstraction of BRP, that is folded into the general chance of success IMO. If your skill is high and you succeeded with a parry, maybe it could be described as you having directed a blow down towards the greave, if you want. One way to represent what you describe could also be to roll hit location before the attack/defence sequence, so the defender can choose how to react. It also gives the attacker the option to delay the attack and aim for a specific location, as per the rules in RQ3 and BRP.  I like this since it is more in accordance with how actual combat often works, you see an opening and then you try to hit it, rather than striking blindly and randomly hitting something.

6 hours ago, Raleel said:

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

Sweden.

 

6 hours ago, Raleel said:

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. 

I've experimented with this, and also with simply reducing the RQ damage bonus one die step so 1d4->1d2, 1d6->1d4, 2d6->1d6 etc. Right now I'm using the RQ4 damage bonus, which is STR+SIZ/5 minus 5, round up.

6 hours ago, Raleel said:

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.

Again, multiple parries can be used to simulate this too.

3 hours ago, SDLeary said:

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.

That's an interesting idea. For me, the standard system works fine, as long as it progresses proportionally.

[Mugen]

3 hours ago, Alex said:

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

You mean RQ:Adventures in Glorathha/RQ IV ? 😁

[Raleel]

5 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

multiple parries can be used to simulate this too.

Ya, Mythras also offers multiple parries, but felt I shouldn’t belabor the point overly.

[Barak Shathur]

11 hours ago, Mugen said:

You mean RQ:Adventures in Glorathha/RQ IV ? 😁

I somehow can't sing the praises of RQ4 enough. So much of it (at least the combat system) seems like the natural evolution that RQ3 should have followed. The reduced, smoothly progressive damage bonus table. Movement rate calculated on SIZ and DEX instead of a given species-specific number. Separation of combat movement and strike rank, so that the latter becomes simply the order of actions in a 'melee phase'. Death at negative total HP, so that it's not lights out directly at 0, instead you get to bleed out for a while. At the moment, I've incorporated all of this in my RQ3 and it's a great fit.

I'd say RQ4 is the answer to many of the questions RQ3 poses.

Edited December 14, 2021 by Barak Shathur
coda

[Barak Shathur]

6 hours ago, Raleel said:

Ya, Mythras also offers multiple parries, but felt I shouldn’t belabor the point overly.

I've looked at Mythras. At the moment I don't have the mental energy to read up on another rules system, but I'm curious about combining aspects of it with RQ3. How would you go about it?

And by the way, where were you SCA active?

[Raleel]

2 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

I've looked at Mythras. At the moment I don't have the mental energy to read up on another rules system, but I'm curious about combining aspects of it with RQ3. How would you go about it?

And by the way, where were you SCA active?

I would largely take the pieces I like from each. I prefer Mythras’ combat system as a wholel but I would look pretty strongly at RQ’s strike ranks. I like the flatter curve of Mythras as a whole though. 
 

and me, in montana, USA 

[Baron Wulfraed]

17 hours ago, Mugen said:

You mean RQ:Adventures in Glorathha/RQ IV ? 😁

If that is a reference to the current Chaosium product, it is RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha -- or is that a mention of the first Mongoose RQ edition?

 

5 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

Movement rate calculated on SIZ and DEX instead of a given species-specific number.

Citation please? RQ:RiG page 195 reads (emphasis mine):

Quote

An unencumbered adventurer not engaged in melee combat may move to their species movement rate in a melee round. A human can move 8 movement units in a melee round, or 24 meters.

Neither RQ:RiG, nor the Bestiary have any movement rate (MOV) entries linked to SIZ and/or DEX.

[Mugen]

3 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

If that is a reference to the current Chaosium product, it is RuneQuest: Roleplaying in Glorantha -- or is that a mention of the first Mongoose RQ edition?

No, it was a reference to an aborted 4th edition from the 90s. :) Its draft document was a very popular topic 20 years ago.

[David Scott]

@Mugen

@Baron Wulfraed

I'd suggest following the version acronyms here: https://wellofdaliath.chaosium.com/role-playing/systems-versions/

[soltakss]

13 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

I somehow can't sing the praises of RQ4 enough. So much of it (at least the combat system) seems like the natural evolution that RQ3 should have followed.

I just couldn't stand its reliance on things like quarter-turn-moves to model turning in combat.

It had a lot of good ideas, but was far too crunchy for my tastes.

[Barak Shathur]

9 hours ago, Baron Wulfraed said:

Neither RQ:RiG, nor the Bestiary have any movement rate (MOV) entries linked to SIZ and/or DEX.

It's the formula for MOV from the unpublished RQ4, page 19: (SIZ+DEX)/5 (divided by 3 for quadrupeds).

[Barak Shathur]

1 hour ago, soltakss said:

I just couldn't stand its reliance on things like quarter-turn-moves to model turning in combat.

It had a lot of good ideas, but was far too crunchy for my tastes.

All I can find regarding that is on p. 74, "After all movement is done, all the combatants can freely adjust their facing (or take a free one hex facing shift if using a hex map)".

But there's also this on p. 76: "However, players and gamemasters that do not feel the need for a system of movement resolution should feel free to ignore the Move and Post Melee Move phases, simply using the Declaration and melee phases instead, and deciding movement questions on a common sense, case by case basis."
 

So your crunch may vary!

[Baron Wulfraed]

4 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

It's the formula for MOV from the unpublished RQ4, page 19: (SIZ+DEX)/5 (divided by 3 for quadrupeds).

The key word being "unpublished". Especially for those who skipped everything in the period between Late RQ3 (having had a gamemaster move a day's drive away, local hobby shops closing, and a bit of tight finances barring attendance at DunDraCon et al), until discovering RQ:RiG two years back (I actually don't recall how I found it).

 

[Barak Shathur]

A somewhat related question: on page 191 under "Parry" it says "A character armed with a parrying weapon or shield can block the damage from an attack." I've taken that to mean that any weapon that is usable for parrying can be used for parrying, regardless of whether you've also used it to attack that round. I've always found this a bit problematic since it makes shields redundant in melee combat. But on closer reading it struck me that "parrying weapon" seems to imply a weapon that is used specifically for parrying, in contrast to an "attacking weapon". That is, a weapon that is used for attacking in a given round is not a "parrying weapon", though you could use it to parry if you don't use it to attack that particular round. In my opinion, this plays much better than my first assumption. Thoughts?

[Kloster]

8 hours ago, Barak Shathur said:

A somewhat related question: on page 191 under "Parry" it says "A character armed with a parrying weapon or shield can block the damage from an attack." I've taken that to mean that any weapon that is usable for parrying can be used for parrying, regardless of whether you've also used it to attack that round. I've always found this a bit problematic since it makes shields redundant in melee combat. But on closer reading it struck me that "parrying weapon" seems to imply a weapon that is used specifically for parrying, in contrast to an "attacking weapon". That is, a weapon that is used for attacking in a given round is not a "parrying weapon", though you could use it to parry if you don't use it to attack that particular round. In my opinion, this plays much better than my first assumption. Thoughts?

According to RQ3 (including errata)(I'm sorry, my BGB is 200km away, so I can not check), you can parry with any weapon, including one that attacks this specific round, but you can not parry and attack with the same weapon in the same SR. And what makes shields not redundant is 1) that they have globally more AP/HP than weapons and 2) that they provide cover for missile weapons.

[Barak Shathur]

3 hours ago, Kloster said:

According to RQ3 (including errata)(I'm sorry, my BGB is 200km away, so I can not check), you can parry with any weapon, including one that attacks this specific round, but you can not parry and attack with the same weapon in the same SR. And what makes shields not redundant is 1) that they have globally more AP/HP than weapons and 2) that they provide cover for missile weapons.

I was talking about BGB, sorry if I wasn’t clear about that. RQ3 is a bit different, there 2H weapons can both attack and parry in the same round (one handed weapons can’t). And also damage is rolled against a blocking weapon, unlike BGB where all damage is blocked on a successful parry. Besides, in BGB weapon and shield AP is about twice of what they are in RQ3 so they are virtually indestructible.

[Kloster]

32 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

RQ3 is a bit different, there 2H weapons can both attack and parry in the same round (one handed weapons can’t).

With errata, they can, but not on same SR.

32 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

And also damage is rolled against a blocking weapon, unlike BGB where all damage is blocked on a successful parry.

This, I didn't remember.

33 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

Besides, in BGB weapon and shield AP is about twice of what they are in RQ3 so they are virtually indestructible.

This, I remember.

[Barak Shathur]

1 hour ago, Kloster said:

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

RQ3 is a bit different, there 2H weapons can both attack and parry in the same round (one handed weapons can’t).

With errata, they can, but not on same SR.

You are correct, I see now that according to the errata, when used in combination with another weapon, including a shield, you can do that. But not if you use a one handed weapon on its own? A bit strange. 

Anyway, I was talking about BGB. Is my interpretation of the wording correct? A "parrying weapon" is a weapon that is used exclusively for parrying in that round. Makes sense to me, I think I'm going to run it that way.

[Alex]

19 minutes ago, Barak Shathur said:

Anyway, I was talking about BGB. Is my interpretation of the wording correct? A "parrying weapon" is a weapon that is used exclusively for parrying in that round. Makes sense to me, I think I'm going to run it that way.

I don't have the BGB, but I'm pretty sure that's not the intended interpretation.  The BRP SRD simply used "parrying weapon" to mean "the weapon you're parrying with currently", and that's consistent with what various iterations of RQ have done too.  Otherwise you'd essentially never parry with a 2H weapon, and by similarly restricted if you were using a 1H weapon on its own, as you say.  (Style/life choice, or other limb with Damage Equal to or More Than the Location’s Hit Points.)

Which is a legit alternative way to play it, and certain keeps your Dodge skill busy!  And also avoids the whole "you can parry on 11/12 SRs, but not remaining one, even though SRs aren't times" angst.

[Barak Shathur]

33 minutes ago, Alex said:

I don't have the BGB, but I'm pretty sure that's not the intended interpretation.  The BRP SRD simply used "parrying weapon" to mean "the weapon you're parrying with currently", and that's consistent with what various iterations of RQ have done too.  Otherwise you'd essentially never parry with a 2H weapon, and by similarly restricted if you were using a 1H weapon on its own, as you say.  (Style/life choice, or other limb with Damage Equal to or More Than the Location’s Hit Points.)

Which is a legit alternative way to play it, and certain keeps your Dodge skill busy!  And also avoids the whole "you can parry on 11/12 SRs, but not remaining one, even though SRs aren't times" angst.

It also makes twohanders less of a no brainer choice, since if you can parry as easily with them as with a shield (or a secondary weapon for that matter) they simply just do more damage, with no drawbacks. No one in their right mind would use anything but a greatsword or greataxe in melee. The only benefit to a shield is the base chance to parry a missile, and you could just carry a shield around for that purpose and drop it when you enter melee. This is a pet gripe of mine and I've discussed it before.

Also with a twohander you get attack and parry for the cost of one skill, while if you use weapon and shield you have to buy two. If you on the other hand have to choose to either parry or attack with an individual weapon, great or small, you need to invest in dodge to have some form of defense. Also, dodge is reduced by encumbrance, so there's a tradeoff between armour and dodging. Which makes the choice between weapon style more meaningful and not just fluffy.

ADDED: would it be possible to get the game designers to weigh in on this?

Edited December 27, 2021 by Barak Shathur
see above

[Kloster]

1 hour ago, Barak Shathur said:

Anyway, I was talking about BGB. Is my interpretation of the wording correct? A "parrying weapon" is a weapon that is used exclusively for parrying in that round. Makes sense to me, I think I'm going to run it that way.

If I remember well what I understood from the BGB (looong time ago), it was like RQ3's errata rule (if you use SR, of course), and I would have played it the same. Additionally, my personal experience with fencing makes me think this is correct: you can parry and attack with the same weapon in the same 12 second timeframe, but not at the same time, meaning not the same SR.

[Alex]

17 minutes ago, Kloster said:

Additionally, my personal experience with fencing makes me think this is correct: you can parry and attack with the same weapon in the same 12 second timeframe, but not at the same time, meaning not the same SR.

But very clearly and explicitly, a SR is neither a second, nor an instant.  (Nor is what's true of a fencing foil necessarily also the case for, say, a 2H Battleaxe.)

[Joerg]

An easy cure against people only using long, two-handed weapons is to put them into narrow spaces, or to inflict low-hanging branches or ceilings on them.

[Baron Wulfraed]

46 minutes ago, Joerg said:

An easy cure against people only using long, two-handed weapons is to put them into narrow spaces, or to inflict low-hanging branches or ceilings on them.

Which actually is counter to advice given during an SCA seminar (at a gaming convention, Sir Hilary of Serendip being prime speaker, so that probably narrows the time period) some decades ago... Greatsword was considered ideal for the stereotypical D&D dungeon corridor (10ftx10ft) as the guard position was in front of the wielder, and with the hilt held about waist high, the blade easily cleared the ceiling. Strikes being done by pivoting the blade down from vertical (either to the front or to the sides of front).

One handed (broadsword, et al) were less useful since strikes often entailed swinging them from behind the back -- which meant needing lots of clearance from any other party members adjacent to the wielder. Overhand strikes risk scraping the ceiling ("heroic" 6ft character, swinging overhand, likely has the hand&hilt passing near 7ft up, and a 2.5ft blade beyond that). A full-extension side swing (for me) puts the hand/hilt almost 3ft from neck centerline, and add a 2.5ft blade means the clearance to the side has to be 5 feet -- I'm basically scraping the left-hand wall with my shield to clear a safe space for a second party member (and it will still be tight, as they would need to be dead center of the corridor to have their blade clear the wall -- I might still hit their shield side).

Short-sword, in a roman style shield wall using overhand chops and straight thrusts between shields would work -- but how many party members are trained in that discipline...

 

Edited December 27, 2021 by Baron Wulfraed