New to RuneQuest Classic and I have questions!

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

On 22 February 2016 at 11:36 PM, trystero said:

It's called out very explicitly in RQ3's Player Book, p. 48, "How to Parry" section:

 

Pretty sure that whole section was taken out in a later printing for RQ3 with an errata, meaning that in RQ3 you could both attack and parry with a 1handed weapon, as was the case in RQ2. 

I have the books but can't check now - it seems that most people house ruled it the way they wanted anyway.

 

Perhaps Jeff, MOB, Rick or someone from Chaosium could give us the official RAW interpretation on the parry rules for RQ2 to lay this one to rest?  

[styopa]

19 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

Hmmm...there's a point of far too rare for there even to be a special case, and this is beyond it.  I've never (in any RPG I've played, not just RQ2) had a player want to wield a shield in main hand and weapon in off hand, nor even had the case where somehow both were dropped in combat and the PC picked up the shield and used that as their main.  Since all their training went into using the shield in offhand, I certainly wouldn't double their skill with it just because they used it in their stronger hand.

As Morpheus said, "There is a difference between knowing the path and walking the path."  Muscle memory and all that.

1) I entirely agree that this is such minutiae that it's certainly not worth MENTIONING in rules text, unless you want a 10,000-page rule book filled with special cases.  But as a DM, I don't mind hypothetically mulling over these edge cases conceptually so that I can have a ready explanation in case it comes up.  And yes, in 30+ years of RQ play, I *have* had a player lose his shield arm, and pick up the shield with the main hand for use.  And that';s what forums are for...we're not going to run out of discussion space on the interwebs.

2) to the point about shields generally (hoping the thread-context nazis won't drift in and demand satisfaction), I actually see what I'm talking about as a simplification of the rules because then the approach is consistent, without 'special exceptions for shields'. "For any one-handed weapon or device: If it's in your main hand, you're at full base skill.  If it's in your offhand, the base is halved."  Note, I'm only talking about the base skill - not whatever the toon has learnt atop it.  This then means that the toon still gets the benefit of what they've learned, and for skilled enough combatants the difference between offhand and mainhand ultimately wouldn't make much difference....which makes sense to me.  This would make the 'base' values for shields in rq2 actually be 10/20/40 (but usually halved in normal use)...I don't see that as too overpowered.  Even someone totally untrained, picking up a shield in their hands to simply protect themselves could probably do a decent job of it with a large shield, after all (assuming they were strong enough). 

 

[g33k]

3 hours ago, styopa said:

1) ... we're not going to run out of discussion space on the interwebs.

Ummm... yes we will.  We totally will!!!1!11!!!!

http://www.pcworld.com/article/222548/no_ip_addresses.html

[Yelm's Light]

22 hours ago, ajtheronin said:

Thanks for all the answers. 

That said this is how I plan to play it:

Every character gets 1 attack and 1 parry (if using 1 weapon or 1 weapon and a shield) to keep it consistent with the examples. 

If using two weapons characters have 2 attack and may parry twice. 

I'd deem that overpowered in my game.  In reality, the 'off' weapon is almost always used for parrying; double attacks are pretty rare.  The way I do it is to allow the player to attack twice or parry twice or do one of each.  This still gives a tactical advantage without it being obviously so much better that everyone will do it instead of its being a RP thing.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Yelm's Light

[Yelm's Light]

3 hours ago, styopa said:

2) to the point about shields generally (hoping the thread-context nazis won't drift in and demand satisfaction), I actually see what I'm talking about as a simplification of the rules because then the approach is consistent, without 'special exceptions for shields'. "For any one-handed weapon or device: If it's in your main hand, you're at full base skill.  If it's in your offhand, the base is halved."  Note, I'm only talking about the base skill - not whatever the toon has learnt atop it.  This then means that the toon still gets the benefit of what they've learned, and for skilled enough combatants the difference between offhand and mainhand ultimately wouldn't make much difference....which makes sense to me.  This would make the 'base' values for shields in rq2 actually be 10/20/40 (but usually halved in normal use)...I don't see that as too overpowered.  Even someone totally untrained, picking up a shield in their hands to simply protect themselves could probably do a decent job of it with a large shield, after all (assuming they were strong enough). 

I'd have to totally disagree with this.  Not only is the PC untrained with a shield's use in main hand, blows are coming from a different direction.  As a matter of fact, I'd go to the other extreme; since the 'main' shield is untrained, I'd treat it exactly as if it were a weapon going main to off hand by halving the skill.

[Revilo Divad Of Dyoll]

FWIW, we played it as attacks were limited by ability and strike rank, while parries were limited only be ability.  In other words, to have more than one attack or parry you had to have 100% in that ability, and you could divide that up, so that if you had 120% in each, you could take two attacks at 60% (if your SR allowed) and two parries at 60% (SR irrelevant), if you wanted.  It didn't matter if you had a 2handed weapon, a 1handed weapon, or a 1handed weapon and shield.  Admittedly, that would have broken down if someone had a ridiculously high ability (200% of more), but that never happened.  It was never unbalanced, because if you had 100%+ abilities, you were fighting very tough opponents anyway (or mowing down grunts, which is fine).    

[styopa]

21 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

I'd have to totally disagree with this.  Not only is the PC untrained with a shield's use in main hand, blows are coming from a different direction.  As a matter of fact, I'd go to the other extreme; since the 'main' shield is untrained, I'd treat it exactly as if it were a weapon going main to off hand by halving the skill.

Which direction the blows are coming from?  Sounds like a rationalization to me.  I mean, if it works for you, great, but if you're going to take that into account in this case, why not then have some similarly applicable modifier likewise for *anyone* facing a left-handed opponent?  Or worst (as any lefty fencer will agree) a lefty facing a lefty?

What it comes down to in this case, in which we can and do disagree is the left-right portability of the learned ability to use a 1h tool.  If you learn to do something with your right hand, how much of that ability is *specific* to using that hand?  How much is muscle-memory, vs internalized knowledge about (for a weapon) how the geometry of an attack works, what an opponent is watching, how to make a feint successfully, etc?   

To add complexity, I would expect it varies a lot by tool, too.  There's not much finesse to a club - it *probably* doesn't matter a lot which hand you're using it in where other melee weapons may be very different.

[Yelm's Light]

37 minutes ago, styopa said:

Which direction the blows are coming from?  Sounds like a rationalization to me.  I mean, if it works for you, great, but if you're going to take that into account in this case, why not then have some similarly applicable modifier likewise for *anyone* facing a left-handed opponent?  Or worst (as any lefty fencer will agree) a lefty facing a lefty?

Try it.  As a righty fencer, I can tell you it makes quite a bit of difference.  And, as a matter of fact, I do have a modifier for a righty parrying a lefty or vice versa.  Not surprisingly, it almost always occurs against dragonewts, and I've only ever had one PC that specifically was a lefty.  It evens out, though, because he got the same modifier trying to parry right-handed attacks.  When the case occurs running a game, you deal with it, and I did.

Quote

What it comes down to in this case, in which we can and do disagree is the left-right portability of the learned ability to use a 1h tool.  If you learn to do something with your right hand, how much of that ability is *specific* to using that hand?  How much is muscle-memory, vs internalized knowledge about (for a weapon) how the geometry of an attack works, what an opponent is watching, how to make a feint successfully, etc?   

To add complexity, I would expect it varies a lot by tool, too.  There's not much finesse to a club - it *probably* doesn't matter a lot which hand you're using it in where other melee weapons may be very different.

Once again, try switching to fencing from the 'off' side and see how much difference it makes.  All the knowledge in the world is no substitute for having repeatedly trained in that mode for hundreds or thousands of hours, even if you happen to be the rare person who is both ambidextrous and equally strong on both sides (not the same thing, btw).

Even a club has weight and balance and must be learned to be used effectively.  Granted, it's not as quick as a rapier, but it can also power through defenses that a rapier wielder would find difficult.  Each weapon of whatever type has its own unique characteristics and pros and cons.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Yelm's Light

[styopa]

21 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

Try it.  As a righty fencer, I can tell you it makes quite a bit of difference.  

Um, I'm agreeing with you.  You're the one that said "..there's a point of far too rare for there even to be a special case, and this is beyond it..."

 

21 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

Even a club has weight and balance and must be learned to be used effectively.  Granted, it's not as quick as a rapier, but it can also power through defenses that a rapier wielder would find difficult.  Each weapon of whatever type has its own unique characteristics and pros and cons.

Again, I'm AGREEING with you, *certainly* in the case of a finesse weapon like a rapier.  But a club?  C'mon.  Considering that (I'd guess) most DM's are going to use "1h club" and "2h club" for pretty much any stick that's picked up and whacked-about from tree-branch to table-leg to Grendel's arm, sussing out the nuances to assert there's substantial handedness to the tool is pretty pointless minutiae.

YGMV