Question about RQG combat: forfeiting attacks to have more/ better parries?

[smiorgan]

Are there any rules about forfeiting attacks to gain better defensive options? Something like I do not attack this round and I get an additional parry at full percentage? Is this a thing in RQG in any way?

It seems that this is possible with two weapons (and weapon and shield?). The text on page 224 says:

"An adventurer using a weapon in each hand can use them for two attacks, two parries or one attack and one parry"

However, this text seems a leftover from the RQ2 text (page 28 in RQ Classic) and it is not entirely clear what "two parries" means in a RQG context, as everyone can make two parries if they wish (one at full skill, another at -20%).

Should I read "two parries" as "two parries at full skill"? And how does it degrade afterwards? Is it two other parries at -20% or the third parry is at -20% and the fourth at -40%?

 

 

 

 

Edited November 1, 2022 by smiorgan

[Bill the barbarian]

Just having a conversation in Discord on a similar topic, so with rules fresh in mind, I will say I believe the answer is, this is not in the rules. You would need a home rule for that 

 

Edited November 1, 2022 by Bill the barbarian

[PhilHibbs]

26 minutes ago, smiorgan said:

The text on page 224 says:

"An adventurer using a weapon in each hand can use them for two attacks, two parries or one attack and one parry"

That's a bit of text from an old edition or older iteration of the RQ4 rules that got included in error. As Bill said, there's no allowance for that kind of tactic in the rules-as-written.

I think it would be quite reasonable to at the minimum allow one extra full chance parry (i.e. delay the beginning of the -20 stacking debuff by one) if the adventurer does not attack. It's rather a small benefit though, and only helps people facing multiple incoming attacks.

[Bill the barbarian]

Thanks for the confirmation Phil.

So, there are (at least) two schools of thought on this. The first says this is a great thing as it makes combat easier and faster with less rules and the other bemoans the loss of grittiness in combat tactics. I am on the fence here. I love simplicity, but realism, I find, is simpler...

Oh what to do?

[smiorgan]

I love RQG, but combat rules is the part that impresses me the least. Sometimes I'm tempted to go back to RQ2 or RQ3 combat. 

 

[Arcadiagt5]

One option that I think I’ve used is that if you go full defensive, the penalty for repeated defences is cut from -20% to -10%. I may have given a bonus to the first parry as well. 

[smiorgan]

2 hours ago, smiorgan said:

I love RQG, but combat rules is the part that impresses me the least. Sometimes I'm tempted to go back to RQ2 or RQ3 combat. 

 

Or to adopt the simpler attack-parry/dodge matrixes from Elric! But, I'm a tinkerer and a compulsive house ruler.

[PhilHibbs]

13 hours ago, Arcadiagt5 said:

One option that I think I’ve used is that if you go full defensive, the penalty for repeated defences is cut from -20% to -10%. I may have given a bonus to the first parry as well. 

I think the problem with any solution is how it scales at high skill. Giving a bonus that is meaningful at "starting" skill levels (50-100%) but not utterly nuts at high skill levels (and lets be honest, 200% is not even that ridiculous at starting level with Sword Trance) is super hard.

So lets say I have sword skill at 200%, due to Sword Trance or other combined bonuses. With a -10% stacking debuff that means I can parry ten times before my chance starts to actually be affected meaningfully.

Maybe that's okay. 200% is huge, if it's game breaking then it's the "fault" of Sword Trance and not the parry mechanics.

Edited November 2, 2022 by PhilHibbs

[DreadDomain]

19 hours ago, smiorgan said:

Are there any rules about forfeiting attacks to gain better defensive options? Something like I do not attack this round and I get an additional parry at full percentage? Is this a thing in RQG in any way?

It's not codified but if a players wants to fight defensively (forfeit all attacks), I would allow an extra defense that does not count towards the cumulative -20% penalty. 

19 hours ago, smiorgan said:

It seems that this is possible with two weapons (and weapon and shield?). The text on page 224 says:

"An adventurer using a weapon in each hand can use them for two attacks, two parries or one attack and one parry"

This has been errataed in the Well of Daliath but unfortunately, the errata did not make it into the starter set. It should read:

"With two weapons, one in each hand you can attack with both (subject to strike ranks), and parry with both (though only 1 parry allowed per attack) and subsequent parries (in a combat round) are subject to the -20% cumulative penalty, regardless of which weapon is used to parry."

[radmonger]

I think these rules are both simpler and more scaleable than the default

1. humans get 1 combat action per arm, with maybe martials arts or other similar training allowing kicks as well.

2. with two weapons you can attack twice.

3. with two shields you could parry twice; obviously hardly anyone does that.

4. a parry always uses your highest weapon skill; you are threatening and anticipating the actions of a specific opponent to limit their lines of attack.

5. If you are using a shield, a successful parry hits the shield, otherwise the weapon.

6. shield skill is rarely trained in, but allows using  a shield as a weapon to make a second attack

7. if you need more combat actions, you need to split your attacks and parries as per RQ:G

8. > 100% skill (after modifiers and splitting) gives 1 free success. So you then roll any excess skill with fumble = miss, sucess = special, special = critical and criticial = critical and pick locatiopn.

 

 

[DreadDomain]

18 hours ago, smiorgan said:

I love RQG, but combat rules is the part that impresses me the least. Sometimes I'm tempted to go back to RQ2 or RQ3 combat. 

I am with you, RQG made really nice additions but combat is still my least favourite part of the rules with some terrible copy-paste from previous editions.

15 hours ago, smiorgan said:

Or to adopt the simpler attack-parry/dodge matrixes from Elric! But, I'm a tinkerer and a compulsive house ruler.

Below is a breakdown of the RQG attack-parry matrix. It feels inspired by the Stormbringer/Elric/BGB matrix

On 2/18/2022 at 1:55 PM, DreadDomain said:

There are a few exceptions in the table but if the attack is successful, the matrix is generally a "compare success level" mechanic. Looking at the Attack/Parry Table: 

A) If attack fails and defender rolls a... (refer to C below for Fumbles)

• Failure - Attack and Defense miss
• Normal parry - Attack is parried, deflected or missed. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s normal damage. Attacking weapon’s HP reduced by 1 HP if damage over its current HP.
• Special parry -Attack is parried, deflected or missed. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s special damage. Attacking weapon’s HP reduced by any damage over its current HP.
• Critical parry - Attack is parried, deflected or missed. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s special damage. Attacking weapon’s HP reduced by the damage rolled.

B) If attack succeeds, compare Attacker and Defender success level where Critical = 2, Special = 1, Normal, Fail or Fumble = 0 (refer to C below for Fumbles)

Success Level (Attacker SL - Defender SL)    

• Attacker wins by 2 - Attacker rolls max special damage. If Defender’s roll is successful, damage equal to weapon HP is parried and affected hit location takes any excess damage and ignores armor. Parrying weapon takes damage rolled to HP.
• Attacker wins by 1 - Attacker rolls special damage.  If Defender’s roll is successful, damage equal to weapon HP is parried. Parrying weapon and affected hit location takes any excess damage.
• Both are equal - Attacker's roll is successful, rolls normal damage. If Defender’s roll is successful, damage equal to weapon HP is parried. Parrying weapon takes 1 HP damage if damage more than its current HP. Any excess damage goes to the affected hit location.
• Defender wins by 1 - Attack is parried, deflected or missed. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s normal damage. Attacking weapon’s HP reduced by 1 HP if damage over its current HP.
• Defender wins by 2 - Attack is parried, deflected or missed. Defender rolls parrying weapon’s special damage. Attacking weapon’s HP reduced by any damage over its current HP.
   

C) When a Fumble is rolled, roll on the Fumbles Table

 

Now, to put it out there, framing it that way does not make it easier to understand. What it does is help see the system behind it and instead of having to remember 25 results  (a 5x5 matrix), there are only 10 results to remember with 2 of them not really difficult to remember (when you roll a fumble, roll on the fumble table, and when you both fail, well, you both fail). 

Also, what I wrote above is not 100% aligned with the official Attack/Parry table as there are at least two exceptions. On the matrix, a failed attack against a fumbled parry does normal damage. I tend to just ignore this exception as it is already taken care of on the fumble table (results 87 and above). Second, the core book matrix states that a critical attack delivers maximum special damage against a special parry. In my summary above, it would be "Attacker wins by 1 - Attacker rolls special damage". The starter set matrix does not agree with the core book matrix on that.

 

RQ3 was much simpler.

On 2/18/2022 at 4:34 PM, DreadDomain said:

They were much easier because the attack and defense results were mostly independent of one another instead of comparative. For RQ3, I think it went mostly like this:

Attack Results    

• Critical - Inflict maximum special damage, bypasses armour
• Special - Inflict special damage
• Normal - Inflict normal damage
• Fail - Parried, deflected or missed
• Fumble - Parried, deflected or missed, roll on Fumbles Table

    
Parry Results    

• Critical* - The attack is parried
• Special* - Damage equal to weapon AP is parried. Any excess damage goes to the affected hit location.
• Normal* - Damage equal to weapon AP is parried. Any excess damage goes to the affected hit location. Parrying weapon takes 1 AP damage if damage more than its current AP. 
• Fail - Missed defense
• Fumble - Missed defense, roll on Fumbles Table

* Successful Parry versus Failed Attack: Roll parrying weapon normal damage. Attacking weapon's AP is reduced by any damage over current AP

It was a lot more straight forward.
 

 

[smiorgan]

47 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

 

"With two weapons, one in each hand you can attack with both (subject to strike ranks), and parry with both (though only 1 parry allowed per attack) and subsequent parries (in a combat round) are subject to the -20% cumulative penalty, regardless of which weapon is used to parry."

Am I correct in thinking that this applies also to shields?  So that you can hit with your sword and bash with your shield in the same round at appropriate strike ranks?

I'm trying to figure out whether shields are really the red-headed stepchild of RQG combat or there are rules that make them mechanical interesting - phalanx formation and missile fire are, but in regular melee shields look a bit useless, or at least unworthy of skill points investment.

 

[Jose-san]

In my house rules if a character combats defensively (i.e. not attacking in any way) I give +20% bonus to all defenses. So first defense +20%, second defense at basic skill, third at -20%, etc.

3 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I think the problem with any solution is how it scales at high skill. Giving a bonus that is meaningful at "starting" skill levels (50-100%) but not utterly nuts at high skill levels (and lets be honest, 200% is not even that ridiculous at starting level with Sword Trance) is super hard.

This is right. In general, absolute modifiers (+- X%) break apart a very high skill levels. Then again, the whole game system doesn't work really well at those skill levels.

[smiorgan]

34 minutes ago, DreadDomain said:

 

Below is a breakdown of the RQG attack-parry matrix. It feels inspired by the Stormbringer/Elric/BGB matrix

RQ3 was much simpler.

 

Agreed. I'd say your breakdown is a "charitable reconstruction" of that table. Yes, the table is inspired by Elric! and by the slightly more complex one in BRP, but it adds more exceptions.

I've used it in play as written and it's not a tragedy but it does slow down play a bit.

[Kloster]

19 hours ago, smiorgan said:

I love RQG, but combat rules is the part that impresses me the least. Sometimes I'm tempted to go back to RQ2 or RQ3 combat. 

 

Done.

[DreadDomain]

24 minutes ago, smiorgan said:

Am I correct in thinking that this applies also to shields?  So that you can hit with your sword and bash with your shield in the same round at appropriate strike ranks?

I'm trying to figure out whether shields are really the red-headed stepchild of RQG combat or there are rules that make them mechanical interesting - phalanx formation and missile fire are, but in regular melee shields look a bit useless, or at least unworthy of skill points investment.

Yes, this is correct with the caveat that if you attack with the shield you cannot parry with it

[DreadDomain]

12 minutes ago, smiorgan said:

Agreed. I'd say your breakdown is a "charitable reconstruction" of that table. Yes, the table is inspired by Elric! and by the slightly more complex one in BRP, but it adds more exceptions.

I've used it in play as written and it's not a tragedy but it does slow down play a bit.

If by charitable you mean I ignored the exceptions, then yes, it is absolutely what it is 😀. To be honest, I find the two exceptions of the table unnecessary.

[PhilHibbs]

1 hour ago, smiorgan said:

I'm trying to figure out whether shields are really the red-headed stepchild of RQG combat or there are rules that make them mechanical interesting - phalanx formation and missile fire are, but in regular melee shields look a bit useless, or at least unworthy of skill points investment.

Shields are harder to break than swords. Parrying with a sword is a quick way to not have a usable sword any more. Unless you're parrying a natural attack, in which case it's a quick way to cut an attacking limb off.

[JRE]

Not that I agree with it, but RQG in my opinion tries to separate heroic combat from soldierly combat. Soldiers all use shields and usually prioritize defense over attack, which is the sensible thing to do. Heroes, as they do in Chinese romances and in Hollywood, use two weapons or huge weapons in order to be better in the attack. That meant that shields had to be less attractive for heroes than the huge axe or the two scimitars, because that is what a hero would use (Earth shield creates an exception for Earth heroes, but they are mythically defensive). 

At a certain point martial heroes will have monstrous damage rolls, so simple parry will be useless, unless you have Earth shield  or the Unbreakable sword or something similar. 

[Bill the barbarian]

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

Shields are harder to break than swords. Parrying with a sword is a quick way to not have a usable sword any more. Unless you're parrying a natural attack, in which case it's a quick way to cut an attacking limb off.

Not sure I understand good sir. A medium shield and a broad sword*, these are almost the default for a bog standard Orlanthi, both have 12 HP. What would the difference in breakage (other than cost) be?

*assuming this is what you were referring to, let me know otherwise

Cheers

[French Desperate WindChild]

6 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I think the problem with any solution is how it scales at high skill. Giving a bonus that is meaningful at "starting" skill levels (50-100%) but not utterly nuts at high skill levels (and lets be honest, 200% is not even that ridiculous at starting level with Sword Trance) is super hard.

So lets say I have sword skill at 200%, due to Sword Trance or other combined bonuses. With a -10% stacking debuff that means I can parry ten times before my chance starts to actually be affected meaningfully.

Maybe that's okay. 200% is huge, if it's game breaking then it's the "fault" of Sword Trance and not the parry mechanics.

don't forget the >100% skill rule

so at the end of the day it is not [200% - (n * 20% or 10%) against a 100% opponent's skill  ] but [100% - (n * 20% or 10%) against a 5% opponent luck]

the >100% skill rule seems to me a good way to accelerate the fight  :  there is a no match between a master with 200% against 5 average guys with. 50%. you don't even have to try to parry

your art is enough to not let opportunities to be touched by low levels (with any stacking debuff, -20 or -10)

against your range opponent (200% against 200%) that becomes a 100% versus 100%  then there is a difference between the -20 and the -10

 

note that i m not a big defender of the rules, I would prefer something else.. but I m not able to define something smart enough to say "hey it is really better than the official"

 

[PhilHibbs]

2 hours ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

don't forget the >100% skill rule

Indeed, that's part of it. With the standard -20% stacking debuff, at 200% skill you can already eliminate the threat of the first three non-heroic attacks (-60% versus a 100% parry is fairly safe) just through this mechanic. Only after six parries do they start rolling at their normal chance. With a -10% stacking debuff this literally gets turned up to eleven.

[smiorgan]

10 hours ago, smiorgan said:

Am I correct in thinking that this applies also to shields?  So that you can hit with your sword and bash with your shield in the same round at appropriate strike ranks?

 

No, I'm not correct! Rules at page 219 explicitly say that if you attack with the shield you forfeit parry.

So, if you have trained a second weapon you get two chances to attack and you can use either weapon to parry. If you train a shield for roughly the same cost you only get one attack, unless you decide to parry with the main weapon which is not subject to the same parry or attack constraint.

A shortsword has 12 hp just like a medium shield, it has a similar base chance and gives you a second attack if you train it as left had weapon. So, no reason to train that shield skill. To use the shield as cover against missiles you don't need the skill, just the shield.

 

 

[smiorgan]

10 hours ago, smiorgan said:

 

Repeated post deleted

Edited November 2, 2022 by smiorgan

[smiorgan]

8 hours ago, JRE said:

Not that I agree with it, but RQG in my opinion tries to separate heroic combat from soldierly combat. Soldiers all use shields and usually prioritize defense over attack, which is the sensible thing to do. Heroes, as they do in Chinese romances and in Hollywood, use two weapons...

That's a nice take! Not 100% convinced but that's a nice way to make sense of the rules.

By the way if you are a swordman in the foggy streets of Lankhmar you don't use a shield but a main-gauche shortsword, such as Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser.