QuickStart 2 attacks in one round?

[Zit]

In RL, yes. Parade-riposte. At least with a light fencing weapon. But in the rules ?

Of course, an opposed roll would solve this at once, but there are no opposed rolls for combat.

[styopa]

2 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

I have one word for you.  Riposte.

So you're saying a weapon *should* be able to strike and parry in the same round?

[Zit]

And from my side, I would like to know what the rules actually say.

[styopa]

26 minutes ago, Zit said:

And from my side, I would like to know what the rules actually say.

cf either a copy of the draft rules from Gen Con, but even that's a "draft".

Otherwise, you find out in November when the rest of us do (unless Jason jumps in, as is his wont occasionally), but even that doesn't necessarily mean it's graven in stone until the rules are published.

[Yelm's Light]

6 hours ago, styopa said:

So you're saying a weapon *should* be able to strike and parry in the same round?

That would be an accurate appraisal, since it is realistic...and also explicitly allowed under RQ2 rules.

 

ETA:  Melee weapon, that is.

Edited August 25, 2017 by Yelm's Light

[Yelm's Light]

6 hours ago, Zit said:

In RL, yes. Parade-riposte. At least with a light fencing weapon. But in the rules ?

Any number of maneuverable weapons can riposte, including all of the fencing weapons, long- and shortswords, some axes (depending on how the parry actually occurred), maces and clubs.

[Zit]

2 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

and also explicitly allowed under RQ2 rules.

it is not, that's the problem, and it has caused endless discussions which I don't want to start here again. That's why I'd like the game designer to at last, after 40 years, explicitly clarify it. I'd like to read somewhere from them that "it is possible/not possible to attack and parry with the same weapon in the same MR"

 

Note that it is explicit for shields in the Quick Start (no attack and parry in the same MR), but still not for other weapons.

BTW, it is also written in the Quick Start that 2 weapons "can be used for two attacks, two parries, or one attack and one parry", while it is possible to make several parries with the same weapon, so I think the text needs some rewording here.

[styopa]

2 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

That would be an accurate appraisal, since it is realistic...and also explicitly allowed under RQ2 rules.

Where is that?  Not arguing with you, I'm just not that familiar with that rule.

2 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

Any number of maneuverable weapons can riposte, including all of the fencing weapons, long- and shortswords, some axes (depending on how the parry actually occurred), maces and clubs.

Now you have me very curious.  I don't remember anything like that granularity about that, specifically the comment about "how the parry occurred" - not even sure what that means?

9 minutes ago, Zit said:

BTW, it is also written in the Quick Start that 2 weapons "can be used for two attacks, two parries, or one attack and one parry", while it is possible to make several parries with the same weapon, so I think the text needs some rewording here.

As Jason explained elsewhere (hell, maybe in this thread), the QS rules were based on the draft rules that were available January; they have been seriously polished/revised since then.  Some revisions seem to have even come from the course of debates here, which is gratifying that Jason has proved that Chaosium welcomes general discussion and doesn't just stonewall issues of real concern "that's the way it is, tough noogies".

Not that they should listen to *all * the blather here; it's a message board meaning 95% of the consumers don't even see it, and those 5% who are here can be pretty fractious. 

[Yelm's Light]

p. 19

Quote

Page 19, RQ2

THE PARRY

The adventurer also has the opportunity of parrying with a shield or weapon.  This chance is again rolled on D100 and, if the needed percentage to parry or less is rolled, the parry will block the attack, whether it was successful or not.

For context:  immediately before that is the section on Attack.  Thus, the "also" above refers to the attack.

Have you really been playing all this time with just a single attack or parry per round for single weapon users?

Edited August 26, 2017 by Yelm's Light

[styopa]

13 minutes ago, Yelm's Light said:

p. 19

For context:  immediately before that is the section on Attack.  Thus, the "also" above refers to the attack.

Have you really been playing all this time with just a single attack or parry per round for single weapon users?

We play based on RQ3, where if you have a 1h item, it can EITHER be used to attack or parry that round.  So no, if 1h weapon is used to parry, it can't be also used to attack in that round.  A 2h item can be used for both.

What I was curious about was your comment about riposte, ie it sounded an attack following up a parry as sort of a special maneuver, particularly the limitation of such a maneuver to a specific subset of weapons.

[Yelm's Light]

6 minutes ago, styopa said:

We play based on RQ3, where if you have a 1h item, it can EITHER be used to attack or parry that round.  So no, if 1h weapon is used to parry, it can't be also used to attack in that round.  A 2h item can be used for both.

What I was curious about was your comment about riposte, ie it sounded an attack following up a parry as sort of a special maneuver, particularly the limitation of such a maneuver to a specific subset of weapons.

The limitation is one I imposed because I find it hard to believe, for instance, that someone using a long spear is going to be able to pull off a beat-and-thrust.  (You also can't riposte if you've already attacked in the round in my game.)  Special or not, the mechanics are the same; only the timing is different.  I don't require some form of riposte skill.

So, I interpret from the first paragraph that a 1H/shield wielder would still be able to parry with the shield in addition to attacking with the weapon?

[Mugen]

1 hour ago, styopa said:

We play based on RQ3, where if you have a 1h item, it can EITHER be used to attack or parry that round.  So no, if 1h weapon is used to parry, it can't be also used to attack in that round.  A 2h item can be used for both.

There was an errata later that changed this to allow a character to attack and parry in the same round (but in different strike ranks) with a 1H weapon.

I think it's this one (see errata for p. 48) :

https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/252370770/Runquest-Third-Edition-Errata

[Zit]

ww2

1 hour ago, Yelm's Light said:

p. 19

For context:  immediately before that is the section on Attack.  Thus, the "also" above refers to the attack.

Have you really been playing all this time with just a single attack or parry per round for single weapon users?

English is not my mother tongue, but it can be also understood as a general statement that it is also possible to parry with a weapon. It does not say you can do both in the same MR. Moreover:

1- When using 2 weapons, it is explicitly and clearly explained that you can only do one single action with each for 2 attacks, 2 parries or 1 attack and one parry.

2- in the Basic Role Playing booklet which was in the boxed '81 RQ2, presented as "Basic Role-Playing, an introductory guide", it is said on p.12 "Using a weapon: weapons do have two uses, attacking and parrying. Each weapon can only do one of these actions in a particular melee round". Which is the rule I applied when I switched to RQ, which I hold for a kind of advanced version of the 1981 BRP.

3- it was apparently the case in RQ3 as well (but I never played RQ3).

4- it is also the case in the brand new Quick Start for shields

So you may be right, but you'll admit that it is quite confusing, could be understood the other way and shall be clarified.

[kaydet]

An interesting mechanic I've seen before is to allow certain weapons to parry and attack in one round while restricting others' ability to do the same.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

There is some ambiguity in the way rq2 and rq3 explained the ruling on attack & parry with the same weapon in a melee round. 

Rq2 when read with the Ruric examples becomes clear. You can attack and parry with the same 1 handed weapon in a melee round but not on the same SR.

RQ 3 actually works in exactly the same way as RQ2, but there was confusion due to a sentence that was accidentally included ( presumably from an earlier draft version of the rules) which stated that only a 2 handed weapon could attack and parry in the same melee round. The errata deleted that sentence, thus bringing RQ3 clearly back into line with RQ2 in this respect. 

It seems that the BRP booklet included with RQ2 boxed set also promoted the ruling that only 2 handed weapons could attack and parry in a single round. However the RQ2 rule book clearly contradicts that with the Ruric examples of play. So I presume the BRP booklet is meant as an alternative to the RQ2 official ruling. 

With regrad to the QuickStart it is intended that you can attack and parry with the same 1 handed weapon in a melee round. Further it states that parry does not use strikes ranks. Meaning you could potentially parry and attack on the same attack SR.

Importantly the QuickStart represents an early draft form of the new RQG rules, and there are some changes to come in the completed version. Jason Durall has stated in these forums the main changes. The main one in this context is that parry has returned to using a strike rank. 

So to clarify in the new RQG rules, you can attack and parry with a 1  handed weapon in the same melee round, and it uses an SR just like RQ2. Where it differs is that parry no longer follows the rq2 rule for splitting parries ( needing over 100% to split parries).Instead in RQG you can parry multiple attacks from the same or multiple oppents, but at a culmulative -20% to each parry after the first. 

Edit: Jason Durall posted quite extensively on many of the new combat rule changes. Start with this post then continue reading: 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2017 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[DreadDomain]

@Paid a bod yn dwp thank you for the link to Jason's post and subsequent explanation. From what I have read so far, it makes sense but will wait to see the final product before passing judgement. My biggest fear right now is that RQG will be a fantastic product from production value, character creation and setting integration perspectives but compared with more modern games, like say Mythras, its combat will feel outdated and clunky. While Jason alleviates some of my fears, I am still not 100% convinced especially in the light of how multiple attacks in melee will work. I thought it was clunky and artificial in the 80s and it still feels that way today. However, I do not want to jump the gun and maybe it will make sense within the whole ruleset.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

1 hour ago, DreadDomain said:

I am still not 100% convinced especially in the light of how multiple attacks in melee will work

Although I haven't played Mythras, from reading about it it seems to me that with regards to multiple attacks it exchanges action points for the RuneQuest 2 strike rank system, and splitting attacks over 100%. Personally I don't see one of the systems being more sophisticated/ streamlined then the other, just different approaches. The special effects of Mythras feels like a much expanded version of RQ2 special and critical damage, which to my mind is not more streamlined, but never the less quite an interesting approach. 

Edited August 27, 2017 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[Yelm's Light]

12 hours ago, Zit said:

English is not my mother tongue, but it can be also understood as a general statement that it is also possible to parry with a weapon. It does not say you can do both in the same MR. Moreover:

1- When using 2 weapons, it is explicitly and clearly explained that you can only do one single action with each for 2 attacks, 2 parries or 1 attack and one parry.

2- in the Basic Role Playing booklet which was in the boxed '81 RQ2, presented as "Basic Role-Playing, an introductory guide", it is said on p.12 "Using a weapon: weapons do have two uses, attacking and parrying. Each weapon can only do one of these actions in a particular melee round". Which is the rule I applied when I switched to RQ, which I hold for a kind of advanced version of the 1981 BRP.

3- it was apparently the case in RQ3 as well (but I never played RQ3).

4- it is also the case in the brand new Quick Start for shields

So you may be right, but you'll admit that it is quite confusing, could be understood the other way and shall be clarified.

Attacking it from another angle, it makes little sense not to allow parry(ies) in the same round, because MR's then devolve into a guessing game as to whether your opponent will choose to attack or parry that round.  So both combatants decide to parry, and nothing happens for that round?  Or both attack, leaving themselves defenseless for the entire round?  Definitely not the way it works in reality, and I've done my fair share of melee combat.  (Actual combat is quite a bit more complicated than that, but I don't want to derail this into a discussion of battle tactics.)

1- That's a balance thing.  What it does is give the dual weapon user a wider range of tactics without making dual wield so overpowered when compared to single-weapon use that every power gamer dual wields instead of letting the RP determine their weapon configuration.  At least in my game, the single-weapon wielder only has the last option you mention (barring splitting attacks, a different complication).

2- The closest I came to playing BRP were the various flavors of Stormbringer, Ringworld, CoC, etc., and I always assumed that the system was the same as RQ2, which I'd been used to playing long before I played those other games.  (Barring the use of more modern weapons, of course.  Big Ringworld fan here, btw...I wish I still had it, though I had quite a bit of trouble getting many others interested in it).

3- While I liked the campaign/scenario packs of RQ3, I was never a fan of the system itself.  RQ2 worked just fine for me, so I simply converted the scenarios.

4- See Paid a bod yn dwp's comment.

Edited August 27, 2017 by Yelm's Light

[soltakss]

As a GM, I could read all the supplements and tie myself in knots about what exactly should happen, or I could have a simple houserule and move on.

I houseruled this ages ago, so someone could attack and parry on the same Strike Rank. Job done.

[Zit]

So did I. But since the rules are currently being rewritten, it is a chance to bring clarity.

[styopa]

On 8/26/2017 at 1:23 PM, Yelm's Light said:

So, I interpret from the first paragraph that a 1H/shield wielder would still be able to parry with the shield in addition to attacking with the weapon?

Absolutely yes.  Each 1h implement could perform an action, with the toon constrained to 2 in total.

So a 2h wielder could attack & parry, or attack & dodge

A 1h wielder could (attack OR parry) and dodge.

A dual-wielder could attack with both, parry with both, attack and parry, attack and dodge, or parry and dodge.

On 8/26/2017 at 2:17 PM, Mugen said:

There was an errata later that changed this to allow a character to attack and parry in the same round (but in different strike ranks) with a 1H weapon.

I think it's this one (see errata for p. 48) :

https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/252370770/Runquest-Third-Edition-Errata

We saw that, but disregarded it.  Yes, I recognize that beat-riposte is a rather common thing in fencing, but we (not just my choice, but my players' as well) felt that removing that constraint took away some tactically interesting choices.  If a player made a big deal out of wanting to be a duellist with rapier (asserting a Renaissance-style rapier, not the bronze-age-only-recognized-by-sword-claddistics-nerds "rapier") I'd have been easily swayed to the idea, just not allowed parry and attack in the same SR.

12 hours ago, Yelm's Light said:

 What it does is give the dual weapon user a wider range of tactics without making dual wield so overpowered when compared to single-weapon use that every power gamer dual wields instead of letting the RP determine their weapon configuration.  At least in my game, the single-weapon wielder only has the last option you mention (barring splitting attacks, a different complication).

 Looking at them from the RQ3 unamended pov, dual wielding gives them the ability to use that 2nd action as an attack if they forego any self-protective action.  The cost, of course, is that as a parrying implement IRL that small offhand weapon is pretty crappy compared to a good shield.*

*setting aside entirely RQ2's truly baffling assignment of 20AP to a shortsword, nearly double that of a medium shield...

 

[soltakss]

4 hours ago, Zit said:

So did I. But since the rules are currently being rewritten, it is a chance to bring clarity.

I'll believe it when I see it ...

[Mechashef]

This reminds me of the "Short Bastard" conversation from a RQ3 game I was involved in before we had access to the errata:

Player: "So I can't attack and parry in the same round with my short sword, but (other player) can with their great sword?"

GM: "Yep"

Player: "I will get a weapon smith to make me a short sword with a longer handle so I can use it one handed or two handed. When using my Short Bastard sword two handed I will be able to attack and parry with it."

GM: "Sure, but they will be different skills."

Player: "So using it one handed I have a 72% skill but can't attack and parry in the same round. Using it two handed I have a greatly reduced skill but can attack and parry in the same round?"

GM: "Ummm yes"

Everyone: "That sux!"

The idea of two handed weapons being able to attack and parry in the same round while one handed ones can't seems to be on par with D&D's old rule of two handed weapons attacking last. Put in for game balance, but makes no real sense.

Edited August 29, 2017 by Mechashef
Stupid iphone autocorrect and spacing corrected

[Zit]

On 8/28/2017 at 11:24 PM, Mechashef said:

The idea of two handed weapons being able to attack and parry in the same round while one handed ones can't seems to be on par with D&D's old rule of two handed weapons attacking last. Put in for game balance, but makes no real sense.

My (late) HR was that you were able to attack and parry if holding one single weapon, whatever it was (1H or 2H). It is another combat style than having two weapons, with different stances and tactics. Not perfect but more balanced and not so unrealistic I think.

Edited September 16, 2017 by Zit

[Mugen]

On 28/08/2017 at 11:24 PM, Mechashef said:

This reminds me of the "Short Bastard" conversation from a RQ3 game I was involved in before we had access to the errata:

Player: "So I can't attack and parry in the same round with my short sword, but (other player) can with their great sword?"

GM: "Yep"

Player: "I will get a weapon smith to make me a short sword with a longer handle so I can use it one handed or two handed. When using my Short Bastard sword two handed I will be able to attack and parry with it."

GM: "Sure, but they will be different skills."

Player: "So using it one handed I have a 72% skill but can't attack and parry in the same round. Using it two handed I have a greatly reduced skill but can attack and parry in the same round?"

GM: "Ummm yes"

Everyone: "That sux!"

The idea of two handed weapons being able to attack and parry in the same round while one handed ones can't seems to be on par with D&D's old rule of two handed weapons attacking last. Put in for game balance, but makes no real sense.

I'm not sure it makes no sense. My small experience with a boken tells me maneuvering a weapon with both hands is different than with one hand. It's easier to regain balance with 2 hands.

I agree, however, that having your fighting skill experience reduced to 0 because you use a weapon two-handed and not one-handed does not make sense.