Runequest 2 Rapiers

[Noita]

 

Bronze Age Rapiers or the Flashing blades duelling sort?

My bet is the Bronze Age one, especially in a Gloranthan context. It's certainly the one we have used in our games.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Iskallor

[Jeff]

Bronze Age. Like this: 

[Guest Vile Traveller]

I believe it's clarified in the appendices, although the artists at the time clearly didn't read those!

[MOB]

This video is instructive:

 

[MOB]

In fact, Lindybeige, the guy who created the video above has an entertainingly eclectic Youtube channel, with lots of practical stuff about ancient and medieval warfare. Well worth a look!

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9pgQfOXRsp4UKrI8q0zjXQ

[Noita]

I remember him as a kid making a film set in Glorantha.

[Nick J.]

7 hours ago, MOB said:

In fact, Lindybeige, the guy who created the video above has an entertainingly eclectic Youtube channel, with lots of practical stuff about ancient and medieval warfare. Well worth a look!

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9pgQfOXRsp4UKrI8q0zjXQ

He's an unabashed Runequest fan too.

His "Early D&D is Rubbish" videos were pretty entertaining (and now that I think about it, his praise of Runequest got me mildly interested in checking out d100 gaming).

[MOB]

22 minutes ago, Nick J. said:

He's an unabashed Runequest fan too.

His "Early D&D is Rubbish" videos were pretty entertaining (and now that I think about it, his praise of Runequest got me mildly interested in checking out d100 gaming).

 

[styopa]

1) I'm entirely with him on the idea that init being based on DEX (exclusively) is nonsense.  It's a kludgy old relic of RPG yesteryear.  To me, "initiative" in a fast paced situation has to do almost entirely with i) basic physical reaction time and ii) experience.

i) this is probably why Dex has become such a canon in RPGs for initiative.  Obviously, some people have better reflexes than others.  There's significant human variation.  He's a little off the track going down the semantic rabbit hole of the specific MEANING of dexterity, apparently forgetting that most games use that term for a catch-all of a collection of what may be almost entirely unrelated factors (balance, reflexes, etc) that do impact reaction time.  This is a more-or-less physiological thing, and thus definitely degrades over aging.

ii) experience has EVERYTHING to do with it; from muscle-memory to simply 'having done it before' to the 'panic-factor' of the inexperienced... all contribute to why a 40yr old is a much safer driver than a teen: she can (barely even noticing) avoid accidents that would catch a 19yr old.

2) his "point" about the thing with the pushback spell simply showed that he didn't know how to PLAY TACTICALLY with initiative; with such a spell, for example, it would be FAR better to HOLD action until they'd wasted their init moving up and THEN pop the pushback spell.  Just like a healer that wins init, it's stupid for her to cast a healing spell when nobody (yet) needs it; far better to hold action and drop it when it is needed.  That's how sequential init works.  The fact that he doesn't "get" that part of it doesn't mean it's ipso-facto a bad system.

3) no, people really don't act in sequential order.  We all understand that initiative mechanics are meant to be simplifications of great numbers of actions that (IRL) happen in parallel, right?  I don't really understand his reference to RQ because RQ, as much as I love it, STILL has a sequential resolution system.  His beef, and his sense that RQ doesn't have the issue, is with people doing whatever they want when their initiative comes up based on the situation at that point.  This (I agree) unreasonably empowers toons with bad initiatives because they are much-less-impacted by the earlier actions of people with high init.  They get to react "for free" in essence.  What he likes about RQ's resolution is in the statement-of-intent mechanic which is then resolved through the SR (sequential) system).  One could, theoretically, do that same thing in D&D, if one wanted. (It also sounds like he had a better RQ dm, imo.)

4) let's remember at the end of the day, the mechanics of an RPG combat system aren't about simulating to a high degree of accuracy how combat precisely proceeds.  We may like to debate that they are, but they aren't.  What they are is ALWAYS a COMPROMISE between what (we believe) is reasonably authentic and what takes an appropriate amount of time.  Sure, you could develop a hyper-realistic melee combat system (the Phoenix Command of melee, if you will) that parses what happens in each 1/10 of a second, uses an impulse-based movement system to simulate better (with narrower time steps) the simultaneity of melee, and maybe even reach the goal of a perfect simulation.  NOBODY WOULD PLAY THAT, because most people don't want to spend a 3 hour gaming session figuring out what happens in 10 seconds of combat.  RQ already pushes that boundary for lots of players (sure, let's play out that attack of 20 trolls on a party of 8 PCs...3 hours might be optimistic).  No, RPG combat systems are about resolving the conflict of combat in a way that appropriately recognizes the abilities of all present, gives a result that's reasonable based on that clash of abilities, and does it all in a reasonable amount of time.  Hell, Robin Laws more or less rationalized it down to roll your "combat" skill vs their "combat" skill and in one roll you've determined the winner.

Also, Lindybeige's next video in that series is pretty good too; however RQ wasn't the first with a fumble table at all.  I'm pretty sure Arduin did it before RQ was published.  He has some GREAT points about common issues in melee combat, problems, and the necessity of secondary weapons particularly in light of changing engagement ranges.  This is something I'd LOVE to figure out a more authentic set of mechanics for RQ4.

Finally: I wonder if he understands that collars DO fold down?

[MJ Sadique]

First of all, I'm more a RQ3 Gamemaster who mostly play in Loskalm and Vormain Third Age and after. But as a french master, a lot of essentials info missing in RQ3 in my games came from RQ2.

Medieval Rapier : just to be clear, I always have described Rapier in my game as " Oakeshott Type XV Swords" not as the late Rapier but more like the ones existing in the XIII era : a long sword with triangle shape about 1,1m length like Black prince sword.

( Example of Oakeshott Type XV Swords : https://myarmoury.com/feature_spotxv.html, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakeshott_typology )

Antique Rapier like : I always love old bronze sword but they could hardly be call rapier; My favourite sword the cinquedea never fit in any RQ2 sword example and using it as rapier seems off because in RQ rapier as low base damage (no cutting power) but a extremely high impaling damage (triple base damage vs double base damage for other impaling weapon).

So Rapier in RQ is not a simple piercing weapon, it's a weapon better than a spear... a sword in bronze (real bronze) could not reproduce what a Type XV or a espada of the XVIII era can do. Because their cross section are too wide and bronze do not have the mechanical properties to go trough a body and an armor like the others steel sword do. Glorantha bronze will do it but the shape of bronze age sword are not good enough !

 

Second thing about the very interesting things styopa said (really like this)

On 23/08/2016 at 4:44 PM, styopa said:

(1) I'm entirely with him on the idea that init being based on DEX (exclusively) is nonsense ... this is probably why Dex has become such a canon in RPGs for initiative. ... experience has EVERYTHING to do with it

(2) he didn't know how to PLAY TACTICALLY with initiative

(3)  doing whatever they want when their initiative comes up based on the situation at that point.  ... This (I agree) unreasonably empowers toons with bad initiatives

(4) let's remember at the end of the day, the mechanics of an RPG combat system ... are is ALWAYS a COMPROMISE between what (we believe) is reasonably authentic and what takes an appropriate amount of time.

(5) Hell, Robin Laws more or less rationalized it down to roll your "combat" skill vs their "combat" skill and in one roll you've determined the winner.

(6) He has some GREAT points about common issues in melee combat, problems, and the necessity of secondary weapons particularly in light of changing engagement ranges.  This is something I'd LOVE to figure out a more authentic set of mechanics for RQ4.

1/ Yes the reign of DEX in a lot of system create strange situations like two hand spears slower than a dagger... and the master tell you : "it's the rule !" but a lot of recent fighting systems have corrected these. For RQ2/3, you need a extremely high dexterity (21+) to create such cases;

2/ The main problem is the word tactically and initiative, meaning you need a master that play wisely and players that play tactically. When someone tell you "it's not in the book/rule", just tell them to go to hell ! And sadly, a lot of people don't go out of the box ! one of the best idea is from fantasy craft : "conditioned action" where you can cast or attack in the peculiar case like an enemy approaching you... 

3/ Initiative ranks are not the problem, in theory we are supposed to ask player what they want to do from rank 10 to 1... and then resolve them from 1 to 10. So people cannot take in account what another player have done/succeed/fail 0.3 seconds before... but the main problem is doing this take time and a lot gamemaster just directly ask for the action an resolve it immediately which give the " doing whatever they want when their initiative comes up based on the situation at that point ".

4/ The appropriate amount of time you want to spend on the fight is always the problem.... You need a good and open-minded master, a good system and clear rules and the time to do the fight.

5/ I hate and love the idea : I hate it because a lot of gamemasters just do tells "roll the dices and stop asking for tactics things" and I love it because it's simple and as a open-minded GM, I like "take in account a player ideas and easily resolve it".

6/ Me too...

 

 

Edited September 1, 2016 by MJ Sadique
First part of text missing copy-paste error XD

[styopa]

You have no idea how many times with new players I hauled these out to show them "armor like this" or "sword like that"...in that way they were some of the most-referenced books in my gaming library cross-genre.  FWIW it's one of the things I'm most happy about the Guide to Glorantha art, because now I can use that the same way for architecture, dress, jewelry, etc.

I tried for years to figure out a useful/interesting but not too laborious way to translate their weapon/armor stats into conversion rules for RQ.

Battle Axe, Type: H, Length: .8m, Mass: 2.1kg,

Dex: 1, Parry: 2, Damage: 3, Throw: 2

Attack Types: Chop, 1H

Dur: 80

I ended up with some interesting stuff (armor values are pretty close to RQ3, actually; a little high for RQ2) but TBH too much crunch as it had (for example) cut/chop/thrust/impact armor values.

It DID make it obvious that maces and such were the smart move against many heavy armors....but too many rules to get there.

[Lord High Munchkin]

13 hours ago, styopa said:

It DID make it obvious that maces and such were the smart move against many heavy armors....but too many rules to get there.

Well, that's how it went in real life Late middle Ages as maces and hammers increasingly got used against heavy full plate (with heavy chopping and spiky pole-arms too).

[styopa]

5 hours ago, Lord High Munchkin said:

Well, that's how it went in real life Late middle Ages as maces and hammers increasingly got used against heavy full plate (with heavy chopping and spiky pole-arms too).

That's my point.  The mechanics of a rule set should promote the same choices as IRL.  It's on of the key reasons I love RQ.

To reflect this, I considered for a while suggesting that the 'special' effect of blunt weapons would be to reduce defender's effective armor by 1/2, but I wasn't sure what that would do balance wise.

It would certainly make blunts more attractive against high-armor targets but I doubt in RQ2/RQ4 (with a max armor value of a measly 6ap) it would be attractive enough.

[MJ Sadique]

2 hours ago, styopa said:

To reflect this, I considered for a while suggesting that the 'special' effect of blunt weapons would be to reduce defender's effective armor by 1/2, but I wasn't sure what that would do balance wise.

It would certainly make blunts more attractive against high-armor targets but I doubt in RQ2/RQ4 (with a max armor value of a measly 6ap) it would be attractive enough.

Yo, Styopa... there was always a rule like this one. Blunt weapon ignore half of flexible armor... i'm 100% sur in RQ3 and probably in the 2 too.

My best exemple : Chainmail 7PA + Plates 8PA vs Blunt critical give : Plates completely ignored (critical effect), Chainmail halves so AP drop from 15 to 4. The player with and hast blunt weapon just to 20+ damage because he jump off some highs... so I didn't even take in account the standard special effect of blunt weapon (knockback).

[Noita]

11 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

Yo, Styopa... there was always a rule like this one. Blunt weapon ignore half of flexible armor... i'm 100% sur in RQ3 and probably in the 2 too.

My best exemple : Chainmail 7PA + Plates 8PA vs Blunt critical give : Plates completely ignored (critical effect), Chainmail halves so AP drop from 15 to 4. The player with and hast blunt weapon just to 20+ damage because he jump off some highs... so I didn't even take in account the standard special effect of blunt weapon (knockback).

This doesn't sound familar to me. Are you talking Mongoose runequest?

Blunt weapons special effects are crush in RQ2 and i haven't come across armour pts that high or that blunt weapons halve flexible armour.

Edited September 3, 2016 by Iskallor

[MJ Sadique]

I only speak about RQ3 (Advanced Runequest for the first naming) for armor point and specials effects.

-Armor points : Leather 1-3, brigandine or Chainmail 7, Metal 8. You may cumulate a flexible and a solid armor but you'll be slow a a tortoise.

-Weapons basic effects : Slashing weapons cuts (wooo), Thrusting weapons can get stuck in some shields, Blunt weapon ignore half of flexible armor.

-Weapons specials effects : Slashing weapon give bleeding (regular blood, PV lose), Thrusting weapon give impaling (Damage x2), Blunt Weapon give Knockback (hellish mecanism).

Knockback, RQ3 French version : Depanding of quality of the attack if damage greater than SIZ+FOR / SIZ / 0 then target flew a meter away by damage point and IF(2) he is stopped by something he get 1D6 damage knockback for every 5 meter he should have done or the half IF(3) the something is soft like another human who also get the half damage !

 

[trystero]

On 9/2/2016 at 1:18 PM, MJ Sadique said:

Yo, Styopa... there was always a rule like this one. Blunt weapon ignore half of flexible armor... i'm 100% sur in RQ3 and probably in the 2 too.

 

12 hours ago, Iskallor said:

This doesn't sound familar to me. Are you talking Mongoose runequest?

Blunt weapons special effects are crush in RQ2 and i haven't come across armour pts that high or that blunt weapons halve flexible armour.

The rule that MJ Sadique refers to wasn't included in the 1984 Avalon Hill RQ3 sets; it was added in the official errata, which I first encountered in the Avalon Hill single-volume softcover edition of 1993:

Quote

Blunt Weapons Vs. Soft Armor
When a flail, mace, or maul is used against soft armor, the value of the armor protection is halved (round fractions up). Soft armor overlapped with hard armor counts as hard armor.

This did give some benefit to blunt weapon-users, but didn't provide any advantage for using blunt/flanged weapons against rigid armour types, which is what they were historically used for.

[styopa]

3 hours ago, trystero said:

 

The rule that MJ Sadique refers to wasn't included in the 1984 Avalon Hill RQ3 sets; it was added in the official errata, which I first encountered in the Avalon Hill single-volume softcover edition of 1993:

This did give some benefit to blunt weapon-users, but didn't provide any advantage for using blunt/flanged weapons against rigid armour types, which is what they were historically used for.

Thanks for the clarification - that MJ's comment totally lost me, and I was wondering how I could miss something so obvious?

[SDLeary]

6 hours ago, trystero said:

This did give some benefit to blunt weapon-users, but didn't provide any advantage for using blunt/flanged weapons against rigid armour types, which is what they were historically used for.

This is somewhat debated. A simple mace (pre flange and/or spike) is really really good against flexible non-padded armors, and less effective against rigid. Re-adoption of the mace (1st Crusade -ish?), used against an opponent predominately armored in flexible chain probably did re-start the arms race (weapon vs. protection).

I tend to go a little further than RQ3. Half armor value vs. flexible, save for chain. Chain only counts the 2 points of the assumed padding. I note when a player says they aren't using padding. 

SDLeary

[MJ Sadique]

On 03/09/2016 at 11:27 PM, styopa said:

Thanks for the clarification - that MJ's comment totally lost me, and I was wondering how I could miss something so obvious?

Sorry for the reference, Next time I'll provide RQ3 editions, publishers, year of publishing, serail number of my book and I'll accept to be whipped at the "pilori" for not bein enough precise. XD. Joke aside I did mention french bad-translated version, be undestandfull please... (One day I'll speak you about the "arc à pierre" and you'll understand what how bad translation can be tricky...)

On 04/09/2016 at 2:49 AM, SDLeary said:

I tend to go a little further than RQ3. Half armor value vs. flexible, save for chain. Chain only counts the 2 points of the assumed padding. I note when a player says they aren't using padding.

2 points only with chainmail vs Blunt weapon... I won't whant you as master :p. let me estimate the fact : Half of 7 pts is still 3pts so a 1D8+1 mace could do at max 6 pts of damage on an arm with 3HP, at 0 your arm is broken at -3HP it's be turn to pulp and lesser than this your arm no more exist !

Original rule (RQ3, oriflam edition, 2nd edition, 2nd print, errata 2) : Mace 9 damage vs 3pts armor = -3HP (arm in pulp)

you rule (RQ3 SDLeary special custom) : Mace 9 damage vs 2pts armor = -4HP (no more arm - oneshotted)

 

And I am the one called "sadic" XD

[SDLeary]

1 hour ago, MJ Sadique said:

Sorry for the reference, Next time I'll provide RQ3 editions, publishers, year of publishing, serail number of my book and I'll accept to be whipped at the "pilori" for not bein enough precise. XD. Joke aside I did mention french bad-translated version, be undestandfull please... (One day I'll speak you about the "arc à pierre" and you'll understand what how bad translation can be tricky...)

2 points only with chainmail vs Blunt weapon... I won't whant you as master :p. let me estimate the fact : Half of 7 pts is still 3pts so a 1D8+1 mace could do at max 6 pts of damage on an arm with 3HP, at 0 your arm is broken at -3HP it's be turn to pulp and lesser than this your arm no more exist !

Original rule (RQ3, oriflam edition, 2nd edition, 2nd print, errata 2) : Mace 9 damage vs 3pts armor = -3HP (arm in pulp)

you rule (RQ3 SDLeary special custom) : Mace 9 damage vs 2pts armor = -4HP (no more arm - oneshotted)

 

And I am the one called "sadic" XD

I could be convinced to allow 3 pts. To me chain is a special issue though because it is SO flexible. It is really only designed to prevent you from being cut or poked, and thus bleeding all over the place. 

As far as there being no more arm, thats another place I would mitigate with a mace, or probably any other concussive weapon. The injury would be a severe compound fracture, probably an open fracture, thus bleeding involved. Not to the same degree as a bladed weapon though, probably amounting to one point/turn. 

SDLeary

[Nick J.]

4 hours ago, SDLeary said:

I could be convinced to allow 3 pts. To me chain is a special issue though because it is SO flexible. It is really only designed to prevent you from being cut or poked, and thus bleeding all over the place. 

As far as there being no more arm, thats another place I would mitigate with a mace, or probably any other concussive weapon. The injury would be a severe compound fracture, probably an open fracture, thus bleeding involved. Not to the same degree as a bladed weapon though, probably amounting to one point/turn. 

SDLeary

Aren't we meant to believe that most suits of mail were worn over a fairly well padded garment, historically speaking?

[SDLeary]

3 hours ago, Nick J. said:

Aren't we meant to believe that most suits of mail were worn over a fairly well padded garment, historically speaking?

They were worn over padded garments primarily to prevent chafing iirc; one example of this is representations of Roman Legionaries wearing a "scarf" around their necks, presumably to prevent the armor rubbing their necks (this occurs more in representations of Legionaries with Segmentata more that Hamata). Later, as concussive weapons began to rise to the for, the padding probably got thicker to try and compensate.

Ultimately though, we don't know. I'm not aware of any actual specimens that have survived from the ancient world, and few from the medieval world for comparison. 

SDLeary

[rust]

4 hours ago, Nick J. said:

Aren't we meant to believe that most suits of mail were worn over a fairly well padded garment, historically speaking?

The late Roman legionaries wore armour padding under their metal armour. It was named "Subarmalis", and according to the Roman military author Justasian in his book "Peri Strategias" it was "one finger thick" (= probably ca. 1 cm).

[Noita]

How about you lot go and open an armour thread. This one is about rapiers and is now off topic

Edited September 6, 2016 by Iskallor