New RuneQuest Combat rule question and suggestion

[hanataka]

Hi, RuneQuest lovers and developers.

I have some question and suggestion about Combat rules of new RuneQuest. I heard that only 100 copies of RQG Preview are distributed, so it might be too early to start the discussion. However we have tried the new combat rules, so I write this before I forget.

 

--- #1  Critical parry vs Critical attack
There are two different rules for critical vs. critical.

In page 139, "Critical Parries" :
    If a critical parry is rolled against a critical hit, the parry is treated as a normal parry and the critical hit is treated as a normal attack.

In page 140, "SUMMARY OF COMBAT ACTIONS" :
   - A critical parry vs. a critical attack avoids all damage altogether.

Which should be true?

--- #2  Successful Parry vs. Unsuccessful Attack
Damage to weapons that failed attacks is too powerful.

In page 139 "Successful Parry vs. Unsuccessful Attack"
    A successful weapon parry against an unsuccessful attack always damages the attacking weapon, doing the regular weapon amage no matter how successful the parry.

This is actually the same rule as RQ2. But It brings more weapon breaking  than RQ2, because new RuneQuest weapons have much smaller Hit Point than RQ2. And it does not seem to be balanced with the following rules.

In page 140, "SUMMARY OF COMBAT ACTIONS" :
    - A special parry vs. a normal attack allows the defender to roll the parrying weapon/shield’s normal damage and compare it to the attacking weapon's hit points. If the damage done from the parry exceeds the attacking weapon's hit points, it takes 1 hit point of damage.
    - A critical parry versus a normal or special attack will apply the parrying weapon/shield's normal damage directly to the attacker’s weapon.

Do not you think the effect of normal parry vs. failed attack should be more mild?

 

--- #3  Same Strike Rule
Same strike rank rule is bad rule.

In page 139, "Subsequent Parries" :
    An adventurer may not attack and parry at the same strike rank, or parry more than once at a the same strike rank.

A similar rule also existed in "RQ3 with errata". Through playing the game we experienced this to be an inappropriate rule. As a basic concept, combat of RuneQuest (at least RQ2 and 3) is based on Melee Round. Each character performs multiple blows and parries in the whole round, It does not do a single blow on the strike rank.  Strike Rank only define the order of Rolls based on the advantages, not timing.

For example, you and your opponent have same strike rank weapons, and your opponent has a bit higher DEX. If both characters try to attack and parry with one weapon,  the opponent's attack is rolled first, you parry it. What will happen to your attack? Is it delayed to next strike rank? Is it forcibly canceled?

If it is only delayed, there are no changes in order and the rule only introduces unnecessary complexity. If it will be canceled, can you declare in advance deliberately delay the attack? It is same order and unnecessary complexity too. If it cannot delay, why can not he do the same with lower DEX characters?

If we need a penalty to use the same weapon, we should consider another way:

Suggestion 1: Rule like this "If you use the same weapon for attacking and parrying in the same melee round, add +1 to your attacking strike rank." This is very simple and clear.
Suggestion 2: Or another, "If you use the same weapon for attacking and parrying, You must subtract -20% from later using skill." This not so simple, but well aligned with the new multiple parry rule.

--- #4  Shield advantage
My players notice that shields are relatively useless.

Parrying by swords is more effective. In old time, Shield would not break, and Parry skill was separated from Attack. But the new rule integrated them. So many characters haves a higher skill rating for sword parry than shield parry, and new shields will break.

For example, Broadsword and Medium Shield are same HP (12), and Broadsword has a higher capacity to damage an opponent's weapon. In many situations players chose to parry by their sword, and did not use the shield.

The essential advantages of shields were that it is easy to learn, and never broken. But these benefit has been lost by the integration of skills and rules. I think that shields should have distinct advantages in melee combat, besides against missiles.

 

--- #5  Strike Rank Zero Problem
When is the actions of SR 0 solved?

This is not a new one, but the traditional problem of RQ2. A melee round consists of 12 strike ranks (from 1 to 12). But some very quick(DEX 19+) and large(SIZ 22+) character with a long weapon (2+ meters) attacks at SR 0. In the same way, quick(DEX 19+) character casts 1 magic points spell at SR 0. This is somewhat ambiguous. What is SR 0, is it before Rune Spells (which occur always SR 1)?

Suggestion: I wish to have a solution to this problem at the opportunity to create new rule. i.e "If the calculated SR is zero or lower, it is treated as SR 1 of his DEX." or something.

--- #6  Adjacent hit location
In page 140, "SUMMARY OF COMBAT ACTIONS" :
    If damage exceeds parrying weapon/shield's hit points, excess damage always goes to an adjacent hit location on the defender

What does "adjacent" mean in this context? This word is only in summary, and no explanation. Does this mean the arms holding the weapon? If so, it might be real for parrying by dagger, but in the case of parrying by two-handed long spear it is unlikely. The reflected and weakened blade could land on a random location in target's body, more likely. I feel "adjacent" is not necessary.

 

--- Thank you for reading a long article.

Edited September 5, 2017 by hanataka

[Psullie]

ohh, looks like the preview would benefit from some serious play testing, perhaps even a Release Candidate

[Yelm's Light]

As usual, these are my interpretations, based primarily on a RQ2 view:

#1 - I prefer the first rule (treat crit vs. crit as normal attack/parry).

#2 - The distinction is that of failed attack vs. successful attack.  In all three cases, you're still talking about only 1 point of damage done to the weapon, so I don't think it's excessive.  In RQ2, weapons could take up to 4 points of damage per parried attack.  I'd expect that breakage isn't as much of an issue in the new rules.

#3 - I tend to go with the latter suggestion (-20% from parry).

#4 - I HR'ed the 'special shield attack' (bash) to include a chance of knockback a la grappling.  The attack is still treated as a separate skill, but gives a possible advantage to using the shield in melee.

As far as the question of skill, I'm not sure how to reconcile that from the point of view of realism.  Parrying with a weapon is generally more likely to damage the attacking weapon than parrying with a shield because blows tend to glance off of the shield.  (Shield spikes are a possible issue, but I've never run into a circumstance in-game where the player thought to have one installed or integrated into the shield.)

#5 - I HR this as you've suggested, treating SR 0 as SR 1, and in the special case of a SR 0 attack against an opponent who would normally attack at SR 1, the SR 0 attack goes first.  In case of SR 0 vs. SR 0 attacks, as with any opposing attacks happening in the same SR, I go with higher DEX attacking first, or a dice-off if both DEXs are equal.  Either way, both attacks are still technically treated as occurring in SR 1 for the purposes of ancillary melee events.

#6 - My reading of adjacent is based on the body parts involved, not simply one location up or down on the hit location chart (i.e., head, chest, abdomen, left arm, and left leg would be adjacent to a left-handed parry).  While it's possible to deflect an attack to a further location, it's not very likely, and I don't see how it would weaken the attack very much.  I like their interpretation as a general rule that avoids the complexities of unlikely occurrences.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Yelm's Light

[styopa]

18 hours ago, hanataka said:

Hi, RuneQuest lovers and developers.

I have some question and suggestion about Combat rules of new RuneQuest. I heard that only 100 copies of RQG Preview are distributed, so it might be too early to start the discussion. However we have tried the new combat rules, so I write this before I forget.

#1 I don't know what that version of the rules say, but Crit parry vs Crit hit  (or Special vs Special) should be treated the exact same way as normal parry vs normal attack.

#2 Contrary to the "Glorantha is Bronze Age in every way" folks, I only believe that applies culturally;   YGMV.   IMG warriors don't wade into combat with plethora of weapons on the expectation that every couple of parries their sword will be junked.  IMG (generally) a parry 1 success level better than the attack can do 1AP damage to the attacking weapon if parrying weapon damage exceeds attacking weapon AP.  A parry 2 success levels above will do 1AP always, plus 1AP per attackers damage mod dice (min 2AP); A parry 3+ success levels over the attack means parry weapon damage is done as AP to the attacker's weapon, minimum 3AP.  

#3 I like either of your alternatives.  If SR really aren't time-ticks as everyone seems to insist they aren't meant to be (but pretty much they end up being that), then it doesn't really matter.  If the SR is the same, the higher dex attacks first,  and they both get to parry anyway whenever they get attacked.  If SR & Dex are the same, I'd let them both attack and parry at the same time and apply all results simultaneously as a rare coincidence result.  (Then again, if you use fixed SR as per RAW, I guess these same 2 combatants are likely to get that same result over and over until one's dead so not so rare, once it happens.)

#4 you're exactly right.  The RAW RQ2 rules make shields far too weak & hard to use.  Personally, I believe it basically impossible for any arrow to penetrate a sturdy shield and do material harm to the shieldbearer.  Carrhae wasn't a failure of the testudo, it was a failure of tactics and a nearly-impregnable formation proving that you never ultimately win on defence (the 'nearly' being the key word there).  Shield failure has more to do with not blocking the arrow, than being too flimsy to stop it (unless you're going on about wicker shields, which had more to do with compromises around weight/fatigue than protective value).  Your point about the unification of attack/defense skills (and the in-play consequences) is absolutely valid as well.

#5 SR0 problem: frankly, I find the entire SR system RAW backwards as hell.  I know they're not going to change it for me, but the "SR get smaller as you get faster and larger" capping at 0 at relatively puny values is just dumb.  Sorry Steve Perrin, I love the game deeply but think you totally boned the math on that one.  The idea that a SIZ 22 has the same reach as a SIZ50 is silly.  Dex 19 is the same as DEX35?  A 2m greatsword has the same reach as a 40' pine tree?  This would be the chance to really fix it, but because of a desire for backwards compatibility, it'll never will be officially.  This is our first and most prevalent HR, and we count DOWN through the SR of the round.

#6 parrying damage does to "adjacent" location: logic dictates, but I tend to assume shield arm for a shield.  For a weapon, parry I'd say it realistically could be anywhere but for simplicity's sake, we use parrying weapon arm.

It does sound like the rules still need a fair amount of testing/clarification for a product only 3 months from publishing?

Considering the melee combat rules are about the most time-tested and easily understood systems of RQ in general (we've had some of these nearly-same discussions on the Glorantha digest what, nearly 3 decades ago?), that honestly makes me a little nervous about other less-well-tested mechanics that are being introduced in RQG for the first time or nearly first time.

[hanataka]

For #2, a bit more detailed explanation may be necessary.

As a simple example, let us consider Broadsword Attack vs. Broadsword Parry.
In RQ2, a broadsword has 1D8+1 damage, and a typical warrior has  1D4  damage bonus, the damage is 8 on average. Broadsword has 20 hit points. So on average, the attacking weapon that is failing and parried will break on the third time.

In RQG GenCon Preview, the Broadsword damage is same (1D8+1+1D4, average 8 points), But the weapon has only 12 hit points, so it will break on the second time.

In test play, I realized that weapons are more fragile than RQ2.

 

[Psullie]

This was from Jason's posts clarifying combat results:

"A successful parry always blocks an attack, whether the attack is a regular, special, or critical success. In each case, the attacker rolls damage. If the damage is below the parrying weapon/shield’s hit points, no damage is done. If damage exceeds parrying weapon/shield’s hit points, excess damage always goes to an adjacent hit location on the defender (see page @@) and the parrying weapon/shield loses 1 hit point."

So I would say the sword only takes damage if the total exceeds 12, and then only 1 point.

 

[Yelm's Light]

4 hours ago, hanataka said:

For #2, a bit more detailed explanation may be necessary.

As a simple example, let us consider Broadsword Attack vs. Broadsword Parry.
In RQ2, a broadsword has 1D8+1 damage, and a typical warrior has  1D4  damage bonus, the damage is 8 on average. Broadsword has 20 hit points. So on average, the attacking weapon that is failing and parried will break on the third time.

In RQG GenCon Preview, the Broadsword damage is same (1D8+1+1D4, average 8 points), But the weapon has only 12 hit points, so it will break on the second time.

In test play, I realized that weapons are more fragile than RQ2.
 

Huh...I missed the sentence in the QS under successful parry where the attacking weapon takes full damage on a failed attack.  I'd immediately HR that to 1 point, as with every other case of damage to an involved weapon/shield, as I'd assumed it was already.

Edited September 6, 2017 by Yelm's Light

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

Following the release of the RQG Quickstart myself and others asked @Jason Durall a few questions on the completed RQG rules which varies a bit from the Quickstart. I presume this is what is in the Gencon RQG manuscript?  

Here's the link - follow on from this post by Jason:

 

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

On 9/5/2017 at 10:39 AM, hanataka said:

--- #3  Same Strike Rule
Same strike rank rule is bad rule.

In page 139, "Subsequent Parries" :
    An adventurer may not attack and parry at the same strike rank, or parry more than once at a the same strike rank.

 

This is an area that I wanted to see clarity on in the new rules. I started a post on strike ranks with the intention of finding how the completed RQG handles these situations when an character is forced to parry on his attack SR. Again @Jason Durall responded with the answer that he believes you can attack & parry on the same SR, a simple approach I favour. However after seeing your post here based on the finished RQG GenCon manuscript makes me question whether this is correct? Heres a link to Jasons reply on SR : 

 

[Jusmak]

I find that part of the thing is positive problem.  RQ2/3 combat system is so solid, that changing anything there should not be treated lightly. People have already spend decades playing and honing little things into HRs. They may have already made changes, that suites their playing style. 

If I remember right, developers said themselves, that there was no real issues to fix in combat system, but magic, runes and character creation.  Maybe there is no reason to change anything at all in combatsystem... 

[Atgxtg]

 

7 hours ago, Jusmak said:

I find that part of the thing is positive problem.  RQ2/3 combat system is so solid, that changing anything there should not be treated lightly. People have already spend decades playing and honing little things into HRs. They may have already made changes, that suites their playing style. 

And the new RQ seems to have thrown a lot of the "solidness" out the window and reverted back to RQ2. Weapon breakage was a real problem back in the old days, with anything other than a shield breaking after a few parries. Now, with characters doing more damage and weapons having fewer hit points we'll be lucking if a weapon can parry twice. 

[hanataka]

The following example is written in GenCon Preview.

Quote

Example: The gamemaster says that a tusk rider is stabbing at Vostor with its lance. Vostor will parry. The gamemaster rolls for the tusk rider's lance attack, and fails, while Vostor's roll to parry with his kopis succeeds. Vostor's kopis cuts into the tusk rider's lance. Vostor rolls for his damage and does 9 points of damage, a solid hit! The tusk rider's lance has 10 hit points total, so it is reduced to 1 hit point. The tusk rider looks at his weapon with dismay, seeing how damaged it is.

I do not mind that weapons will break. It is one of the fun of RQ.
However, I feel that breaking a lot is damaging playability.

[jongjom]

1 hour ago, hanataka said:

The following example is written in GenCon Preview.

I do not mind that weapons will break. It is one of the fun of RQ.
However, I feel that breaking a lot is damaging playability.

My concern too is that attacking weapons are too easily damaged by a parrying weapon.

To put numbers on this: An attacker at 55% is parried by a defender at 85%. This translates to about 30% chance that the result is a failed attack vs. normal parry. This would result in the parrying weapon rolling damage direct to the attacking weapon's HP. Then add to that another 6-7% chance for combinations of failed/fumbled attack and critical/special parry, for other types of serious parrying weapon damage against the attacking weapon's HP. How do beginning adventurers start out against the big boys and girls without a sack full of weapons! 

This is much less of an issue with a skilled attacker (e.g. 85%) against a lesser defender (e.g. parry 55%) with respective likelihoods of about 6% and 1-2%. 

Parrying weapons are less likely to receive significant damage (only a 8% +/-3% chance on each parry) from a successful attack.

Hence the main issue seems to be the damage done by a defending weapon on a failed attacking weapon. (For this reason: not much value in shields ).

[hanataka]

@Paid a bod yn dwp

There are inconsistencies in RQ GenCon Preview. It looks to me as if there were two different rules. The one is a main text, and the other is "Summary of Combat Actions" Box. the rules of main texts are similar to that of Quickstart. the Summary is same as the rules that @Jason Durall posted. However, some rules (i.e. Successful Parry vs. Unsuccessful Attack) are only written in the main text, and others (i.e. a special parry vs. normal attack) only existed in the Summary.

And the rules which ban using weapons to attack and parry in the same strike rank are written in both and are emphasized by the bold face.

Edited September 7, 2017 by hanataka

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

2 hours ago, hanataka said:

There are inconsistencies in RQ GenCon Preview.

Ah right I misunderstood. I thought this manuscript was the final draft. It sounds like this isn't the finalised set of rules yet. I just hope that the final rules are crystal clear.  

 

[Jason D]

Just to be clear, we're still collecting feedback and reading these forums carefully. Part of the purpose of the Gen Con preview edition was specifically to get the rules outside the Chaosium biosphere and to external player groups. 

Until the print proof is authorized, it's not final. We want it to get there soon and hold off on any last-minute changes, but they happen. 

[Psullie]

1 hour ago, Jason Durall said:

Just to be clear, we're still collecting feedback and reading these forums carefully. Part of the purpose of the Gen Con preview edition was specifically to get the rules outside the Chaosium biosphere and to external player groups. 

Until the print proof is authorized, it's not final. We want it to get there soon and hold off on any last-minute changes, but they happen. 

As many on those who purchased Gen Con copy are NOT on the forum, and therefore not contributing to the discussion, would you consider making a digital copy available to those who are on the forum?

[g33k]

4 minutes ago, Psullie said:

As many on those who purchased Gen Con copy are NOT on the forum, and therefore not contributing to the discussion, would you consider making a digital copy available to those who are on the forum?

That quiet, ominous dripping sound you hear in the dark corner is NOT some slimy cthulhoid monstrosity; that's me, drooling over the idea that I might get acces to a playable draft of RQG sooner than December...

any resemblance to actual slimy cthulhoid monstrosities, living or dead, is purely coincidental

[styopa]

4 hours ago, Psullie said:

As many on those who purchased Gen Con copy are NOT on the forum, and therefore not contributing to the discussion, would you consider making a digital copy available to those who are on the forum?

Let's be clear, I'd pay my $ right now in advance for a published copy, if that means getting on a list to get the draft ones as pdfs until the final one is printed and shipped.  Pretty sure nearly everyone here would do that.

[Al.]

On 06/09/2017 at 5:20 AM, styopa said:

#5 SR0 problem: frankly, I find the entire SR system RAW backwards as hell.  I know they're not going to change it for me, but the "SR get smaller as you get faster and larger" capping at 0 at relatively puny values is just dumb.  Sorry Steve Perrin,

Interestingly, Steve Perrin (publicly) dropped SR from his evolution of RuneQuest than he runs (or ran) and plays (or played) years ago

I'd be interested in hearing whether he is a lone voice at NewChaoisum arguing to get rid of a rule that he himself wrote way back when

 

 

[styopa]

3 hours ago, Al. said:

Interestingly, Steve Perrin (publicly) dropped SR from his evolution of RuneQuest than he runs (or ran) and plays (or played) years ago

I'd be interested in hearing whether he is a lone voice at NewChaoisum arguing to get rid of a rule that he himself wrote way back when

Curiously, the link on his page to SPQR is a 404 error.

IIRC SPQR simply used DEX as your initiative (or if you preferred it randomized, 2d6+DEX).  You counted down from that.  Doing "something" generally took 10 Dex, so you could act again at your Dex-10.

For spell casting Sorcery cost 1 point per mp, spirit magic 3 points per, and divine 5 points per.  

That's about all I recall.  I didn't ever buy it myself.

[7Tigers]

8 hours ago, styopa said:

Let's be clear, I'd pay my $ right now in advance for a published copy, if that means getting on a list to get the draft ones as pdfs until the final one is printed and shipped.  Pretty sure nearly everyone here would do that.

 

Yes, I guess that it would be a no brainer for a lot of people to pay for a Release Candidate edition in order to provide feedback, at least for potential typos, or write scenarios.

[Mugen]

11 hours ago, Al. said:

Interestingly, Steve Perrin (publicly) dropped SR from his evolution of RuneQuest than he runs (or ran) and plays (or played) years ago

I'd be interested in hearing whether he is a lone voice at NewChaoisum arguing to get rid of a rule that he himself wrote way back when

Yes, during Mongoose's RuneQuest playtest, he was one of those advocating for using DEX-based initiative and dropping localized hit points.

That was more than 10 years ago, but I'd be surprised to learn he switched his mind again.

[jongjom]

9 hours ago, 7Tigers said:

Yes, I guess that it would be a no brainer for a lot of people to pay for a Release Candidate edition in order to provide feedback, at least for potential typos, or write scenarios.

AFAIK, a number of those who bought RQG have given feedback: so much so that they need to digest that information first before trying to take on any more. 

[jongjom]

Not that there is much fundamentally amiss with RQG IMHO, but polishing takes time.