Combat Issues

[Deleriad]

Strictly RAW, unarmed defences (i.e. parrying with an arm) cannot block any damage from weapons.

I was looking for that. Do you know what page/book it is in? I was sure I read something along those lines, but I'll be buggered if I can find it! Perhaps it's in the BRP Big Gold Book?

It's not explicitly stated and it won't have anything to do with the BRP book as that uses a different parry mechanism. However, the trait "Formidable natural weapons" (p161 RQII) allows you to parry with a natural weapon as if it were a made weapon therefore, by definition, if you don't have the trait you can't parry with an unarmed/natural defence as if it were a weapon.

 

[DamonJynx]

However, the trait "Formidable natural weapons" (p161 RQII) allows you to parry with a natural weapon as if it were a made weapon therefore, by definition, if you don't have the trait you can't parry with an unarmed/natural defence as if it were a weapon.

But you can parry, although the location will take damage. Fair enough.

A cool CM (Critical only) for parrying unarmed would be something like Re-direct Blow or whatever it's called, but you manage to deflect the blow entirely, downgrading the hit to a failure. On a critical you manage to strike the attacking weapon on the haft (maces, polearms, maybe axes) or the flat of the blade for a sword, or the wrist of the attacker with a dagger - you get the idea, knocking it out of your way altogether. It would be very cinematic, particularly if you had a "Monk/Kung Fu" style character.

 

[Deleriad]

However, the trait "Formidable natural weapons" (p161 RQII) allows you to parry with a natural weapon as if it were a made weapon therefore, by definition, if you don't have the trait you can't parry with an unarmed/natural defence as if it were a weapon.

But you can parry, although the location will take damage. Fair enough.

Well no. That's actually an optional ruling you could use under certain circumstances. Again by RAW, to do that you would need the redirect CM. Otherwise if you think about it:

I parry a greatsword successfully with my arm. My arm automatically takes the damage and the opponent cannot damage another location.

I parry a greatsword successfully with a dagger. The parry has no effect and a random location is chosen.

i.e. a parry with an arm is strictly better than parrying with a dagger.

Clearly you could have all sorts of unarmed combat schools that allow you to enhance the use of unarmed attacks and parries. But just going by RAW and assuming no special circumstances or abilities an unarmed parry against a weapon blocks no damage and has no effect other than to possibly prevent the attacker gaining a CM. Anything else is due to a special ability, special circumstance, because it seemed reasonable at the time or is a house ruling to fit a genre.

 

[PhilHibbs]

...if you think about it:
I parry a greatsword successfully with my arm. My arm automatically takes the damage and the opponent cannot damage another location.
I parry a greatsword successfully with a dagger. The parry has no effect and a random location is chosen.
i.e. a parry with an arm is strictly better than parrying with a dagger.

Strictly better? Not sure what you mean by that, but getting hit in the same place time after time isn't ideal. I guess you could take advantage of this by layering your left arm with every kind of armour that you can fit onto it. That's unrealistic, though, I don't know of any historic or fictional instances of that tactic. If you have a weapon, then you can probably get it in the way of the attacker's weapon most of the time, because it gives you better reach. That greatsword is coming down at your right shin? It's going to be hard to use your left arm to parry it. So maybe some kind of penalty is in order, to reflect the inherent difficulty of using an arm instead of a hand with a weapon in it. Also if you keep taking greatsword whacks to your arm or hand, it's going to go numb no matter how much armour you are wearing.

 

[Deleriad]

...if you think about it:
I parry a greatsword successfully with my arm. My arm automatically takes the damage and the opponent cannot damage another location.
I parry a greatsword successfully with a dagger. The parry has no effect and a random location is chosen.
i.e. a parry with an arm is strictly better than parrying with a dagger.

Strictly better? Not sure what you mean by that, but getting hit in the same place time after time isn't ideal.

Talking in pure game terms. If you allow an unarmed parry to take the damage of an attack *instead* of a random (or opponent chosen) location then you are getting the benefit of the redirect blow CM in that you are controlling the destination of the target.

If you compare an arm (size Small) with a dagger (size small) then neither of them can block any damage from a Large weapon. However if for some reason an arm can insist on taking the damage to itself, something the dagger can't do then it makes your arm a better parrying weapon than a dagger on the assumption that having your arm hit is the least worst outcome.*

In general, parrying a greatsword (for example) with a dagger or your arm is not ideal. However if you use your arm you prevent the opponent from being able to hit you anywhere but the arm. Occasionally this might be reasonable but it is not the default case for the rules.

*technically, successfully parrying with a dagger blocks no damage but prevents opponent gaining a CM. Successfully parrying with an arm blocks no damage, gives you an automatic CM (Redirect blow to parrying limb) and prevents opponent from getting a CM.

 

[Da Boss]

...if you think about it:
I parry a greatsword successfully with my arm. My arm automatically takes the damage and the opponent cannot damage another location.
I parry a greatsword successfully with a dagger. The parry has no effect and a random location is chosen.
i.e. a parry with an arm is strictly better than parrying with a dagger.

Strictly better? Not sure what you mean by that, but getting hit in the same place time after time isn't ideal. I guess you could take advantage of this by layering your left arm with every kind of armour that you can fit onto it. That's unrealistic, though, I don't know of any historic or fictional instances of that tactic. .

how about: :wink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retiarius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murmillo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplomachus

specifically the Manica (armguard)used by a number of Gladiators as their primary and in some cases IIRC only real armour?

 

[sdavies2720]

...I guess you could take advantage of this by layering your left arm with every kind of armour that you can fit onto it. That's unrealistic, though, I don't know of any historic or fictional instances of that tactic....

I believe it was done fairly often, and called a "shield".

Steve

 

[PhilHibbs]

how about: :wink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retiarius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murmillo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplomachus

specifically the Manica (armguard)used by a number of Gladiators as their primary and in some cases IIRC only real armour?

Murmillo and Hoplomachus have the right arm armoured, the left is unarmored because he has a shield. Retiarius, yes, his left arm is armored, but the effectiveness of this tactic is questionable as all the illustrations of a Retiarius are of him having the crap kicked out of him by other gladiators.

 

[jolt]

If you can't parry unarmed then unarmed should not have been given a defensive length. By doing so it presumes that you're using the rules for that length. The qualifications for doing so are not made clear at all by the rules.

To someone intimately familiar with the book design it may seem obvious but most people aren't going to associate parrying rules with the Formidable Natural Weapons section of the book. That kind of backwards logic is what causes problems like, "Well, the book doesn't specifically say I can't do it so it must mean that I can". Or having a 7-8 page thread on a basic game mechanic that still appears to be causing confusion.

A quirk of the RQII combat system is that there really is no "reactive" defense. Evertything is a conscious and specific decision. In real life, whether you're studying boxing, fencing, or some obscure Polynesian martial arts, you learn and repeat the same moves over and over and over so that you can perform those moves reflexively so that when the time comes to parry, block, whatever, you don't specifically think about it, you just do it. RQII doesn't reflect that at all, IMO. In fact, I would argue that the CA/CM ruleset is the antithesis of this

So it doesn't help to be told to go with what "makes sense" when "making sense" went at least partially out the window from the get go. Nor is it helpful to be expected to extrapolate designer intent for basic rules from other, more obscure, sections of the book. I would expect rules for fatigue, for example, to be in a section labeled fatigue, combat or actions. I'm not going to looking for it in the equipment section under food rations event though that might be peripherally related.

I shudder at the difficulty a gamer with no RQ experience would have trying to make sense of the rules as written (without having to troll through dozens of forum threads and S&P articles).

jolt

 

[Da Boss]

how about: :wink:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retiarius
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murmillo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplomachus

specifically the Manica (armguard)used by a number of Gladiators as their primary and in some cases IIRC only real armour?

Murmillo and Hoplomachus have the right arm armoured, the left is unarmored because he has a shield. Retiarius, yes, his left arm is armored, but the effectiveness of this tactic is questionable as all the illustrations of a Retiarius are of him having the crap kicked out of him by other gladiators.

Well you asked for RL examples and these sprung up immediately :wink:

especially since I just watched Gods of the Arena last night - awesome 8)

 

[Loz]

To someone intimately familiar with the book design it may seem obvious but most people aren't going to associate parrying rules with the Formidable Natural Weapons section of the book. That kind of backwards logic is what causes problems like, "Well, the book doesn't specifically say I can't do it so it must mean that I can". Or having a 7-8 page thread on a basic game mechanic that still appears to be causing confusion.

You make a good point. What's needed is unambiguous clarification in three separate places: the Unarmed skill description, combat chapter and creature traits - for Formidable Natural Weapons.

Players and GMs fall into one of two camps. Those who can work with ambiguities without any qualms and those who need and/or prefer as many exceptions or exceptional circumstances as possible to be covered. As a game designer I (and Pete) try to strike the right balance because, ultimately, its very difficult to cover each and every base on a finite amount of space.

I'm not so sure I agree with the term 'backwards logic' because it really should be a matter of common sense - game designer or complete noob - that if you take a blow to a body part it is likely to get damaged, but I do agree that it always helps to have clarity on the exception (which is Formidable Natural Weapons).

Either way, should Pete and I get the opportunity to revise the RQII rules to any reasonable degree we'll try to ensure that we make this - and a few other things (!) - as clear as we can in the appropriate places.

 

[PhilHibbs]

If you can't parry unarmed then unarmed should not have been given a defensive length. By doing so it presumes that you're using the rules for that length. The qualifications for doing so are not made clear at all by the rules.

Unarmed is not given a defensive length. It is given a weapon size, which is needed to determine what kind of weapon can effectively parry an unarmed attack. The fact that this is only relevant for attacking and not for parrying is not made clear. I think most people would assume that parrying with an arm is going to hurt.

 

[jarulf]

Although that seems more realistic. You won't be parrying a battleaxe with your arms more than twice.

After parrying even once, your arm probably won't have a size rating any longer. Unless you pick it up with your other arm.

 

[Grimolde]

Bash opponent The recipient is forced backwards by one metre for every five points (or fraction thereof ) of damage rolled.

How does this work on a battle grid with the usual 5' squares? If you do 5 damage the defender is knocked back 1 metre (3'), you have to do at least 10 damage to knock them back 2 metres (6'), which barely bumps them back a square.

Apart from knocking an opponent into an immovable object, and them falling prone, I can't see any use to 'Bash Opponent'.

 

[Deleriad]

Bash opponent The recipient is forced backwards by one metre for every five points (or fraction thereof ) of damage rolled.

How does this work on a battle grid with the usual 5' squares? If you do 5 damage the defender is knocked back 1 metre (3'), you have to do at least 10 damage to knock them back 2 metres (6'), which barely bumps them back a square.

Apart from knocking an opponent into an immovable object, and them falling prone, I can't see any use to 'Bash Opponent'.

Answer to the first bit, is it's up to you. RQ isn't designed for 5' squares. If I use grid based combat I use 2m squares because it allows for larger maps and rule that 1-2m of movement moves 1 square, 3-4m moves 2 squares and so on.

Best use of bash is usually on a cliff edge. Knocking someone prone is no bad thing however and depending on how agile your foe is you might find it easier to bash them back into a rock than try to trip them.

Depending on circumstances the GM might call for the bashed opponent to make a brawn roll or drop their weapon or might need a CA to recover their footing and be at -20% to their combat skills until their next SR etc. The rules only tell you what happened; what the impact is will depend on circumstances.

 

[Grimolde]

Thanks for that Deleriad

 

[Grimolde]

Overextend opponent – Opponent cannot attack on his next Strike Rank.

That it? No opposed test? Opponent cannot attack at all throughout his entire next Strike Rank?

Riposte - The Defender uses a CA to make an immediate counter attack with one of his defending weapons or shield.

Isn't this move a bit redundant? The defender ripostes and so spends a CA and attacks, the attacker spends a CA to defend. Or, the defender doesn't riposte, but has to spend a CA as above anyway, which in turn requries the attacker to spend a CA to defend, anyway.

 

[PhilHibbs]

Riposte - The Defender uses a CA to make an immediate counter attack with one of his defending weapons or shield.

Isn't this move a bit redundant? The defender ripostes and so spends a CA and attacks, the attacker spends a CA to defend. Or, the defender doesn't riposte, but has to spend a CA as above anyway, which in turn requries the attacker to spend a CA to defend, anyway.

Hm. Yes, if he's attacking you, then it would be your turn to attack next anyway. Unless you are facing multiple opponents, with this you might be able to kill or disable an opponent before his ally has a go at you.

 

[Grimolde]

Riposte - The Defender uses a CA to make an immediate counter attack with one of his defending weapons or shield.

Isn't this move a bit redundant? The defender ripostes and so spends a CA and attacks, the attacker spends a CA to defend. Or, the defender doesn't riposte, but has to spend a CA as above anyway, which in turn requries the attacker to spend a CA to defend, anyway.

Hm. Yes, if he's attacking you, then it would be your turn to attack next anyway. Unless you are facing multiple opponents, with this you might be able to kill or disable an opponent before his ally has a go at you.

Unless the other opponent has a CA, then he simply defends as normal. And if he doesn't have another CA, then it's redundant calling the move a Riposte, as it's identical to a normal attack v defence situaton.

Unless I'm missing something, this is a pointless manouevre

 

[Deleriad]

riposte is pointless about 90% of the time. It works when for example you and your opponent both have 2 CAs left. As the next action would normally be your opponent attacking you then you can claim the next attack.

Normal events A & B have 3 CAs each:
A attacks, B parries
B attacks, A parries
A attacks, B parries

A attacks, B parries (gains riposte)
B ripostes, A parries
B attacks, A parries

Generally though riposte is fairly weak because there's usually a better option. Riposte is more powerful if you play with the house rule that once a parry is declared you have to perform it even if the attack misses.