Two weapons and multiple parries

[hanataka]

 

Hi, Jason.

I am further confused by your answer.

p.224 Two Weapon Use:  Any adventurer using a weapon in each hand may use them for two attacks, two parries, or one attack and one parry.

In the old RQ2/RQ3 rule, this sentence meant the following.

• If I use both weapons to attack, I can't parry that round.
• If I use both weapons to parry, I can't attack that round.

Is this the same in RQG?   If so, what is the advantage of "two parries" option?

 

 

 

[creativehum]

I am so glad the confusion on this point isn't just me!

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

44 minutes ago, hanataka said:

 

Hi, Jason.

I am further confused by your answer.

p.224 Two Weapon Use:  Any adventurer using a weapon in each hand may use them for two attacks, two parries, or one attack and one parry.

In the old RQ2/RQ3 rule, this sentence meant the following.

• If I use both weapons to attack, I can't parry that round.
• If I use both weapons to parry, I can't attack that round.

Is this the same in RQG?   If so, what is the advantage of "two parries" option?

 

 

 

Yes precisely - following @Jason Durallclarifications I think there is gathering consensus on this point which needs clarification. 

[creativehum]

Actually, I have one more follow up question. Which might have been already answered. Or might be errata already dealt with. But some of this text is like a blob of mercury... every time I think I'm about to nail it down, it moves again, and I lose track of whatever clarifying rulings had been made before.

On page 197 we find this sentence:

"An adventurer may attack and parry with the same weapon in the same melee round."

Is this true?

Is it true when fighting with one weapon, but not with two?

Or must a weapon be used to either attack or parry in a given round?

Edited July 3, 2018 by creativehum

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, creativehum said:

I am so glad the confusion on this point isn't just me!

You got company. I thought it was some sort of  Befuddle spell with multiple targets and Extension. Or some sort of Nysalor riddle. 

Edited July 3, 2018 by Atgxtg

[PhilHibbs]

I am worried about the calculations involved, especially in combination with high skills.

I have100% parry. I am being attacked by 3 enemies with 111%, 123% and 109%. What are my three parry chances?

I am attacking, my opponents has 115% but they are on their second parry. Do you reduce their parry first so there is no 100% adjustment, or do I take a 15% reduction for their skill?

[Scott A]

1 minute ago, PhilHibbs said:

I have100% parry. I am being attacked by 3 enemies with 111%, 123% and 109%. What are my three parry chances?

Assuming that you parry in the order presented, it'd be (100 - 11)%, (100 - 20 - 23)%, and (100 - 40 - 9)%

3 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I am attacking, my opponents has 115% but they are on their second parry. Do you reduce their parry first so there is no 100% adjustment, or do I take a 15% reduction for their skill? 

I'd say that you only care about the final parrying value, which would be 95% and thus wouldn't trigger the over 100% rules.

[creativehum]

1 minute ago, Scott A said:

Assuming that you parry in the order presented, it'd be (100 - 11)%, (100 - 20 - 23)%, and (100 - 40 - 9)%

I'd say that you only care about the final parrying value, which would be 95% and thus wouldn't trigger the over 100% rules.

Agreed.

I'm not sure what Jason would say. But that's how I'd rule.

My instinct is always to go for the interpretation that is easiest and moves things along. It helps to remove any worrying.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

2 hours ago, creativehum said:

"An adventurer may attack and parry with the same weapon in the same melee round."

Is this true?

Is it true when fighting with one weapon, but not with two?

Or must a weapon be used to either attack or parry in a given round?

We must cast off this befuddle spell!

Yes it’s true! Those are the new parry rules. One weapon can both attack and parry in a melee round. And parry an unlimited number of times but with   -20 penalty

Two Weapon Use is the contentious issue, which at present is suggesting that you can’t make two attacks and parry in a melee round. Though it appears that Jason is perhaps hinting that you can. 

It’s all now pointing towards the following sentence, which I think has been mistakenly included in RQG. Waiting for confirmation from @Jason Durall on this

4 hours ago, hanataka said:

p.224 Two Weapon Use:  Any adventurer using a weapon in each hand may use them for two attacks, two parries, or one attack and one parry.

 

[styopa]

What I see it boiling down to is that there end up being few mechanical incentives for wielding a second weapon (ie the possibility of a second attack), parrying simply isn't one of them.

I think people are finding this intuitively hard to cope with particularly when the weapon list bothers to call out a "parrying" dagger and give it extra AP.*  (shrug) it's a simplification like removing the separate parry skill. 

PERSONALLY I'm more interested in the long-term impact of the repeated ability to parry - particularly for characters in the area of 100% skill where they reasonably have a chance to successfully parry (or dodge) 3+ times a round - on the balance between offense and defense.  I'm going to be curious on how this plays out for people long-familiar with RQ2 or RQ3 and the lethality of combat.

*the idea of a purpose-designed parrying dagger itself seems fairly anachronistic to a bronze age setting, as much as the rapier (yes, long discussion about bronze age rapiers already done here, but as per Lindybeige they were substantially different than text description in RQG)?  Then again there are arbalests, and other anachronistic stuff here anyway.

[creativehum]

1 hour ago, styopa said:

I think people are finding this intuitively hard to cope with particularly when the weapon list bothers to call out a "parrying" dagger and give it extra AP.*  (shrug) it's a simplification like removing the separate parry skill.

For me this isn't it at all. I came across a passage in the rules (a passage that has been quoted repeatedly above) that told me two weapons would let me parry with both weapons -- but doing so would be at the cost of my attacks. So clearly there would be some advantage to parrying with both weapons. But there isn't. And that's weird. And I think that's the core issues.

[Furry Fella]

16 hours ago, creativehum said:

Hi Furry, 

A couple of questions for you:

Can you talk to me which RQ2 rules you would be reverting to? (Combat? Magic? ...?) And which rules rules you'd be taking from HQG?

Basically combat. The groups I have been with had already started applying a general quality of result comparison. The approach tabulated in RQG is complete but overly complex and prescriptive to me. I do like and will retain the successive parry penalty but there I will be taking the "handedness" into account. I've never been a fan of Dodge as my own experience and observation strongly suggest that it is far to generous.

On shields this is entirely a style thing as is weapon fragility. Ultra heroic oral traditions have breaking weapons and hacked up shields and rent armour in excess. Terrestrial accounts, the records of re-enactors and experimental archaeology and related expertise strongly suggest otherwise as does most of the finds record. Me I've always liked a slightly grimmer side and some grit  to my fantasy and heroism. 

A difference in quality of success we always played as producing damage to weapon or shield if applicable. Normal strikes even if overcoming "protection needed to radically ruin something. Except in limited periods and locals of really quite spectacularly crappy production  military kit doesn't wear out by minor accumulation - no attrition to breakage. Again with a 12 second combat round an attack is seldom ever a single blow so driving the defending weapon or shield out of line, numbing the arm or similar is every bit as likely (and fits with accounts of combat and of the grittier re-enactors). 

Hope this helps?

[Mugen]

15 hours ago, Jason Durall said:

My apologies if the language is vague or misleading. It seems the confusion revolves around two-weapon fighting. I don't have my printout handy so I can't give page refs. 

1. You can attack with multiple weapons multiple times in a round so long as you have the SRs.  

2. You can parry an attack only once, using one weapon. If you like, you can describe it as doing some funky X crossing your swords in a scissors or whatever, but basically it's one weapon parrying and one supporting the other. 

3. The cumulative parry modifier is agnostic to the weapon/hand you're using. We found in our playtesting that treating the modifiers separately was too fiddly ("Which hand is at what modifier now?"), that favored two-weapon fighting to the point where it seemed to defy the entire history of human melee combat, and that it de-emphasized the dangers of being overwhelmed by superior numbers in a fight. 

Does this clarify things? 

Can we agree that the rule on page 224 should be ignored and deleted from the book, then ?

Edit: I'm speaking of the rule that says that with two weapons, you can attack twice, parry twice, or attack and parry once).

Edited July 4, 2018 by Mugen

[Furry Fella]

Just now, Mugen said:

Can we agree that the rule on page 224 should be ignored and deleted from the book, then ?

Unfortunately not from me. To me page 224 is the correct and over riding position. I would interpret it as 2 unmodified parries - i.e. at full normal affect. As the two positions on offense and defense are in balance.

[Mugen]

24 minutes ago, Furry Fella said:

Unfortunately not from me. To me page 224 is the correct and over riding position. I would interpret it as 2 unmodified parries - i.e. at full normal affect. As the two positions on offense and defense are in balance.

That was my first understanding too. But I'd like to know how the official rules should work.

I already have a houserule that works concerning multiple attacks and parries in BRP, and am not very interested in creating a new one.

[hanataka]

The rules on page 224 gave us all-out attack and all-out defense option (in RQ2/RQ3).
I will be very sad if it is deleted.

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

34 minutes ago, hanataka said:

The rules on page 224 gave us all-out attack and all-out defense option (in RQ2/RQ3).
I will be very sad if it is deleted.

The thing is with the RQG rule change on parries and subsequent parries we already have multiple parry options. Jason has confirmed that with 2 weapon use you only have one parry attempt against an attack. There is therefore no need to state you are allowed 2 parries as per the rule on p224. It’s apparent now that that rule is a relic from RQ2, and needs to be reworded.

All that needs to be stated is that you can make 1 or 2 attacks

Edited July 4, 2018 by Paid a bod yn dwp

[creativehum]

4 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

All that needs to be stated is that you can make 1 or 2 attacks

It is early. And I haven't had my coffee yet. So I might be completely wrong about this...

But do the rules even need to say this?

Given the direction the rules seem to be going, if every parry accumulates a -20%, and if every weapon can attack and parry in a given round, why would anyone with two weapons do anything but attack twice and then parry? (Whether they parry with one sword or both, it doesn't matter.) Why would anyone make only one attack, ever, if armed with two weapons?

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

5 minutes ago, creativehum said:

But do the rules even need to say this?

I’d say that the ruling doesn’t need to say anything about parry, as it follows the same rule used with a single weapon. There’s no difference.

Perhaps it could mention that the defender should nominate which weapon he is leading the parry with for purposes of damage given/received? 

I would say it’s important to mention that a two weapon user can attack twice ( providing strike ranks allow) 

[creativehum]

Those are valuable things to say.

My post was really about my realization that the passage on p. 224 is weirdly crippled into utter uselessness on all fronts once one considers the rest of the rules/rulings at hand. Any choice of consequence for attacking or defending when fighting two handed is gone -- whereas that passage suggests there is a significant choice to be made.

[PhilHibbs]

10 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

I would say it’s important to mention that a two weapon user can attack twice ( providing strike ranks allow) 

So all shield users should bash with their shield, because there is no reason not to (other than risking damage to the shield)?

[creativehum]

6 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

So all shield users should bash with their shield, because there is no reason not to (other than risking damage to the shield)?

It comes down to which special rules are in effect and which, perhaps, don't belong in the text at all.

The text tells us that a shield can be used for an attack on SR 12, which removes the possibility of using it for a parry. So if that rule is still in effect, there is a reason not to attack -- you don't get to parry.

p. 219

Shield Attacks

It is possible to attack with a shield, giving up the chance of parrying that round. The chance to attack is identical to that for parrying—shield training covers offensive as well as defensive usage. Attacking can be done with the front of the shield or the boss (a large metal knob in the center) or with the edge. A frequent tactic for shield-users is to attempt to knock opponents backwards or off their feet (see Knockback, page 224).

All shields are weapon type C (Crushing) and do crushing damage when special or critical successes are rolled.

Edited July 4, 2018 by creativehum

[Paid a bod yn dwp]

5 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

 

17 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

I would say it’s important to mention that a two weapon user can attack twice ( providing strike ranks allow) 

So all shield users should bash with their shield, because there is no reason not to (other than risking damage to the shield)?

 

No. Shields have their own ruling on this. They can only use parry or attack in a round, not both 

[deleriad]

29 minutes ago, creativehum said:

It comes down to which special rules are in effect and which, perhaps, don't belong in the text at all.

The text tells us that a shield can be used for an attack on SR 12, which removes the possibility of using it for a parry. So if that rule is still in effect, there is a reason not to attack -- you don't get to parry.

p. 219

Shield Attacks

It is possible to attack with a shield, giving up the chance of parrying that round. The chance to attack is identical to that for parrying—shield training covers offensive as well as defensive usage. Attacking can be done with the front of the shield or the boss (a large metal knob in the center) or with the edge. A frequent tactic for shield-users is to attempt to knock opponents backwards or off their feet (see Knockback, page 224).

All shields are weapon type C (Crushing) and do crushing damage when special or critical successes are rolled.

Literally, and again I don't know if this is *meant* to be the case, attacking with a shield prevents you from parrying at all during that round. I presume it is meant to mean that you can't parry with the shield you're using for the attack but presumably can still parry with something else (and/or replace the parry with a dodge.) 

 

[creativehum]

3 hours ago, deleriad said:

Literally, and again I don't know if this is *meant* to be the case, attacking with a shield prevents you from parrying at all during that round. I presume it is meant to mean that you can't parry with the shield you're using for the attack but presumably can still parry with something else (and/or replace the parry with a dodge.) 

 

*sigh*

Yeah. I think the rule is supposed to mean you give up your chance to parry with the shield. But I've already been wrong a couple of times after really trying to grok the text.

But you are right. What the rule states is that if you attack with the shield you give up the chance to parry with any method that round. 

Edited July 4, 2018 by creativehum