Jump to content

RQ2/RQ3 : 2 weapons & 2 attacks in the same round?


Haimji

Recommended Posts

On 9/21/2016 at 3:09 PM, MJ Sadique said:

I give an advice about Viking's book because it's a common theme when a viking jump off a roof (3 meters height) with two axes and simultaneous strike a monster. What will RuneQuest Rules treat this attack if a player want to to this ? (Viking's axe SR = 4) Everyone will say first attack SR4, second attack SR4+3 = 7... but the second attack will be 3,6 seconds latter.

 

Yes, that is right. It is very difficult to swing two axes at the same opponent at the same time, an axe swing requires a lot of balance and swinging two effectively simultaneously is very difficult.

The first axe hits when the viking falls, the second hits when the viking swings the second arm.

That's how I would play it.

 

On 9/21/2016 at 3:09 PM, MJ Sadique said:

My cunning player will said : "How can my second strike be much latter, almost the time for an object to fall from 50 meters height ! I didn't know i was bron in tchernobyl !"
Another (Mr fumble, Captain of the obvious) will add : "If the monster in an archer that strike at SR6, I will be killed because is arrow will flew between my too simultaneous attacks"

The problem is that the player is trying to make two simultaneous attacks and the rules don't normally allow this.

If it makes a difference in your game then house rule it or give a special ability that allows the PC to make two simultaneous attacks without a strike rank delay.

Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. 

www.soltakss.com/index.html

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2016 at 5:17 PM, RosenMcStern said:

However, you can confirm that the "hold several arrows in hand" trick was actually used historically, do you? Not ten, but more than one.

The Bashkorts had the "Three Arrow Trick", whereby their archers pulled out three arrows, held two in their mouth and fired the third, thus allowing the second and third arrow to be fired more quickly, as mouth to draw is faster than quiver to draw. I have seen paintings of this and it is a staple part of descriptions of batyrs, so I have no doubt that it happened.

  • Like 1

Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism since 1982. Many Systems, One Family. Just a fanboy. 

www.soltakss.com/index.html

Jonstown Compendium author. Find my contributions here

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@MJ Sadique -- You would, I think, be better served with a "giant" (or other large/strong tool-user) as your exemplar of a large creature.

The thing about an Allosaurus?  It's main weapon is the bite.  If it is in range to bite, it is automatically in range of even a shortsword.  Despite its size, it has no "reach" or "range" -- it can curl its neck back, or extend it.

C'es ne pas un .sig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, g33k said:

@MJ Sadique -- You would, I think, be better served with a "giant" (or other large/strong tool-user) as your exemplar of a large creature.

The thing about an Allosaurus?  It's main weapon is the bite.  If it is in range to bite, it is automatically in range of even a shortsword.  Despite its size, it has no "reach" or "range" -- it can curl its neck back, or extend it.

It's one reason we ruled that any parry of a natural weapon causes damage to that location.  

Suddenly, with that (tiny) change, the tremendous psychological advantage of having even a little weapon in your hand vs a natural-weapon attacker (given comparable skill levels) seemed to make sense.

We did allow that a sapient target with an available limb could parry for an effective 3AP - ie if someone's trying to stab you with a knife, it's not inconceivable that you can 'bat away' the knife.  In fact, if you watch people just starting training in anti-knife techniques, that's kind of how everyone starts...very, very few people try to 'dodge' a knife slash/stab.

 

In regards to my example of a large creature, I think people got a little tangled in the specifics of the allosaurus.  If it helps, consider instead a giant, which by rq2 rules would be siz 3d6(per 2m height)+18; so a 6-foot giant (?) would be siz 29; a 12'er would be siz40.

 

Re MJ Sadique's comments on SR, I'm still a little baffled?

How, mathematically, does starting at SR1, and counting up to 12 (or 10, RQ3) - which is RQ RAW - differ from starting at SR12 (or 10) and counting down to 1?  Even setting aside the slavish linking of 1sr=1second (which is explicitly rejected in the RQ rules, btw), I truly don't understand how they could possibly be different?

Admittedly, this isn't what I do; as I've described before, and which MJ is probably alluding to.  I *do* use an open-format SR, where people roll init dice based on the 'openness' of the setting. D12 or even d20 are used for wide-open spaces, d6 for cramped little tunnels, meaning that the 'weightiness' of a +2 for dex is more significant in cramped quarters.  But I'm not advocating that for anyone else, I'm simply saying that at the most basic level it's odd to count UP from sr1-sr12 instead of from 12 to 1, because of the concomitant caps it puts on mods (they can't get better than 0).

And, reflecting Rosen's point about movement, he's intuitively right: we don't count movement as such against SR for weapon-strikes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, styopa said:

In regards to my example of a large creature, I think people got a little tangled in the specifics of the allosaurus.  If it helps, consider instead a giant, which by rq2 rules would be siz 3d6(per 2m height)+18; so a 6-foot giant (?) would be siz 29; a 12'er would be siz40.

Was @Vile really the only one that got that?! :huh:  :D

SDLeary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, g33k said:

The thing about an Allosaurus?  It's main weapon is the bite.  If it is in range to bite, it is automatically in range of even a shortsword.  Despite its size, it has no "reach" or "range" -- it can curl its neck back, or extend it.

I didn't bother take this in account because the answer is already recapitulate in "Le Maître des Runes" in bandersnatch section : creature with extensible neck have an weapon SR of 0 (weapon more than 4m so SR weapon is 0, rq2/rq3 base rules). case closed.

 

5 hours ago, styopa said:

In regards to my example of a large creature, I think people got a little tangled in the specifics of the allosaurus.  If it helps, consider instead a giant, which by rq2 rules would be siz 3d6(per 2m height)+18; so a 6-foot giant (?) would be siz 29; a 12'er would be siz40.

I won't speak about giant because there an extant table SIZ (1-100) / Kg in RQ3 and giants SIZ are awfully wrong if you look at this table. clue : a 10 times higher man have x100 surafce surface and x1000 mass (kg) if size is link to mass... 1,80m, 90Kg, SIZ 14 =x10=> 18,m 90tons SIZ (guess it).

 

5 hours ago, styopa said:

I *do* use an open-format SR, where people roll init dice based on the 'openness' of the setting. D12 or even d20 are used for wide-open spaces, d6 for cramped little tunnels, meaning that the 'weightiness' of a +2 for dex is more significant in cramped quarters.  But I'm not advocating that for anyone else, I'm simply saying that at the most basic level it's odd to count UP from sr1-sr12 instead of from 12 to 1, because of the concomitant caps it puts on mods (they can't get better than 0).

And, reflecting Rosen's point about movement, he's intuitively right: we don't count movement as such against SR for weapon-strikes.

SR are a time, do you really count the time of your watch from 60 to 1 sec for each minutes... the system is simple, (SR is a) time counting is from 1 to 10 (end of the round, rq3). Let's make a technical control (BFS.D) of your idea/system (I will named you SR init because it's D20 comparable unit) :

-Better for the GM : not because you have to change init depending the configuration. The global use is more complex. X
-Faster for the GM : Surely not because each player must wait for the master to choose init dice, then roll it then choose his actions X. It's not the faster option because you can just give MAX init - SIZ modifier (1 init lost per 5 or 10 SIZ) it will be more quantitative so more fair.
-Stronger for the GM : does it solve more case ? I'm pretty sure a Duck with a full of DEX 5 will be faster than a Zorani with DEX 24 (X). Archer outside the street will have D20ini, player inside D12 or less. Spells casting more than one round (like a 25SR spell) will become a big problem if SR is variable and more if it's count from 20 to 1.X

Diamond properties for player :
-Clarity : Nope, it's not clear for me so as a player. Because you are using a speed system (higher init act first), it may pass in rq2 if player don't know the rules. rq3 never because of sorcery and lot more thing.X
-Solidity : Nope because different situation cause different INIT dices so player won't have a stable basic to know how play unless you give a table. X
-Precious : does it give player anything... situations are more thrilling, the very best good point, shorter people will loe playing in tunnel but.

Globally the very excellent point who is a more thrilling combat, more dices rolls (ini) -Gygax as spirit protector of dices will love it- have a lot of counter part, even without more analysis a lot of problem will arise from it. I'm not sure we gain anything valuable in term of rules, the cost is too big for it. BFS.D not approved

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The officials RQ2(RQ3) rules about SR 0 to 12 (or 10) seems better to me cause of magic : you can calculate easyly when a sort will occur if you add Magic Points to Dex SR and its works even if it takes severals rounds.

I am a little lost in these expert discussion (and one of my friends just died on saturday so i m not in a mood for roleplaying games), i have to read it carefully.

Thanks you all of you  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Haimji said:

The officials RQ2(RQ3) rules about SR 0 to 12 (or 10) seems better to me cause of magic : you can calculate easyly when a sort will occur if you add Magic Points to Dex SR and its works even if it takes severals rounds.

I am a little lost in these expert discussion (and one of my friends just died on saturday so i m not in a mood for roleplaying games), i have to read it carefully.

Thanks you all of you  :)

Very sorry to hear that.  Good luck and best wishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Haimji said:

The officials RQ2(RQ3) rules about SR 0 to 12 (or 10) seems better to me cause of magic : you can calculate easyly when a sort will occur if you add Magic Points to Dex SR and its works even if it takes severals rounds.

I am a little lost in these expert discussion (and one of my friends just died on saturday so i m not in a mood for roleplaying games), i have to read it carefully.

Thanks you all of you  :)

I remember a 30-years old review of RQ3 in Casus Belli (ça m'rajeunit pas...) that pointed the very smooth integration of magic in the SR system as one of the great points of the combat system. I must admit that, although I don't like the SR system in general, I've never been convinced by alternatives for Magic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25.9.2016 at 9:07 PM, soltakss said:

The Bashkorts had the "Three Arrow Trick", whereby their archers pulled out three arrows, held two in their mouth and fired the third, thus allowing the second and third arrow to be fired more quickly, as mouth to draw is faster than quiver to draw. I have seen paintings of this and it is a staple part of descriptions of batyrs, so I have no doubt that it happened.

Beside Simon's account, several scholars mention this trick for ancient Steppe Nomads. Unfortunately, I can't tell their sources, which is frustrating for an historian (comparing independent sources is the basics of historical research). I cannot either tell how much this was spread and exactly when.

Ancient Nomads, until early medieval ages, carried their arrows points up in the quiver, and sometime even with a kind of cap above them, making them uneasy to draw and fastly nock. It would have made sense to have tricks to draw them faster, which tends to be confirmed by the above.

Wind on the Steppes, role playing among the steppe Nomads. The  running campaign and the blog

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Zit said:

Beside Simon's account, several scholars mention this trick for ancient Steppe Nomads. Unfortunately, I can't tell their sources, which is frustrating for an historian (comparing independent sources is the basics of historical research). I cannot either tell how much this was spread and exactly when.

Ancient Nomads, until early medieval ages, carried their arrows points up in the quiver, and sometime even with a kind of cap above them, making them uneasy to draw and fastly nock. It would have made sense to have tricks to draw them faster, which tends to be confirmed by the above.

https://boingboing.net/2015/01/23/ancient-speed-shooting-archery.html

This guy is pretty impressive, but in my gut I'm still trying to figure out if it's really applicable in real-world situations or just a gimmick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That guy is amazing.  And, considering that ancient archers would spend their entire lives perfecting their skills, as opposed to a modern guy with many other time constraints, I have no trouble believing his assertions.  Translating that into a balanced ruleset, however...

Edited by Yelm's Light
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, styopa said:

https://boingboing.net/2015/01/23/ancient-speed-shooting-archery.html

This guy is pretty impressive, but in my gut I'm still trying to figure out if it's really applicable in real-world situations or just a gimmick.

A mix of both, I think...  Some of his hits are really solid, but some are really light-draw & barely-penetrate.

C'es ne pas un .sig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

That guy is amazing.  And, considering that ancient archers would spend their entire lives perfecting their skills, as opposed to a modern guy with many other time constraints, I have no trouble believing his assertions.  Translating that into a balanced ruleset, however...

Moreover, I think there are so many nuances/difficulties to missile fire that in most rules sets, I believe archery is artificially empowered.

I mean, any doofus, if given the choice, would rather shoot an arrow at an attacker than melee....if given the choice.

But using a bow, for example:

- intrinsically much harder to do than bash someone with a stick (even a sharpened metal stick like a sword).  It took a LOT of training to handle a bow even adequately, to say nothing of expertly.

- more difficult to make: making a bow was always an artisan's task, the arrows as much so.  Even something as sophisticated as a (basic) sword - once the metal was refined, of course - was a nearly-industrial process.

- far more sensitive to handling.  Hell, if you bend your sword you just straighten it and keep whacking.  Even a mildly damaged bow (to say nothing of the relatively-delicate string) can perform spectacularly badly (or even dangerously to the shooter, if you've ever seen a laminated recurve fail).

- wet; I think it's easy for we moderns to deeply underestimate how much time even relatively-advanced medieval people spent being wet and miserable, particularly on military campaigns.  A sword barely cares if it gets wet.  A bow cares a LOT.

- far more sensitive to conditions: sure, we all know 'english longbowmen could hit a man at 220 paces' but in the real world?  With fluttering breezes and a target most likely moving?

No, I think most games largely hand-wave away this stuff because we've all been raised on Robin Hood and Legolas.  (Likely, I'd have to say and for the same reasons, the same way we sort of hand-wave away the complexities and impracticalities of two-weapon fighting.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm totally agree with you about bow but, for 2 weapons fighting, i just want to say that a lot of reals fighers used 2 weapons in history. Actually, fighting with a sword and a shield, is using 2 weapons.

My only question is : "could you attack twice on the same round or not?"

If yes, how can you put that in rules? Do you prefer RQ2 solution? (add RA second attack to the first RA) the RQ3 solution? (add +3 to the first attack to know when the second one come)

If no, why a character fight with 2 weapons? Any advantage?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BIG advantage, which is decently modeled in the RQ3 rules, is that the dual wielder can engage the single wielder's weapon with his parrying weapon, and counterattack when the latter cannot parry because his weapon is engaged. This is handled with the rule "A weapon cannot attack and parry in the same SR". Thus, the dual wielder need only state "I counterattack on the SR he attacks" and the single wielder cannot parry. In RQ, this is deadly.

Other rulesets give extra actions for the secondary weapon, but this requires a different combat model based on action points, which is absolutely not in use in classic RQs.

  • Like 1

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

The BIG advantage, which is decently modeled in the RQ3 rules, is that the dual wielder can engage the single wielder's weapon with his parrying weapon, and counterattack when the latter cannot parry because his weapon is engaged. This is handled with the rule "A weapon cannot attack and parry in the same SR". Thus, the dual wielder need only state "I counterattack on the SR he attacks" and the single wielder cannot parry. In RQ, this is deadly.

 

I agree this is a major RQ3 advantage, and one that is often overlooked both intentionally and unintentionally.  For years I played a character with a low SR and was always thrilled to strike first...until I realized that in some situations, waiting was much more effective.   Longer 2H weapons do ok because your SR will often be one point lower, so you can attack before the sword and shield character, but against a 1H only fighter, it can be deadly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, styopa said:

But using a bow, for example:

- intrinsically much harder to do than bash someone with a stick (even a sharpened metal stick like a sword).  It took a LOT of training to handle a bow even adequately, to say nothing of expertly.

Not quite as hard as you think.  I picked up static archery in under a week at summer camp.  Not expertly by any stretch of the imagination, nor would I have been doing the kinds of things that Lars is doing, but I was able to competently fire and hit a target, including the occasional bullseye, inside a week.  On the other hand, I can see the point that a lot of his shots may not have penetrated armor.

1 hour ago, styopa said:

- wet; I think it's easy for we moderns to deeply underestimate how much time even relatively-advanced medieval people spent being wet and miserable, particularly on military campaigns.  A sword barely cares if it gets wet.  A bow cares a LOT.

We're talking about a lot drier climates than I think you think.  I think you have in mind medieval-era.  We're talking about roughly equatorial Middle East and Africa, and southern Europe, not the Celtic/Anglo tribal regions.  And the first thing I would think an archer would be taught is to cover his bow if it rains.

1 hour ago, styopa said:

- far more sensitive to conditions: sure, we all know 'english longbowmen could hit a man at 220 paces' but in the real world?  With fluttering breezes and a target most likely moving?

Longbowmen were of the static model; they'd stand in one or two ranks, with arrows stuck in the ground in a row, and do indirect fire at long range.  (Ancient bows were quite a bit smaller than longbows and required a lot less pull as well.)  I'm not necessarily sold on how mobile even ancient archers were, since it's difficult to maintain military order when you're hopping around like Lars does in those videos.

1 hour ago, styopa said:

No, I think most games largely hand-wave away this stuff because we've all been raised on Robin Hood and Legolas.  (Likely, I'd have to say and for the same reasons, the same way we sort of hand-wave away the complexities and impracticalities of two-weapon fighting.)

Again, Robin Hood was of the static/longbow model.  I'm not sure how much that would apply to ancient archers.  And that whole thing with Legolas running around with a bow in melee didn't happen in the books; most of his killing was done with a sword (cf. his competition with Gimli at Helm's Deep).  That was introduced with the movies.

Speaking as one who has done it, dual weapons are quite doable, but different in terms of tactics.  The off-weapon is generally shorter than the mainhand sword and is used almost exclusively for parrying.  The only time you'd actually attack with it would be if you were in the clinch, something an opponent is going to tend to avoid because of the ease of attacking with your off-weapon when his weapon is engaged (assuming he's not also fighting dual).

Edited by Yelm's Light
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RosenMcStern said:

The BIG advantage, which is decently modeled in the RQ3 rules, is that the dual wielder can engage the single wielder's weapon with his parrying weapon, and counterattack when the latter cannot parry because his weapon is engaged. This is handled with the rule "A weapon cannot attack and parry in the same SR". Thus, the dual wielder need only state "I counterattack on the SR he attacks" and the single wielder cannot parry. In RQ, this is deadly.

I didn't think about that, but the dual wielder can dodge no?

49 minutes ago, Yelm's Light said:

Speaking as one who has done it, dual weapons are quite doable, but different in terms of tactics.  The off-weapon is generally shorter than the mainhand sword and is used almost exclusively for parrying.  The only time you'd actually attack with it would be if you were in the clinch, something an opponent is going to tend to avoid because of the ease of attacking with your off-weapon when his weapon is engaged (assuming he's not also fighting dual).

thank you for sharing your experience. its tend to confirm what Rosen said.

Edited by Haimji
add quote
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Haimji said:

I didn't think about that, but the dual wielder can dodge no?

It is still a disadvantageous option. Dodge (in RQ3) suffers from Encumbrance reductions, and if the attacker specials or criticals, the blow strikes home, unlike it happens with a parry. It is still a big advantage for the dual wielder. And if the single wielder has a low Dodge, he is essentially dead meat.

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, RosenMcStern said:

The BIG advantage, which is decently modeled in the RQ3 rules, is that the dual wielder can engage the single wielder's weapon with his parrying weapon, and counterattack when the latter cannot parry because his weapon is engaged. This is handled with the rule "A weapon cannot attack and parry in the same SR". Thus, the dual wielder need only state "I counterattack on the SR he attacks" and the single wielder cannot parry. In RQ, this is deadly.

Hmmm.  At first I thought, "YES!  That's right."  But upon reflection... is strikes me as TOO good, I think.

Given that the overwhelming majority of ancient-through-medieval soldiers were NOT dual-wielding (single-hand weapon + shield was far more common) I have to regard the mechanism as too advantageous; why aren't MOST soldiers dual-wielding?  I'm not saying that the scenario (bind with primary, strike with off-hand) didn't happen... just that the historical record would seem to indicate that there's a ready counter that most fighters would know...

 

C'es ne pas un .sig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, g33k said:

Hmmm.  At first I thought, "YES!  That's right."  But upon reflection... is strikes me as TOO good, I think.

Given that the overwhelming majority of ancient-through-medieval soldiers were NOT dual-wielding (single-hand weapon + shield was far more common) I have to regard the mechanism as too advantageous; why aren't MOST soldiers dual-wielding?  I'm not saying that the scenario (bind with primary, strike with off-hand) didn't happen... just that the historical record would seem to indicate that there's a ready counter that most fighters would know...

I think it's more that one could use a shield to block missile attacks and multiple melee attacks than some particular countering tactic.  (Homonym alert.)  Dual wield would be more for duelling.

Edited by Yelm's Light
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, g33k said:

Hmmm.  At first I thought, "YES!  That's right."  But upon reflection... is strikes me as TOO good, I think.

Given that the overwhelming majority of ancient-through-medieval soldiers were NOT dual-wielding (single-hand weapon + shield was far more common) I have to regard the mechanism as too advantageous; why aren't MOST soldiers dual-wielding?  I'm not saying that the scenario (bind with primary, strike with off-hand) didn't happen... just that the historical record would seem to indicate that there's a ready counter that most fighters would know...

But dual wielding includes shields! MOST soldiers were dual-wielding. With shields. Only shock troops (pikemen, greatswordsmen, poleaxemen) did something different.

The point is that having a shield encompasses both the advantages of dual-wielding (engage enemy weapon with your shield and counter-attack with your sword or axe) and having a powerful defense against missile fire. Who wouldn't have a shield when there are so many advantages?

Edited by RosenMcStern
  • Like 1

Proud member of the Evil CompetitionTM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...