Armour and Combat questions

[Dano_13]

Hi there,

I have a few questions on combat that I was hoping someone can answer.


1) Why did RQ2 change to Combat Actions, over strike rank? What is the advantage of the former over the latter? I can see how CA are more deadly (after you have used up your CA you are helpless) - was this the driving force behind it? How do most people find CAs work as compared to the old SRs?

2) Why are Armour points for items so tiny? It looks like 20% of the blows from a dagger are able to damage a great axe. Also - why is worn armour so light now on the Armour Points. This just makes combat so much deadlier, which was my main problem with the original RQ.

3) On page 86 of the core book it talks about how Parrying blows is contingent on the relative size of the attacking weapon vs the parrying one. How do the items Armour points fit in here? Are items assumed to not sustain any damage when they parry, or if my parrying weapon only deflects half damage, does the non-deflected damage have to get past the armour points before it can harm the parrying combatant?

4) The notes on Parrying on Page 84 baffle me. It says that a person can choose to commit a parry for their CA - but that even if they don't, they can still parry a blow on their CA since parries are reactive. So why would I ever commit to parrying an attack if I am always able to 'Wait and See'?

Thanks in advance

Dan

 

[ledpup]

Hi Dan,

I'll have a go.

1) RQII has both strike rank and combat actions. They're different things. The purpose of combat actions is two-fold. Firstly, and most importantly, it provides a mechanism for ganging up. Secondly, it supports a way to cope with two weapons and weapon and shield. Combat actions are kind of clunky, but I definitely like what they do.

Strike rank is still around. It determines who goes first. Personally, I don't really like the idea. It's faster and easier to go clockwise around the table than writing down or remembering a turn order. But whatever.

2) Oh man, do we disagree! I don't think combat is even deadly enough with RuneQuest II. I want to feel like every decision, every dice roll matters. If you go down in one blow, so be it! But these are all just numbers. If you don't like them, change them.

3) Parrying doesn't damage weapons. Sure, IRL it might, sometimes, but that's complex to model. RuneQuest II is already too complex IMO.

4) Firstly, decide if you want to parry. If you say "yes, I'll parry" and the character misses, don't spend a CA. If you say "yes, I'll parry" and they hit, spend a CA. If you say "no, bring it on" be prepared to lose that limb.

Cya
Patrick

 

[Dan True]

2) Why are Armour points for items so tiny? It looks like 20% of the blows from a dagger are able to damage a great axe. Also - why is worn armour so light now on the Armour Points. This just makes combat so much deadlier, which was my main problem with the original RQ.

Well, in my experience from running combats - people with, say a full plate, are hard to take down. Not impossible, but tough. Most weapons do averagely around 4-5 damage on average. If you have AP 6 from a full plate, you are gonna take a lot of hits to take down. But, if you're fighting one person in full plate against 4-5 players, you are still going down. Numbers > Armour. But if you're well armoured, you will probably take 2-3 hits more before going down than if you hadn't any armour.

To give an example, my players were fighting a large stone wolf in a House Cannith forge. The stone wolf had AP 8 all over - but my players still got it down in 5 rounds I think - mostly from a well-placed critical, a good Impale roll (Impale is awesome!) and tripping it to keeping it prone. However, had it had only AP 4 and there had been 4 wolves, they would have been in serious trouble.

3) On page 86 of the core book it talks about how Parrying blows is contingent on the relative size of the attacking weapon vs the parrying one. How do the items Armour points fit in here? Are items assumed to not sustain any damage when they parry, or if my parrying weapon only deflects half damage, does the non-deflected damage have to get past the armour points before it can harm the parrying combatant?

I believe the armour points are mostly for use when someone actively tries to destroy your weapon/shield. However, you can easily incorporate weapon damage from parrying - the creators of MRQ2 just didn't do it because the game system is already very complex - and most players and GMs properly wouldn't find it all that funny to constantly have to repair one's weapons anyway.

But, the basis for an easy-to-house-rule system is there for the taking.

4) The notes on Parrying on Page 84 baffle me. It says that a person can choose to commit a parry for their CA - but that even if they don't, they can still parry a blow on their CA since parries are reactive. So why would I ever commit to parrying an attack if I am always able to 'Wait and See'?

Well, you HAVE to use at least one CA per Strike Rank anyway (else one could just save up CA until everyone was done, and then start killing). So, you might as well take 'Parry' instead of'Do Nothing' if you have nothing to do. However, it does have some uses. Take the following example:

The Player is armed with a Longsword and nothing else. He is standing 7 metres from an NPC, trying to kill him. The NPC is armed with a Cutlass and a Hand Crossbow. They both have 1 CA left - the player has spent his CAs on moving his full speed, and he thus cannot move any more this round, the NPC has spent his CAs reloading the hand crossbow. It is the players strike rank count now:

He can choose 'Do Nothing': If he chooses do nothing, he wastes his last CA and will thus be defenseless from an incoming blow. Not a good choice.
He can choose 'Parry': He can stand ready an await a strike. If the NPC charges him, he can therefore parry him. But if the NPC decides to shoot, he is caught unaware of the shot and therefore can't evade (he can't parry the bolt with a sword).
He can choose 'Evade': He can choose evade, in which case he will have to evade regardless of the NPC shoots him, or charges him (unless he misses of course)- in which case he cannot attack on his next CA.

Of course if he had 2 CAs avaible, he could choose 'Evade' and then when the NPC charges, spend 1 CA to parry.

So, the player will, just as in real life in that kind of situations, have to decide in a split second if he should prepare for a parry or an evade. Both has it's uses and disadvantages. The NPC too will have to decide what the PC prepared for, and then try actively to do the other.

In this case above most NPCs would properly shoot, and most PCS would properly evade. But a sneaky/tactical minded NPC could use this to his advantage, and therefore charge instead - keeping his foe at a disadvantage and conserving the shot for later.

Hope that cleared up something.

- Dan

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Hi Dan, I'll try to bolster ledpup's answers.

1) Why did RQ2 change to Combat Actions, over strike rank? What is the advantage of the former over the latter? I can see how CA are more deadly (after you have used up your CA you are helpless) - was this the driving force behind it? How do most people find CAs work as compared to the old SRs?

I'm not sure why variable Combat Actions were originally introduced, but I'll try to explain why we retained them. In most previous BRP based games everyone gained 2 actions per round, usually attack/parry or parry/dodge. Although this eased book-keeping it did tend to cause problems when being outnumbered or when a creature with multiple limbs attacked. It also tended towards a very repetitive grind.

Making the number of CAs variable smooths out some of these problems, especially that of being ganged up on. Whilst 2 on 1 was almost a death sentence in RQ2/3 unless the opponents were incompetently skilled, MRQ2 permits a warrior of above average Characteristics and using a shield to hold off two average foes - something that is completely reasonable in real life.

Of course, depending on the number and quality of foes you can still be outnumbered and run out of CAs, likewise if you have the initiative you can gamble and try to take out an opponent before they can take advantage of the fact. Taking on superior numbers is a risk, but with Combat Manoeuvres added to the mix, its not quite so cut and paste as it was in previous versions of the rules - and this way you can more likely survive with a good skill and hero points than having to rely on massive Protection and Shield spells to get you through. A good thing if playing a historical or non-Gloranthan fantasy campaign.

Monsters too can now have multiple CAs within the rules without making their number of attacks arbitrary.

Strike Rank has been retained to allow fights to flow back and forth. You see the dynamics of this especially when Strike Ranks are penalised by armour. This allows less encumbered foes to strike quicker and more often during an exchange. An unarmoured Robin Hood is likely to attack twice and parry once against the chainmail wearing castle guard, who due to his armour will lose the initiative and be forced to parry twice and only attack once.

2) Why are Armour points for items so tiny? It looks like 20% of the blows from a dagger are able to damage a great axe. Also - why is worn armour so light now on the Armour Points. This just makes combat so much deadlier, which was my main problem with the original RQ.

That is odd. Inanimate object armour points were hiked up so that most things were very difficult to harm unless you had a weapon or tool. A dagger affecting an axe is a bit of a loophole in the weapon stats, but even so it'll still take the dagger a considerable amount of time for an average guy to whittle through the axe haft (40+ attacks) so he'll probably be dead before you finish. The other (larger) weapons are a bit more reasonable.

Worn armour has fewer APs for two reasons. Firstly although the art didn't support the intent, these are supposed to be Bronze Age style armours, with less padding, lots of gaps and exposed areas. If you want something like Medieval period full plate (which is effectively nearly immune to single handed weapons) then raise it to 8AP like I did in Wraith Recon.

Secondly lower APs prevents a runaway economy of weapon and spell damage. If players find they cannot damage armoured foes they will start taking all the biggest weapons and buff like crazy. This is all well and good except when the GM does the same thing back, gets a crit and chooses Ignore Armour, at which point limbs start flying. Lower APs means you don't need to do this in order to harm foes, and thus prevents a great number of unnecessary Major Wounds.

3) On page 86 of the core book it talks about how Parrying blows is contingent on the relative size of the attacking weapon vs the parrying one. How do the items Armour points fit in here? Are items assumed to not sustain any damage when they parry, or if my parrying weapon only deflects half damage, does the non-deflected damage have to get past the armour points before it can harm the parrying combatant?

Weapon APs are there in case you suffer a Damage Weapon fumble or Damage Weapon combat manoeuvre. Weapon breakage is rare in real life unless its the weapon being targeted rather than its wielder.

In MRQ2 a parry is modelling the technique of avoiding, deflecting and pre-emptively engaging an incoming weapon to redirect its force. Its not a static block per se. If your parry is overcome by the force of the blow, then normally the weapon is moved rather than being damaged.

4) The notes on Parrying on Page 84 baffle me. It says that a person can choose to commit a parry for their CA - but that even if they don't, they can still parry a blow on their CA since parries are reactive. So why would I ever commit to parrying an attack if I am always able to 'Wait and See'?

It allows you to potentially perform a defensive Combat Manoeuvre which can turn the table on your attacker. In MRQ2 you can win fights by simply parrying, without ever needing to attack. So you can save the CA (good if outnumbered) or use one to possibly gain an advantage.

 

[ledpup]

Strike Rank has been retained to allow fights to flow back and forth. You see the dynamics of this especially when Strike Ranks are penalised by armour. This allows less encumbered foes to strike quicker and more often during an exchange. An unarmoured Robin Hood is likely to attack twice and parry once against the chainmail wearing castle guard, who due to his armour will lose the initiative and be forced to parry twice and only attack once.

Oh, I didn't realise this emerging feature. Clever. Our fights have been much more hectic than one on one, so it has been difficult to observe in play. That's a good reason to retain strike rank.

 

[Dano_13]

Hi there,

Thanks for the great responses. Please note - I am not complaining here or dissing the game - I am just discussing stuff and feeling out what stuff I want to keep, and which I will mod.

1) I am still not clear on why a player needs to say "I will parry". If parries are always reactive (i.e. as long as you have CAs left you got a shot at parrying any incoming attack), then why would I ever commit to a parry? It seems that "Doing nothing" with reserve CAs left, and saying "I will parry" amount to exactly the same thing. Maybe I am just confused by semantics here.

2) I see what you are saying about armour and forcing an arms race, but in my experience my players ALWAYS figure out how to do the most damage and pursue that path regardless of whether they are affecting opponents or not. The other side of the coin is that if armour is less protective that affects PCs as well as NPCs so more blood will be spilt. This is fine if you want a gritty realistic game, but I find it annoying as a GM when the party needs to leave the dungeon, go back to town so that someone's limb can be regrown. But then, this Armour thing is easily moddable.

Another question I have concerns combat maneuvers. Personally I find this addition to be worth the price of the entire new edition. Anyway - I noticed that there is no type of weapon attached to "Bash". Does this mean that I can Bash with an arrow or a whip? I will probably mod it so that only smashing/slashing weapons can Bash, but I just want to make sure I am not overlooking something (Plus its fun to talk about this stuff).

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Another question I have concerns combat maneuvers. Personally I find this addition to be worth the price of the entire new edition. Anyway - I noticed that there is no type of weapon attached to "Bash". Does this mean that I can Bash with an arrow or a whip? I will probably mod it so that only smashing/slashing weapons can Bash, but I just want to make sure I am not overlooking something (Plus its fun to talk about this stuff).

Technically it can be any type of weapon since it depends more on the technique of the blow than the weapon itself. Brute force is better modelled by the Knockback mechanism. So things like whips or arrows realistically have little behind them, but work by catching the foe off balance or forcing them to reflexively recoil.

Hope that helps.

 

[ThatGuy]

So, in a game recently, I came across a "cultural" situation in which the Parry CA would be used.

The character couldn't attack first in combat, due to vows made to his god. The vows also supplied the gift of an extra CA, so it was in his interest to parry the first blow and save his advantageous extra CA until the last CA of combat and strike a CA-less foe.

I couldn't really see how it would work before, but now I can see that it covers certain "contingencies."

 

[Dan True]

Hi there,

Thanks for the great responses. Please note - I am not complaining here or dissing the game - I am just discussing stuff and feeling out what stuff I want to keep, and which I will mod.

Hehe, that's cool. This is a pretty laid-back forum, where we wont bite because you ask questions

1) I am still not clear on why a player needs to say "I will parry". If parries are always reactive (i.e. as long as you have CAs left you got a shot at parrying any incoming attack), then why would I ever commit to a parry? It seems that "Doing nothing" with reserve CAs left, and saying "I will parry" amount to exactly the same thing. Maybe I am just confused by semantics here.

I'll try again then I had a bit of trouble getting this myself when I started.

Every turn when it becomes your turn to act (i.e. your strike rank count) you HAVE to use a CA, you cannot choose NOT to use a CA (you can use it to delay though, which has its uses).

That means that if you have only 1 CA left, you need to use it for something. If you say "I do nothing", then you spend the CA doing nothing. That means that when the enemy tries to hit you, you will have spent the last CA and thus not be able to parry. Of course if you had more CAs than 1 left when you chose to do nothing, you would still have enough to do a reactive parry.
However, if you had said "I will ready a parry" instead of "I do nothing" then you would be ready to parry any incoming blows directed at you until your next Strike Rank count. However, you would not be prepared for missile attacks or Giant Clubs too large for you to parry - and so you wouldn't be able to evade (think of it as a person readying himself for an attack, and suddenly he realises the enemy shoots him instead of the Giant simply steps on him).
And if you had chosen "I will ready a evade" and the enemy hits you, you cannot chance your CA back from Evade to parry, because you've already used it.

The above is clearest when you have only 1 CA left, but the following can maybe also shed some light on it in general.

2 Humans, A&B, are fighting, both have 3 CA and have been fighting for some rounds.

Round 1:
A: attacks B 1 CA
B: declares a Parry in reaction 1 CA
B: attacks A 1 CA
A: declares a Parry in reaction 1 CA
A: attacks B 1 CA
B: declares a Parry in reaction 1 CA

Both are out of CAs, so the round ends.
Round 2:
B realises that he cannot get through A's thick armour and magical protection, and besides he is afraid that any moment A's nearby friend will strike at him, so he decides to stall and keep himself alive to try and tire A. B's own friends might soon arrive too, and help him.

A: attacks B 1 CA
B: declares a Parry in reaction 1 CA
B: Now declares a 'Parry' * 1 CA
A: attacks B 1 CA
B: uses the formerly declared parry *
B: Now declares a 'Parry' ** 1 CA
A: attacks B 1 CA
B: uses the formerly declared parry **

If he had chosen the 'Do Nothing' action, as you thought is equivalent, then the Round 2 would look like this:

A: attacks B 1 CA
B: declares a Parry in reaction 1 CA
B: Now declares a 'Do Nothing' 1 CA
A: attacks B 1 CA
B: declares a parry in reaction 1 CA
B: Has no more CA left, and is thus screwed.
A: attacks B 1 CA

Is the difference clearer now? Normally you will not use the 'Do Nothing' action in direct combat, you might as well ready a parry or an evade.

So, you HAVE to spend a CA on your turn. The reactive parrys /evades are spend on top of these.

- Dan

 

[DamonJynx]

Also, just because you declare a parry against an attack, you have to do this before the attack dice are rolled, doesn't mean you have to use it. If the attack misses, you can opt not to use (roll) your parry and thereby save your CA. However, if you chose not to use your parry, you also give up the possibility of gaining a defensive CM.

It then becomes a strategic choice - use the CA and hope to get a defensive CM, or save the CA for later.

As I said on another thread, the management of CA is critical in this game system and can have consequences far beyond what you expect.