Basic Combat Mechanics Question
- Thread starter glutgrim
- Start date
Caterpillar
Mongoose
I have a question about the closing. The rule says that the character can not parry and "Characters that have been closed upon by opponents with a shorter reach are at a serious tactical disadvantage. Their only escape is to disengage from combat and in so doing, restore the original range between them. This works in exactly the same manner as closing. To disengage requires a combat action (again, if not taking advantage of a Combat Manoeuvre) and the opponent must decide .........". But if I can not parry as I get a Combat Manoeuvre? Can I attack?
You can use an unarmed attack, but you can't attack with your weapon. Also, you can use Evade to get out of the way of an attack; you just won't be allowed to attack with your next CA (which, since you can't always expect a critical, or for your opponent to fail, you'll probably end up having to use to disengage anyway).
So yeah; if you have a long weapon, carry a short sword as well; good for enclosed spaces and when someone gets too close for you to use your main weapon.
So yeah; if you have a long weapon, carry a short sword as well; good for enclosed spaces and when someone gets too close for you to use your main weapon.
Jujitsudave
Mongoose
Whoever made the CA system for this game is a genius. That's like taking a great steak (Runequest) and wrapping it in bacon (CA s ). Does that make sense?
Caterpillar
Mongoose
Jujitsudave said:
Combat Action can be a useful system to combat sequence, but the problem is (i think) if you prefer a simple combat system whit less rules and a lot of fun; or a "tentatively" reality combat system, with complex and choreographic combat session but a (some time) tedious rules. :?:
Jujitsudave
Mongoose
Yes, but that is the beauty of it. It's not complex. It does away with every other game's system of arbitrary numerical penalties and is a fast flowing dynamic system.
Yes, I agree with this assessment. I had this discussion with our gaming group last weekend. I explained that combat as-is took a long time to resolve, and led to slow movement of the story line.
I spent a couple weeks reading RQ materials online to see if there were house rules or other philosophies on combat. I found examples of both, but it didn't lead me to the kind of conclusion I expected.
In the forums, someone mentioned using general hit points for lackeys (trollkin, street thugs in 3rd age Pavis, etc.) so that the group didn't spend a lot of time with heroic abilities and combat manoeuvres on cannon fodder. I also recalled how we used to all burn up our CA's (or whatever they were called) in 3E D&D and how that could be a time-saver.
Then I came across this web site:
http://weareallus.com/
It's the web page of Greg Stafford. In it, I came across 3 articles by Greg, Ray Turney, and Steve Perrin, the original creators of RuneQuest and Glorantha. The interviews were entitled, "How RuneQuest was Made".
Here, the game designers showed how they were not getting what they wanted out of the combat mechanic used in the D&D of the 70's, so because some of them were involved in the Society for Creative Anachronisms, where they frequently simulated medieval combat. They took those practical skills and made the RuneQuest combat system - a system where it became important where and how you hit someone with a sword. It was a system that demonstrated that it wasn't enough to simply beat on someone until they were down, but instead that it was possible to take down an opponent with a well-aimed blow to the right location.
These rules added a level of cinematic realism to the game. And this is where I got derailed from my goal of trying to find a way to simplify combat for our RuneQuest game - to alter it too far towards simplicity robs the game of its essence, it's character.
At this point, instead of finding ways to speed up combat by cutting corners and using house rules, I find myself embracing the RuneQuest combat system for what it is - a well thought-out system that portrays the lethality of combat.
A perk of this system is that it makes for far better stories later on. "Yerno Hellscream fatally wounded his opponent with a well-placed sword stroke to the junk," reads much better than "You hit the orc for 12. He drops."
In any case, how you and your group choose to handle it is up to you; as always, Your Game May Vary.
Many thanks to our GM for putting up with us for as long as he has. 8)
I spent a couple weeks reading RQ materials online to see if there were house rules or other philosophies on combat. I found examples of both, but it didn't lead me to the kind of conclusion I expected.
In the forums, someone mentioned using general hit points for lackeys (trollkin, street thugs in 3rd age Pavis, etc.) so that the group didn't spend a lot of time with heroic abilities and combat manoeuvres on cannon fodder. I also recalled how we used to all burn up our CA's (or whatever they were called) in 3E D&D and how that could be a time-saver.
Then I came across this web site:
http://weareallus.com/
It's the web page of Greg Stafford. In it, I came across 3 articles by Greg, Ray Turney, and Steve Perrin, the original creators of RuneQuest and Glorantha. The interviews were entitled, "How RuneQuest was Made".
Here, the game designers showed how they were not getting what they wanted out of the combat mechanic used in the D&D of the 70's, so because some of them were involved in the Society for Creative Anachronisms, where they frequently simulated medieval combat. They took those practical skills and made the RuneQuest combat system - a system where it became important where and how you hit someone with a sword. It was a system that demonstrated that it wasn't enough to simply beat on someone until they were down, but instead that it was possible to take down an opponent with a well-aimed blow to the right location.
These rules added a level of cinematic realism to the game. And this is where I got derailed from my goal of trying to find a way to simplify combat for our RuneQuest game - to alter it too far towards simplicity robs the game of its essence, it's character.
At this point, instead of finding ways to speed up combat by cutting corners and using house rules, I find myself embracing the RuneQuest combat system for what it is - a well thought-out system that portrays the lethality of combat.
A perk of this system is that it makes for far better stories later on. "Yerno Hellscream fatally wounded his opponent with a well-placed sword stroke to the junk," reads much better than "You hit the orc for 12. He drops."
In any case, how you and your group choose to handle it is up to you; as always, Your Game May Vary.
Many thanks to our GM for putting up with us for as long as he has. 8)
Chrönos said:
That's always been a pet peeve of mine with both games and movies in general. There's a blatant lack of understanding of the reality and brutality of combat, which to me eliminates the possibility of suspension of disbelief. This might have something to do with the fact that I practice traditional (i.e. 500 years old) martial arts...
A lot of people also vastly underestimate how much power someone with some training can generate... and even more, how much of that power is derived from physical strength... but that's another story.
I recommend to everyone the ancient/medieval episodes of the Spike TV series "Deadliest Warrior," which makes quite clear the lethality of even the simplest Iron Age weapon and the value of armor. As the episode with the Roman Centurion made clear, even a simple shortsword can lop off limbs with gay abandon (so all those D&D Grognards who laugh at the unrealism of Runequest [any edition] for the number of limbs that fall off are, simply, idiots). Armor stops that, but not for long. Basically, any ancient-style combat should be short unless the combatants are good at parrying with weapon or shield.
Especially recommended are the episodes with the Spartan vs Samurai (Lunar/Dara Happan vs Kralori) and Persian Immortal vs Celt (Pelorian vs Orlanthi). Many others well worth your time.
Of course, if you're taking the Heroquest approach where PCs routinely run over treetops and jump on to their own thrown javelins (while, err, guarding sheep) then combat needs a different philosophy. But I like the roots of RQ and the realism it represents.
Especially recommended are the episodes with the Spartan vs Samurai (Lunar/Dara Happan vs Kralori) and Persian Immortal vs Celt (Pelorian vs Orlanthi). Many others well worth your time.
Of course, if you're taking the Heroquest approach where PCs routinely run over treetops and jump on to their own thrown javelins (while, err, guarding sheep) then combat needs a different philosophy. But I like the roots of RQ and the realism it represents.
Ultor said:
And anyone who thinks that you can't kill someone with a staff or a boken hasn't gotten hit with one.
I did have a chance to hit someone with a shinai while she was wearing traditional Japanese samurai armor (boiled leather reinforced with steel). It was pretty impressive how much abuse she was able to take wearing that. I gave her a few pretty good whacks, easily hard enough to break her ribs (I know a thing or two about hitting with the training I've had, both with and without weapons), and all it did was give her a shock. I may have knocked the wind out of her, but if I'd gone at it with full power, I'm pretty sure the shinai would have given up before the armor. It doesn't look like much, but it's pretty tough stuff.
The other side of coin is, of course, how much people underestimate how much damage someone who knows how to hit can inflict with their hands let alone with a weapon, even a blunt weapon like a staff.
Jujitsudave
Mongoose
Deadliest Warrior is a fantastic show and they take a no nonsense approach to guaging the efficiency of armour vs weaponry.
True, but if one has ever trained MMA, one would know the limits of unarmed strikes as well. Although a solid punch, even from a smaller person can knock out someone bigger if well placed. Add armour to the equation and those unarmed strikes do little more than push the opponent around. Physical power is the key here, and Runequest simulates this nicely. Every strike with a weapon has potential to do something significant rather than a war of hit point attrition which is not grounded in reality.
True, but if one has ever trained MMA, one would know the limits of unarmed strikes as well. Although a solid punch, even from a smaller person can knock out someone bigger if well placed. Add armour to the equation and those unarmed strikes do little more than push the opponent around. Physical power is the key here, and Runequest simulates this nicely. Every strike with a weapon has potential to do something significant rather than a war of hit point attrition which is not grounded in reality.
Jujitsudave said:
Actually, if the person getting hit isn't armored and the person hitting knows what they're doing, a solid punch in the right place can be quite lethal.
The same strike in a less vulnerable place might just leave a bruise.
The same strike in a vital spot (e.g. floating rib, solar plexus) covered with even fairly light armor, just boiled leather reinforced with steel bands, wouldn't even do that much.
Jujitsudave
Mongoose
Knowing what one is doing in unarmed conflict is being able to maximize the power of the strike. It teaches you to modify body mechanics and gross motor skills to put all of the attackers weight in the strike, land it in the right place, and utilize distance properly (too far and you tap the opponent, too close and you push him). Nevertheless, don't underestimate the raw power of the haymaker!!
Unarmed strikes can certainly drop an opponent in one hit, but lethality is going a bit far. Unless the circumstances are such that the opponent falls and lands on his head, is slammed head first into the ground or is stomped on (New York Smiley anyone?) the chance of death are slim to none. Death can result from repeated brain trauma as witnessed from the effects of many boxers as well but without gloves, unconsciousness usually comes first. Major size differences can also contribute to damage vs. impact of a blow.
I actually find Runequest's unarmed combat system a bit TOO deadly for reality, but unless unarmed combat is going to be a major staple in the game, modifying it is likely unnecessary.
Back from that tangent, CA's are more realistically done, if you argue that such special effects are more likely performed when capitalizing upon a foes mistakes or an exceptional position, rather than trying to pull of an overcomplicated move that results in a penalty.
Unarmed strikes can certainly drop an opponent in one hit, but lethality is going a bit far. Unless the circumstances are such that the opponent falls and lands on his head, is slammed head first into the ground or is stomped on (New York Smiley anyone?) the chance of death are slim to none. Death can result from repeated brain trauma as witnessed from the effects of many boxers as well but without gloves, unconsciousness usually comes first. Major size differences can also contribute to damage vs. impact of a blow.
I actually find Runequest's unarmed combat system a bit TOO deadly for reality, but unless unarmed combat is going to be a major staple in the game, modifying it is likely unnecessary.
Back from that tangent, CA's are more realistically done, if you argue that such special effects are more likely performed when capitalizing upon a foes mistakes or an exceptional position, rather than trying to pull of an overcomplicated move that results in a penalty.
Jujitsudave said:
Yes... this is a significant part of the arts that I practice...
That's a common misconception.
You can kill someone with CPR by breaking off the xyphoid process and perforating the liver. I can hit a *lot* harder than someone just doing CPR, so it shouldn't be hard to see how that could be quite lethal.
Obviously, lethality is very dependent on location -- actually even more than on differences in size.
If RQ is too lethal for your tastes, then based on this conversation I have a feeling that it's going end up being pretty close to what I'd prefer.
Jujitsudave
Mongoose
No, that is the truth. Perforation of organs from broken bones is certainly possible, but remote. To actually cause organ damage, one would have to generate force enough to penetrate at least 2 inches into an adult male torso to do that, and that force would need to be sufficient to break a bone. The xyphoid process is also well protected by the ribs and sternumand underneath by abdominal muscles. Finally, if it did break, it would have to be a ridiculously powerful blow to shread the liver as well. Without a weapon, it's not gonna happen.
Injuries like this from CPR are from people using full body chest compressions repeatedly on an unconscious patient, a patient not resisting any force on even a subconscious level.
Jujitsudave
Mongoose
No the unarmed combat is a bit too lethal, not the system itself. If it were like that, professional fighters would have an extremely short life expectancy!
Yes, strikes to vital locations make a huge difference, but size advantages are just as significant, if not more.
Yes, strikes to vital locations make a huge difference, but size advantages are just as significant, if not more.
