Runequest 3 intentional knockback

[Macronaut]

Hi all -- RQ III rules for intentional knockback say "the adventurer attempting knockback may attack at his normal strike rank for a fist attack, his player comparing on the resistance table the adventurer's STR plus SIZ against the SIZ plus DEX of the target.  If the roll succeeds, the target is knocked back ... ."  I have a few questions about this:

1.  Does this mean that big strong attackers (e.g., trolls) will basically always hit small defenders, even if the latter are dextrous?  Imagine an average Dark Troll (STR 17 SIZ 19) against an average elf (SIZ 9 DEX 14) -- Barring any special modifiers, the troll will hit on a 95% or less.  Can't the dextrous elf (with a Move of 4) just jump out of the way?  Can an intentional knockback attack be parried?  Dodged?

2.    If successful, an intentional knockback attack knocks the target back "the same distance as if the STR plus SIZ of the attacker were weapon damage (reduced by the SIZ of the target)."  The rules also say that when a person is knocked back into a solid object, such as a wall, "for each meter traveled he will take 1D6 damage to a hit location determined on the melee hit location table."  Even if we assume that a separate hit location is rolled for each 1D6, this becomes a great way for a big character to kill others.  In the example above, the troll has 95% chance to hit, and, if he can get the elf between him and a wall, tree, or similar object, can do 5D6 to the elf (26 point difference between troll's STR plus SIZ versus the elf's SIZ, five and rounded up equals 5m knockback).  Why bother learning to use weapons when you can belly-bust people like the Kool-Aid Man and kill them dead?  Am I missing something?

3.  With regard to the "for each meter traveled," how does this work if the solid object stops the target early?  If the troll above knocks back the elf, but there is only 1 meter between the elf and a wall, does the elf take 1D6 or 5D6?

Thanks for any thoughts!

[whitelaughter]

One of the many changes I dislike. I don't see how you would parry a knockback, but it should definitely be something you could dodge.

[Kloster]

For me, it requires first a successful fist attack, that can be dodge or parried.

[Mordante]

I'm in the it can't be parried camp but you can dodge it whereas bracing or absorbing the force of the shove is covered by the resistance check.

[Akhôrahil]

17 hours ago, Kloster said:

that can be dodge or parried.

This is my reading of the rules text, but I don’t like it.

Parrying seems weird, and dodging… even if you do it, it means moving away (probably backwards), which is what the attacker is trying to achieve anyway.

I would also 100% allow a shield attack roll for pushback.

Edited February 11, 2023 by Akhôrahil

[Mugen]

It's possibly one of those cases where SIZ is not only seen as mass, but also body size. Just like SR is a function of SIZ and DEX.

It's harder to evade a large creature than smaller ones.

As for parrying a knockback, it can be seen as the defender actively preparing himself for impact. But it should be more effective with a Shield than a dagger.

[Barak Shathur]

I think I prefer the RQ3 rules, that simply make knockback an issue of competing on the resistance table, instead of requiring a successful attack roll first. When you're that close to an opponent who suddenly throws himself at you, it's quite difficult to step aside. And the way I read it, having DEX included in the defender's chance to avoid knockback in itself represents evading or dodging. The rules for bracing against knockback can also be interpreted as being permitted against intentional knockback, in which case STR would be substituted for DEX for the defender, which would be useful if you have high STR. But I totally agree with 

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

It's harder to evade a large creature than smaller ones.

IMO it totally makes sense for a huge troll to simply swat away pesky adventurers who are silly enough to go toe to toe with it. That's the way it should be. Like going up against an oversized grizzly. Shoot it, spear it, stay out of reach.

[Bren]

On 2/9/2023 at 9:38 PM, Macronaut said:

3.  With regard to the "for each meter traveled," how does this work if the solid object stops the target early?  If the troll above knocks back the elf, but there is only 1 meter between the elf and a wall, does the elf take 1D6 or 5D6?

I think a 5m knockback into a tree that is 1m away should do more damage than a 5m knockback into a tree that is 5m away.

[Macronaut]

Thanks all for considering!

[Mugen]

On 2/16/2023 at 12:08 AM, Bren said:

I think a 5m knockback into a tree that is 1m away should do more damage than a 5m knockback into a tree that is 5m away.

That makes sense, since you don't have the same kinetic energy in each situation.

If you suffer a 5m knockback, your speed at the end of that 5m move should be 0, which means you should have no kinetic energy, and suffer no damage.

It's possible to deduce what amount of damage one should take from a knockback from the damage taken from a fall. In both situations, your kinetic energy is equal to (m.v^2)/2, where v is your speed and m your mass. But in the case of a fall, v grows linearly with each meter, whereas in the case of a knockback, it decreases.

It should be possible then to say that a Xm knockback is equivalent to a Ym fall, except in the case of a knockback, X should be the difference between the total knockback distance and the actual distance covered.

[Bren]

My physics is well into the last century rusty, but a falling body has constant acceleration increasing the velocity up to the air resistance. I don't think air resistance is the reason why a knockback has a limited distance and I don't think the deceleration is constant. And some of the damage is going to occur from the initial impact of the knockback rather than from the landing, as it were. I'd use something simple like:

Assume half the damage occurs from the initial blow, then reduce the remaining damage by 1D6 for every meter traveled before the victim hits a solid object.

Or if I want comic book physics, assume no damage for the initial blow and reduce damage by 1D6 per meter traveled. So bodies fly through the air, but not much damage unless they hit a solid object.

[Mugen]

On 2/22/2023 at 11:03 PM, Bren said:

My physics is well into the last century rusty, but a falling body has constant acceleration increasing the velocity up to the air resistance. I don't think air resistance is the reason why a knockback has a limited distance and I don't think the deceleration is constant. And some of the damage is going to occur from the initial impact of the knockback rather than from the landing, as it were. I'd use something simple like:

I never said the reason the knockback stops is air resistance. Given the speeds in this context, it's very negligeable.

As for the speed decrease rate, my hypothesis was that the weight of the body was the main factor, and it's a constant.

Edit : I also made that hypothesis to keep things simple...

Edited February 25, 2023 by Mugen