Two weapons and multiple parries

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

59 minutes ago, creativehum said:

While these rules might not be what people want, they do seem seem clear to me. I'm not seeing anything that needs to be corrected.

Yes I agree there is nothing broken about these rules. The “two weapon” Death Star is fully operational. 

[Atgxtg]

53 minutes ago, creativehum said:

I'm not trying to be a dick,

Neither am I, but I'm not sure if that's coming across in the posts. I think some people are getting what I'm trying to say an other not.

53 minutes ago, creativehum said:

 

but I don't think this is merely a matter or "knowing the rules and not knowing the rules."

Merely no. But it does play a factor. Most of the questions pooping up on these boards aren't from players new to RQ, but from old RQ players trying to reconcile RQG with what they already know. In many cases it stuff that's ingrained and the result somewhat automated. For example in just about every Chaosium RPG you round numbers to the nearest. In RQG you round in favor of the player. That's a small change, but one that will lead to lots of ol' timers messing up. 

53 minutes ago, creativehum said:

If I'm not mistaken, you have yet to read a copy of the new rules,

No, and I don't suspect I will for some time. Not until I see what happens when people have played the new game for awhile, and how the various changes and additions work out, and how Chaosium responds to any problems that do crop up..It's the whole 80% of the RPGs we buy just sit on the shelf thing.  It's a catch 22. If I buy the rules, I end up supporting the game financially even if I end up not liking them and wishing that it were wiped from the face of the Earth as soon as possible. BTW, Just to clarify, I'm not saying that I  feel that way about RQG. I do feel that way about MRQ, and don't want to repeat the same mistake of buying the game simply because of it's title and the fact the Steve Perrin and Greg Stafford's names are on the cover. It's not about the $28 for the PDF, it's about the direction of the game. As one gamer and one customer, there is only so much I can do one way or the other about this or any other game. Buying it (or not) is about all I can do. 

53 minutes ago, creativehum said:

 

and yet you comment on them as if they are broken and flawed based on several previous editions you have read. 

Have I? Could you please post cases where I've done that? I've asked questions, and even expressed preferences, but haven't said the new rules are flawed or broken. I have said there are bugs in RQ2 that were addressed in RQ3 (for example the secondary characteristics in calculating category modifiers), but that's not the same thing.

53 minutes ago, creativehum said:

I'd say in some cases the key thing might be, "This serves as a great example of how not reading the rules is a disadvantage..."

Perhaps, except that I'm not the only one creating posts with questions about the new rules. The pattern seems to be that it's the people who've been playing RQ for decades who are raising questions, mostly because of the ripple effect of changes. RQ is (or at least was) a game where the rules are integrated and changing one facet of the game affects several others.  Maybe trying to roll back the clock 40 years has something to do with it. 

[creativehum]

First, I completely understand where you are coming from when you say you want more information about the RQG rules and game line before you invest. I have enough games on my shelf to keep me busy until my last days on this earth, so it isn't as if I need more. I'm not a collector. I buy games to play them, and that's my bottom line. This is one of the reasons I am currently on this forum... reading, asking questions, and digging into the rules as questions and confusion arise about the text. I want to know the rules work, I want to know how much I need in order to play the game. 

But as for this:

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Have I? Could you please post cases where I've done that?

I will point to a post in this very thread:

23 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

My concern is will Chaosium clarify and correct this stuff, or just dismiss it as nitpicking?

The quoted sentence regards the mater of this thread: Two weapons and multiple parries.

The sentence makes it plain that:

1. The rules on this matter require a clarification by Chaosium
2. The rules on this matter require a correction by Chaosium

Which in turn, to my mind at least, implies that something isn't working or is broken (why else would such things be required).

Further, if Chaosium doesn't clarify and correct this matter they are dismissing it and demeaning an actual problem as a nitpick. That is, something really is broken, though Chaosium might refuse to fix this actual problem.

However, the text is actually fine. No clarification on this matter is required, no correction is required.

I'm not sure how you see the sentence I just quoted above, but it sure seems like you are saying something needs to be fixed... which can only mean something is broken. Which is why I wrote you have commented on the rules as if the are broken or flawed.

EDITED TO ADD: 

If you didn't mean the above sentence to mean what it certainly means to say, it's cool, and I apologize for pulling the conversation to a tangent.

Edited June 28, 2018 by creativehum

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

First, I completely understand where you are coming from when you say you want more information about the RQG rules and game line before you invest. I have enough games on my shelf to keep me busy until my last days on this earth, so it isn't as if I need more. I'm not a collector. I buy games to play them, and that's my bottom line. This is one of the reasons I am currently on this forum... reading, asking questions, and digging into the rules as questions and confusion arise about the text. I want to know the rules work, I want to know how much I need in order to play the game. 

But as for this:

I will point to a post in this very thread:

The quoted sentence regards the mater of this thread: Two weapons and multiple parries.

The sentence makes it plain that:

1. The rules on this matter require a clarification by Chaosium
2. The rules on this matter require a correction by Chaosium

Which in turn, to my mind at least, implies that something isn't working or is broken

In your mind. In my mind it could mean that or, more likely that somebody is having difficulty understanding how it is supposed to work. 

Quote

 

(why else would such things be required)

How about because there are quite a few threads posted by people, including this one, who do not seem to understand how certain rules are supposed to work? Thats why you might need clarification. 

Or how about because there are examples in other RPG products, including ones from Chasoium and/or ones written by the authors of RQG where the rules did conflict with each other, didn't work as intended, or were in error? So when people who are experienced with RQ see something like a limit on attack and parries combines with a cumulative parry rule that they might like to have it spelled out if said penalty applied to all parried or just ones with the weapon they used parry with. 

Past experience has show that sometimes what s in the RAW wasn't necesarily supposed to be. 

 

Quote

Further, if Chaosium doesn't clarify and correct this matter they are dismissing it and demeaning an actual problem as a nitpick. That is, something really is broken, though Chaosium might refuse to fix this actual problem.

No. Not addressing something doesn't mean that a rules problem exist, only that there is an information gap between them and the customers. I don't think it is unreasonable to people who buy a product want to know how it works, or that how the company responds to this issues be of some importance.

 

For instance, the whole "Does disrupt go off at DEX SR or DEX SR+1 for the 1 MP?" thing can be easily resolved by somebody in some official capacity saying something, or providing an example. 

Quote

However, the text is actually fine. No clarification on this matter is required, no correction is required.

So you say, but I wan't aware that you are an authority on RQG. As far as I know the fact that people don't understand things and have questions is precisely when clarification is required. At least for proper communication and understanding.

Now Chaosium doesn't owe any of us any sort of clarification or correction., other than to provide the game to those who purchase it. It's strictly a business transaction. 

Quote

I'm not sure how you see the sentence I just quoted above, but it sure seems like you are saying something needs to be fixed... which can only mean something is broken. Which is why I wrote you have commented on the rules as if the are broken or flawed.

Broken? not necessarily. Flawed? Possibly. Since one of the design goals of RQG was backwards compatibility with RQG and significant change to core game mechanics. such as attack & parry is going to work against said backwards compatibility. Backwards compatibility is the crux of the matter here, since by stressing it, and rule that isn't backwards compatible becomes a fair issue. 

Quote

EDITED TO ADD: 

If you didn't mean the above sentence to mean what it certainly means to say,

Did you mean that? Or did you mean to say "If you didn't mean the above sentence to mean what it certainly seems to say,". because the first situation is impossible.  If a statement was certainly meant to say something, then it couldn't not mean it, right? 

Oh, and I'm not trying to be snarky here, but simply point that your sentence is contradictory, that it could be taken in multiple ways, I don't understand just what you meant by it ,and that yes, I would like some sort of clarification as to what you meant by it so I can respond appropriately.

Quote

 

it's cool, and I apologize for pulling the conversation to a tangent.

It's okay. I suspect that, as far as RQG goes, we're natural enemies. I'm curious, over inquisitive, and can be something of a catalyst, and your a big RQG fan (I think, but just my assumption) and defending it. So we're bound to butt heads a bit. 

Edited June 28, 2018 by Atgxtg

[creativehum]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

It's okay. I suspect that, as far as RQG goes, we're natural enemies. I'm curious, over inquisitive, and can be something of a catalyst, and your a big RQG fan (I think, but just my assumption) and defending it. So we're bound to butt heads a bit. 

Ha ha ha... For you to say that you would have had to ignore the first part of my post. Listen, you're not making much sense to me, so I'll pass on engaging from now on. It seems the easiest way. (As I am apparently not curious, inquisitive, and some sort of lump that produces no energy, I'm sure there will be no loss for you on this.)

Edited June 28, 2018 by creativehum

[Atgxtg]

36 minutes ago, creativehum said:

Ha ha ha... For you to say that you would have had to ignore the first part of my post. Listen, you're not making much sense to me, so I'll pass on engaging from now on. It seems the easiest way. (As I am apparently not curious, inquisitive, and some sort of lump that produces no energy, I'm sure there will be no loss for you on this.)

Okay. I think this is mostly a case of misunderstandings anyway. I'm not always clear about what I'm thinking and don't always get my point across. I've had situations where I've came across the wrong way even when I was agreeing with someone. 

[Jason D]

On 6/26/2018 at 2:15 PM, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

I guess damage to parrying weapons is a real threat in RQ, with the possibility of weapons breaking. So parrying with a second weapon will keep the attacking weapon healthy. 

The rules as written do suggest a cumulative parrying penalty for each separate weapon. However my own personal approach may differ, favouring simplification to a single cumulative penalty for all weapons.

You're right. I'd forgotten about the ruling on the 2 weapon use. It's clearly repeated and stated in RQG as well.

To me this reads oddly, and may be an error?  

It doesn't feel like its  been properly integrated with the new ruling on parries, as the wording is the same as it was in RQ2, when parries were limited to one attempt per round. There is now no limit to the number of parries per melee round. In light of this I see no need to state how many parries are possible with 2 weapon use, as RQG allows multiple parries with each weapon ( per attack) Perhaps the wording needs to be changed?  Maybe @Jason Durall could comment?

 

Edit: basically what I’m trying to say is there is no need to state how many parries are possible with 2 weapon use in the new RQG. Instead perhaps just an extra clarification of whether the culmaltive -20% parry penalty applies separately for each weapon or regardless of weapon used. 

Subsequent parries get a -20% per attempt modifier, cumulative, regardless of which hand the weapon or shield you're using is in. 

 

[creativehum]

I posted a question. Then figured out the answer. 

Hadn't had my coffee yet.

Edited July 1, 2018 by creativehum

[Scott A]

Edit: welp, that conversation disappeared

Edited July 1, 2018 by Scott A

[Scott A]

2 hours ago, Jason Durall said:

Subsequent parries get a -20% per attempt modifier, cumulative, regardless of which hand the weapon or shield you're using is in. 

 

Ok, I'm going to be incredibly fussy here and ask for clarification: it's a -20% cumulative malus per subsequent parry, applied to any subsequent parry? Period, no exceptions?

So if a character parries a first attack with a shield in one hand, a second attack with a sword in the other, and a third with the shield again, the modifiers would be -0%, -20%, -40% respectively?

Edited July 1, 2018 by Scott A

[creativehum]

18 minutes ago, Scott A said:

Ok, I'm going to be incredibly fussy here and ask for clarification: it's a -20% cumulative malus per subsequent parry, applied to any subsequent parry? Period, no exceptions?

So if a character parries a first attack with a shield in one hand, a second attack with a sword in the other, and a third with the shield again, the modifiers would be -0%, -20%, -40% respectively?

I'm surprised by this as well... but it does seem to be what Jason is saying. But I'll be curious about any further clarification.

I can only assume that if one is parrying with two weapons, one can make two parries against the same attack -- the first at -0% mod, the second at -20% mod?

If not I can't figure out why anyone would ever parry with two weapons.

[Atgxtg]

3 minutes ago, creativehum said:

If not I can't figure out why anyone would ever parry with two weapons.

If one of the weapons parried earlier, and was low on hit points, I could see switching to the other one, that's about it. 

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, Jason Durall said:

Subsequent parries get a -20% per attempt modifier, cumulative, regardless of which hand the weapon or shield you're using is in. 

 

Thanks, Jason. 

[Mugen]

3 hours ago, Jason Durall said:

Subsequent parries get a -20% per attempt modifier, cumulative, regardless of which hand the weapon or shield you're using is in. 

 

I still don't know how the subsequent parries rule is supposed to work with the rule on pg 224-225 that says you can only attack and parry once, parry twice or attack twice with two weapons, which was the subject of this thread.

-Can I attack once with each weapon if I don't parry at all ?

-Can I attack at all if I parry with both weapons ?

Or should we just ignore this rule and consider a character has 1 attack per turn and unlimited parries, no matter what weapons he has in hands ?

 

 

[creativehum]

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

I still don't know how the subsequent parries rule is supposed to work with the rule on pg 224-225 that says you can only attack and parry once, parry twice or attack twice with two weapons, which was the subject of this thread.

-Can I attack once with each weapon if I don't parry at all ?

-Can I attack at all if I parry with both weapons ?

Or should we just ignore this rule and consider a character has 1 attack per turn and unlimited parries, no matter what weapons he has in hands ?

I'm confused by your confusion, as far as I understand the question.

The rule says, "Any adventurer using a weapon in each hand may use them for two attacks, two parries, or one attack and one parry."

So, as to your questions:

Quote

- Can I attack once with each weapon if I don't parry at all ?

Well, yes, right? "Any adventurer using a weapon in each hand may use them for two attacks, two parries, or one attack and one parry." Isn't that what that sentence says? Two attacks, or two parries, or one attack and one parry. You choose among those three options.

And...

Quote

- Can I attack at all if I parry with both weapons ?

Well, no, right? "Any adventurer using a weapon in each hand may use them for two attacks, two parries, or one attack and one parry." Isn't that what that sentence says? If you choose to parry with both weapons you don't get to attack.

Now, is your confusion that you might only get two parries total, and not be able to use the same weapon for multiple parries at the -20% mod?

Because at this point I can safely say, "Who knows?"

I would normally assume that of course if you are parrying you can use the parrying weapon (or both weapons, if you are parrying with both) multiple times at a cumulative -20% mod. But it does say "one parry"-- and I've hit a point of realizing that despite my best efforts to comprehend the text I honestly am not sure that what the author intended and what I'm understand the text to mean are the same thing. The phrasing states clearly that if you are fighting with two weapons you can either make one parry or two parries, which isn't how the parry rules work elsewhere. (Because the rules state elsewhere you can parry any incoming attack at a cumulative -20% mod per parry). So I don't know... and I kind of toss up my hands at this point.

[Pentallion]

On 6/26/2018 at 10:40 PM, Mugen said:

Yes, I understand this perfectly. Nevertheless, two rules co-exist in RQG, and their interaction is not clear.

-Multiple parries : you can parry multiple times with the same weapon, with a cumulative -20% after the first.

-Limitation on'the number of actions with 2 weapons : eitheir 1 attack and 1 parry with each weapon, 1 parry with each, 1 attack with each.

If you chose to attack and parry, the rule application is clear : you can attack once and parry multiple times, but parries must be with 1 weapon (with a cumulative malus) and the attack (or attacks if you split it) with the other weapon.

Attacking with two weapons seems clear to me, too : you can't parry at all. That's harsh, however, in a game where unlimited parries are allowed.

Parrying with both weapons is problematic, and there are three options :

-Put a cumulative -20% for each parry after the first, no matter what weapon you use : not a very good option considering the character can't attack.

-Put a cumulative -20% for each parry after the first parry with each weapon. Better option.

-Make a literal read of the rule, and apply the cumulative modifiers to each weapons individually (that is, if you parry three times with the same weapon then twice with the other, the malus will be 0, -20, -40, then 0 and -20). That would be my interpretation.

Another question is : how dodge interact with those rules ? Can you have 2 dodges with no cumulative modifiers, or is dodging multiple times without attacking just wasting an attack opportunity ?

It works this way:  if you attack with a weapon you cannot parry with that weapon.  If you dont attack with that weapon you can parry multiple times at -20% for each additional parry.  If you have 2 weapons the penalty is separate for rach weapon.  So parry with shield at full then parry with sword at full then parry with shield at -20% then parry with sword at -20%.

Thats how they will clarify the RAW when they get around to editing all the cut and paste errors.

Of course, I could be wrong but it doesnt seem correct that if you parry with both weapons the second parry gets -20%.  If you attack with both weapons there is no second attack penalty.

Im fairly certain they are adding Stormbringer parries.  They just let this slip past the editing.

Edited July 1, 2018 by Pentallion

[Atgxtg]

What if it's (and this is just a theory, I'm no more clear about this than anyone else), both.That is, you can make two parries, one with weapon/shield held in each hand, but the second one gets -20%, but if you do that you don't get any attacks. 

 

I think that doesn't conflict with the rules as written or with Jason's statement. I don't know if that is what was intended though. Again, I'm just tossing out a theory that might fit the criteria. I'm not making any claims on how the rule works, or if it's better or worse than any other method. 

[creativehum]

10 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

If you have 2 weapons the penalty is separate for rach weapon.  So parry with shield at full then parry with sword at full then parry with shield at -20% then parry with sword at -20%.

Thats how they will clarify the RAW when they get around to editing all the cut and paste errors.

@Jason Durall just said posted literally the opposite of this in this thread seven hours ago.

(I mean, as far as I can tell.)

[Pentallion]

7 hours ago, Jason Durall said:

Subsequent parries get a -20% per attempt modifier, cumulative, regardless of which hand the weapon or shield you're using is in. 

 

This is a maddeningly confusing answer Jason as no one asked if it mattered which HAND youre using.  The question taxing everyones noggins is: if I parry with my shield then parry with my sword then parry again with my shield then parry again with my sword, where /how do the -20% modifiers accrue/stack up?

And why does one section of the rules say you can only parry once per weapon and another say you can parry multiple times?

[Pentallion]

Lets make this simple.  Bob has a sword (70%) and a shield (60%).  4 bad guys attack Bob.  Bob decides to only parry.

What happens?

Bob decides to swing with his sword and parry with his shield.

What happens?

I tentatively assume if Bob attacks with shield and sword then he cant parry at all.

[soltakss]

24 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

Lets make this simple.  Bob has a sword (70%) and a shield (60%).  4 bad guys attack Bob.  Bob decides to only parry.

What happens?

 

Bob can parry with his Shield at 60%, 40%, 20% regardless.

However, the confusion is when he parries with his Sword after his Shield.

My gut reaction is that the Sword is its own weapon and uses a Sword Action, not the Shield Action, so should not suffer a penalty, so the first Sword parry should be at 70%.

So, Bob could Parry with Sword at 70%. Shield at 60%, Sword at 50% and Shield at 40%.

However, if the rule of -20% applies to all subsequent parry after the first, regardless of weapon, his first Shield Parry is at 40%, so Bob could Parry with Sword at 70%, Sword at 50%, Shield at 40%, and Sword at 30%. That just doesn't feel right to me.

 

Lets make this simple.  Bob has a sword (70%) and a shield (60%).  4 bad guys attack Bob.  Bob decides to only parry.

What happens?

Bob decides to swing with his sword and parry with his shield.

What happens?

I tentatively assume if Bob attacks with shield and sword then he cant parry at all.

 

Bob can parry with his Shield at 60%, 40%, 20% and then is stuck, so cannot parry the 4th opponent, unless you use the rule that he always has a 5% chance, in which case he parries at 60%, 40%, 20% and 5%.

 

I tentatively assume if Bob attacks with shield and sword then he cant parry at all.

Yes, only 2 actions a round, so having 2 attacks means he cannot parry.

 

[PhilHibbs]

25 minutes ago, soltakss said:

My gut reaction is that the Sword is its own weapon and uses a Sword Action, not the Shield Action, so should not suffer a penalty, so the first Sword parry should be at 70%.

I agree, that's how I'll be ruling it.

[creativehum]

39 minutes ago, soltakss said:

My gut reaction is that the Sword is its own weapon and uses a Sword Action, not the Shield Action, so should not suffer a penalty, so the first Sword parry should be at 70%.

 

11 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I agree, that's how I'll be ruling it.

I'm with you two.

Out of curiosity, how would you handle someone wielding two swords and parrying with both in a given round?

Both are Sword Action, and yet one is Off-Hand, which to my thinking still makes it something different and thus each should have their full value for each sword's parry.

[PhilHibbs]

5 minutes ago, creativehum said:

Out of curiosity, how would you handle someone wielding two swords and parrying with both in a given round?

Both are Sword Action, and yet one is Off-Hand, which to my thinking still makes it something different and thus each should have their full value for each sword's parry.

I think any serious two sword warrior will have a separate skill with each, so this will seldom be an issue. I'd allow a full chance attack and a full chance parry, if that's what the player wants their character's style to be, but they'd be at half chance for off-hand attack and main-hand parry.

Edited July 1, 2018 by PhilHibbs

[Mugen]

 

3 hours ago, creativehum said:

Because at this point I can safely say, "Who knows?

Well, I assume J. Durall knows, and that's why I'm asking him further explanations