Subsequent Parries

[Shiningbrow]

4 minutes ago, Martin Dick said:

Seems pretty reasonable to me, the Great Troll sending in the expendable trollkin to wear down the enemy's defences and distract them.

Isn't that the whole point of having trollkin in combat?

[JustAnotherVingan]

2 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Oh of course 🙂  In fact, while I'm very bad at tactics, half of my players are pretty good at it, so I wasn't joking when I said I generally learn tricks from my own players. And more seriously, having PCs or NPCs organizing their order of attacks sounds like pretty decent tactic to me.

I do remember when Runemasters came out it had a section on tactics for NPC groups to use and I thought if I use half of these my players are going to get butchered. They weren't stupid and knew their own abilities but work as a team, coordinate their actions etc not a hope.

[Akhôrahil]

9 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Some GMs might let the player decide on parrying or not only after seeing if the trollkin hit, so that you don't "waste" your parry for nothing. Other more severe GMs might want their players to declare whether they're defending against an attack before they know if the attack is successful.

I think it has to be run this latter way, or the above 100% reduction doesn’t work out. I believe rules also explicitly call for this?

[SevenSistersOfVinga]

11 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Other more severe GMs might want their players to declare whether they're defending against an attack before they know if the attack is successful.

What's the point of the success table to show success parry vs failed attack if you can decide not to parry? 

We have been using the severe one. (So far)

Also we never thought about reorder parries, but also didn't know how they work until this thread.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

Yes the rules are designed commit to the parry/dodge first without knowing the outcome of the attack.

As a GM I’d say you’d have to have super self control to not instinctively try to parry/dodge the trollkins attacks. So probably easier to assume that parry/dodge is being used as the default.

As a GM I might ask for a roll against POW or something else appropriate to fight any instinct to parry/dodge an incoming attack if they’re aware of it. 
 

 

[JustAnotherVingan]

1 hour ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Yes the rules are designed commit to the parry/dodge first without knowing the outcome of the attack.

As a GM I’d say you’d have to have super self control to not instinctively try to parry/dodge the trollkins attacks. So probably easier to assume that parry/dodge is being used as the default.

As a GM I might ask for a roll against POW or something else appropriate to fight any instinct to parry/dodge an incoming attack if they’re aware of it. 
 

 

I think I'd allow choosing not to parry/dodge a blow. Especially if facing several enemies you might choose to concentrate on the most dangerous (or ignore the club but watch for the stinger if facing a scorpionman). I don't think I'd allow a player to say I want to apply the penalty to some parries then use full score against a later attack. Its a penalty for multiple actions taken in quick succession, not a conscious decision.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

1 hour ago, JustAnotherVingan said:

I don't think I'd allow a player to say I want to apply the penalty to some parries then use full score against a later attack. Its a penalty for multiple actions taken in quick succession, not a conscious decision.

Yes my feeling too. It’s a flurry of activity happening in quick succession. Getting to chose what % of parry you apply to each attack is getting a bit too meta for me. It’s an abstract round of frantic activity, if you’re overwhelmed by number of attacks, that’s reflected in the ever decreasing chance of defending. 
 

1 hour ago, JustAnotherVingan said:

2 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

I think I'd allow choosing not to parry/dodge a blow. Especially if facing several enemies you might choose to concentrate on the most dangerous (or ignore the club but watch for the stinger if facing a scorpionman).

Yes I guess I can subscribe to that. Scorpion stinger could be fatal. You’d have tunnel vision on the poisoned attack.
 

Though a load of Trollkin trying to club you may be a distraction that’s hard not to ignore defensively….However It’s an abstraction and it’s all happening very fast though so yes on reflection I agree, let them pick out the larger attacker if they wish, but beware a trollkin might take you out with a good shot.
 

 

[Kloster]

18 hours ago, lordabdul said:

That is, if SRs dictacte that the attacks come in the order of Trollkin 1, Trollkin 2, Great Troll, then either the player parries both trollkins and suffer -40% for the Great Troll, ignore one trollkin and get -20% for the Great Troll, or let both trollkin hit "for free" to be at full skill against the Great Troll.

This is exactly how I would do it if I were using multiple parries.

[Rodney Dangerduck]

10 hours ago, Martin Dick said:

Seems pretty reasonable to me, the Great Troll sending in the expendable trollkin to wear down the enemy's defences and distract them. That's sort of the point with trollkin in battle (and of course the occasional critical), though maybe the average Great Troll doesn't think that deeply, but a Dark troll would for sure.

Sending in trollkin for a few rounds to wear them down is perfectly fine and reasonable.  Happens in action movies all the time.  The Dark Troll can even sneak around to try to strike with surprise.

Coordinating with them so you attack in exactly 11 seconds ("hey, trollkin, lets synchronize our watches"?) to exploit the artificial construct of a "round", is not.

[JustAnotherVingan]

2 minutes ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Sending in trollkin for a few rounds to wear them down is perfectly fine and reasonable.  Happens in action movies all the time.  The Dark Troll can even sneak around to try to strike with surprise.

Coordinating with them so you attack in exactly 11 seconds ("hey, trollkin, lets synchronize our watches"?) to exploit the artificial construct of a "round", is not.

Its an abstraction. A person making an aimed blow doesn't say, hey, I'll wait until SR12 then thwack them in the head. The troll doesn't say I'll wait until SR11, they just think I'll attack after the trollkin.

Its even in the rules,, p192.

Any combatant can delay an action and go on a later SR , if desired.

[g33k]

On 2/24/2022 at 11:41 AM, SevenSistersOfVinga said:

I have a related question, how does this interact with skills over 100%? 

If someone with 120% to shield, matches 3 enemies wirh 80% to Spear attack. 

Is it correct to parry 100/80/60 and take 20% from the first one? Maybe 100/80/60 and take 20% from all of them? or even 120/100/80. 

I get the rules independently but I get confused when they interact.

Drop everyone by 20% in this case.

The 120%'er will parry 3 attacks (all made at -20, so all at 60%) at 100/80/60.

 

At least, that's the RAW+RF.

At least, AIUI.

Edited February 26, 2022 by g33k

[g33k]

2 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Sending in trollkin for a few rounds to wear them down is perfectly fine and reasonable.  Happens in action movies all the time.  The Dark Troll can even sneak around to try to strike with surprise.

Coordinating with them so you attack in exactly 11 seconds ("hey, trollkin, lets synchronize our watches"?) to exploit the artificial construct of a "round", is not.

Except that SR's are explicitly not  units of time that way.

If you wish to discourage or limit the tactic under the RAW, maybe require the character who is holding-action to make a Battle roll or (a POWx5, or etc) in order to time their attack for maximum effect (i.e. after ablating as many parries as possible).  If they miss that roll, they strike too early, and catch a bigger Parry than they wanted.

Edited February 26, 2022 by g33k
Word choice

[Martin Dick]

6 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Coordinating with them so you attack in exactly 11 seconds ("hey, trollkin, lets synchronize our watches"?) to exploit the artificial construct of a "round", is not.

I think, deciding to attack after the trollkin have gone in and distracted the opponent is hardly rocket science and not artificial at all and probably even fine for a Great Troll with their average intelligence of 9 and as JustAnotherVingan pointed out, holding your action to later in the round is RAW

[Rodney Dangerduck]

1 hour ago, Martin Dick said:

I think, deciding to attack after the trollkin have gone in and distracted the opponent is hardly rocket science and not artificial at all and probably even fine for a Great Troll with their average intelligence of 9 and as JustAnotherVingan pointed out, holding your action to later in the round is RAW

The "start" of the round, and the defender's parry periodically resetting to full at that instant, is a completely artificial construct.

If I am standing on one side of the International Dateline, and you on the other, can I parry, or even talk, even though I'm 23.99 hours behind?  Of course I can.

[PhilHibbs]

You could say that the tactical use of the RuneQuest mechanics is a proxy for real world tactics. In the real world, there are tricks that work that smart folks will exploit. In RuneQuest, there are game mechanics that smart folks will exploit. It might be difficult to correlate the two, the analogies are never perfect, the one is a distorted shadow of the other. How far you go with this is a matter of taste in how you play the game.

So yes, the melee round and the strike rank are artificial, but does that matter? You can't simulate reality perfectly in a fun game, so you dial down the detail and play with the pieces that you have left. If you find quirks that you just can't rationalize and that break your sense of immersion and fun, then don't abuse those quirks. Everyone will find that line in a different place.

[Shiningbrow]

3 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

The "start" of the round, and the defender's parry periodically resetting to full at that instant, is a completely artificial construct.

If I am standing on one side of the International Dateline, and you on the other, can I parry, or even talk, even though I'm 23.99 hours behind?  Of course I can.

While true, it is also true that combat isn't one continuous, never pausing series of attacks and parries.

There are brief flurries of activity followed by short breaks to get distance, breath, re-size up the opponent, try to say something witty it scathing... 

Artificially, that could be broken down into melee rounds.

Option B might be to start at 0, and count up one tick at a time until the combat is over... But, when would 0 actually start?

[Martin Dick]

8 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

The "start" of the round, and the defender's parry periodically resetting to full at that instant, is a completely artificial construct.

If I am standing on one side of the International Dateline, and you on the other, can I parry, or even talk, even though I'm 23.99 hours behind?  Of course I can.

Sure, if you want to move the level of discussion from the completely unartificial strategy of using weaker attackers to distract the opponent so that the lead attacker is going to find it easier to hit them to the fact that the Strike Rank/Melee Round mechanic is not an accurate reflection of the real-world, then you go you! I don't disagree, the RQ combat system for me is a nice balance between reality, ease of use, crunch and fun, but as Phil points out, others will differ. I think Steve Perrin and co did an inspired job back in the day. Personally, I would probably prefer a continuous battle flow with no rounds and just characters just keep acting when they expend the relevant strike ranks, but others will have their own preferences.

P.S. Andrew Bean you can't use this completely artificial strategy against Arkast, okay! 🤪

[Rodney Dangerduck]

5 hours ago, Martin Dick said:

I think Steve Perrin and co did an inspired job back in the day.

I completely agree.

RQ 2 did not have the concept of "Subsequent Parry".  When confronted by multiple enemies, in your declaration of intent you'd typically say "I parry the Great Troll" and you'd take your chances with the trollkin.  Which is where I'm coming from in this discussion - you still get to focus on the Great Troll.  (Note, if you were > 100%, which was very rare, you could split, and still apply a small chance to parry vs. a single trollkin)

I now see some sense in the "you get distracted" concept, but, IMO, the real beef is that RQG made some significant changes to the combat rules.  They added "Subsequent Parries", and they are at a fairly minor penalty: IMO, the -20% should be more like -50%.  In RQ2, it was -100%.  The classic "swarm the big baddie / hero" tactic no longer works as well.

There are several other changes, IMO more significant.  Attack and defense are now the same skill.  Shields may not be made of iron.  Nor does carrying a shield and sword help with subsequent parries.  Those changes make shield usage much less optimal.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

16 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

The "start" of the round, and the defender's parry periodically resetting to full at that instant, is a completely artificial construct.

I don't find this an issue. I see It as a formal, in game way of establishing the limits on a burst of activity within the RQ melee round. It's no different to the established in game limit to number of attacks permissible in a melee round.

The instinct to defend and avoid blows is strong, but there is a point when you do become overwhelmed by a number of attacks within a melee round. There's a physical and mental point when the sheer number of attacks in quick succession can reduce your effectiveness at parrying. I think the rule does a decent job of modelling that in the abstraction of the melee round. The beginning of the new melee round represents a small reset as your head clears and you reassess where the danger is and who your target is. Its like catching your breath, quickly assessing and anticipating where the next blows are coming from...regaining your physical balance, getting your footing right  for the next burst of activity etc

Edited February 27, 2022 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[Ryan Kent]

I am considering not using the rule of reducing skill by opposing skill over 100 in combat, mainly because of sword and axe trance. The online rules summary says to only use this rule in combat with natural skill over 100. I will probably go with that. 

[Shiningbrow]

7 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Shields may not be made of iron

That's not actually correct. We just haven't been given stats for them in current publications. There's obviously no good reason why we couldn't have them.

[Arcadiagt5]

FWIW I don’t adjust the SRs of NPCs for tactical advantage over the PCs: they go when they go, adjusted only for movement & spell casting. 

Within that framework, the PCs then react in sequence to the incoming strikes & have the option to skip parries of less dangerous* attacks to retain skill for the more serious attacks. The example I gave earlier of PCs fighting multiple ghouls was a real one, and if you’re up against 3 ghouls that’s 9 attacks inbound & saving your skill for the poisoned bites is a serious option. 

* Noting that this is RuneQuest and even the comedy troupe, er, trollkin with slings, can score critical hits…

[Martin Dick]

14 hours ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

Note, if you were > 100%, which was very rare,

Yes, getting to 100% in our RQ2 and RQ3 campaigns was a dream as opposed to a reality, but RQG has taken a different view and PCs are considerably more heroic, my Orlanthi has a natural broadsword skill of 137% after starting with 90% (lots of good XP rolls) and combined with a passion roll and his Bladesharp 6 (doubled with a crystal), means he can easily get 200%+, and that's not talking about the Humakti/Babeester Gors with their Trance rune spells going. Personally I like RQG in lots of ways and I don't have a problem with new parry system as it makes the PCs more heroic but YGWV and your RQWV too. 

[Rodney Dangerduck]

9 hours ago, Martin Dick said:

Yes, getting to 100% in our RQ2 and RQ3 campaigns was a dream as opposed to a reality, but RQG has taken a different view and PCs are considerably more heroic, my Orlanthi has a natural broadsword skill of 137% after starting with 90% (lots of good XP rolls) and combined with a passion roll and his Bladesharp 6 (doubled with a crystal), means he can easily get 200%+, and that's not talking about the Humakti/Babeester Gors with their Trance rune spells going. Personally I like RQG in lots of ways and I don't have a problem with new parry system as it makes the PCs more heroic but YGWV and your RQWV too. 

We are finding the same - several characters have natural skills in the 120-130% range.  With Augments, Strength (or my new BFF spell, Bear's Strength) and Bladesharp they easily get into the 180-200% range.  (Though it's tricky to remember that Bladesharp only helps attack, not parry)  And our Humakti was up to over 250% one battle with Sword Trance.

It makes life challenging for the GM - how do you make worthy opponents for them, who won't just overwhelm the others.

[Ryan Kent]

1 hour ago, Rodney Dangerduck said:

We are finding the same - several characters have natural skills in the 120-130% range.  With Augments, Strength (or my new BFF spell, Bear's Strength) and Bladesharp they easily get into the 180-200% range.  (Though it's tricky to remember that Bladesharp only helps attack, not parry)  And our Humakti was up to over 250% one battle with Sword Trance.

It makes life challenging for the GM - how do you make worthy opponents for them, who won't just overwhelm the others.

I have seen this same issue.  Smart foes run away from a Humakti with sword trance up and try to use spells and missile weapons. Dumb foes die. Even spirit combat is practically pointless when they have true sword up. To add insult to injury is the gift that doubles sword damage that penetrates armor. Sheesh.