Combat question. Please help if you know the system.

[PhilHibbs]

There would not be any downsides for charging if one could charge and parry on the same action. I see charging as a mad dash toward your enemy, an act of desperation rather than careful planning, to which the current rules correspond. I remember Guy Windsor, the founder of The School of European Swordsmanship, saying that charging would be quite suicidal for fencing like situations. Larger battles are a different matter.

Same with closing though - you can't close on a spearman and use your shield to knock his spear aside, you have to use Evade to close the distance. As has been quoted before - "Hoplites, no dodging in the ranks!"

Also, like I said earlier, charging jousters parry the enemy's lance all the time.

 

[Mikko Leho]

Same with closing though - you can't close on a spearman and use your shield to knock his spear aside, you have to use Evade to close the distance.

What you are describing there is the Combat Maneuvre Change Range. While I am inclined to agree that Combat Style should be able to substitute Evade for Closing and Disengaging, IMHO house rules should be kept separate from answers to official rules questions.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Same with closing though - you can't close on a spearman and use your shield to knock his spear aside, you have to use Evade to close the distance. As has been quoted before - "Hoplites, no dodging in the ranks!"

That is not strictly true. You could charge using your shield to attack, gain a CM and go for a disarm... and if you try to get really picky and say the spear attacks first then I counter by throwing it at the spearman!

If folks have a problem with no parrying in the charging rules, simply say the charging PC can attack or parry on the way in. He just can't do both.

Also, like I said earlier, charging jousters parry the enemy's lance all the time.

That's not strictly true either. A jouster has way too much to do trying to keep the horse going in a straight line and drop the lance tip on target, without also attempting to perform an active parry with his shield. If you start messing about with the shield then you pretty much lose control over the lance tip. Remember both lance strikes are occurring simultaneously.

On the whole shields are kept in a static braced position covering the arm and torso during a joust. You rely on your armour to protect the rest of you, hoping that the guy facing you is good enough to specifically aim for your shield. Towards the end of the Middle Ages jousting armour is massively over engineered for the sport and no longer suitable for melee combat, with lance supports, massively thick chest and helmet pieces, and even helmets bolted to the chest. The last two developments would not have been so necessary if you could actively parry with the shield - assuming you want to risk having the arm broken or shoulder dislocated that is... :wink:

 

[Deleriad]

One thing I allow is borrowed from RQ3 which is to hold a shield in position as a form of cover. So if a character wants to run with a shield held in front then it could cover the body and shield arm. Or if you have a big enough shield you can stand still, put the shield in front of you and hide most of yourself behind it.

 

[cerebro]

You maybe harming them,deleriad.

If you look out, and I shoot you, then I get a CM. Choose location: head.

Any way,is it me or every time I hit you with a range weapon I get at least a CM?.

 

[cerebro]

You maybe harming them,deleriad.

If you look out, and I shoot you, then I get a CM. Choose location: head.

Any way,is it me or every time I hit you with a range weapon I get at least a CM?.

By the way, I must say: I love this game system!. And believe me i know what I'm talking about.

I have only played 2 games from mongoose and I have to say wao!. Conan is the other one. The best 3.5 System hands down. If it had some Magic in it I would only play that.

 

[PhilHibbs]

You maybe harming them,deleriad.

If you look out, and I shoot you, then I get a CM. Choose location: head.

Any way,is it me or every time I hit you with a range weapon I get at least a CM?.

It seems to me that it is quite unusual to score a hit without getting a CM even in melee - a parried hit gets no CM but that isn't really a hit, unless attack weapon size is greater than parry weapon size.

 

[cerebro]

I can live with that. Makes combat more fun.

 

[Deleriad]

You maybe harming them,deleriad.

If you look out, and I shoot you, then I get a CM. Choose location: head.

Any way,is it me or every time I hit you with a range weapon I get at least a CM?.

Against ranged weapons you can either parry with a shield or evade. If you're using a shield as mobile cover and there's a person with a crossbow aimed at you then poking your head out is a bad idea. Hiding behind a shield that's too small is also a bad idea. However, if you're faced with having to run across a field with archers around then you can at least try to give yourself some cover, forcing archers to aim at the uncovered places and hoping that any hits are just glancing ones.

But yes, think about it. You are firing a weapon at a person who is not trying to get out of the way. Why can't you aim for the head?*

Think about it 2). The target is wearing a helm (say 4 APs) and you're firing a short bow (damage 1d6). You get a CM. You aim for the head. Odds are you are not going to do any significant damage. I personally would go for an impale, much more likely to a) do damage and b) cause an ongoing problem.

*This issue did come up in playtests. If you look at weapon stats, missile weapons do significantly less damage than they did in previous editions. Also look at the spell speedart. Speedart doesn't increase your hit chance, it reduces the defence chance. Finally, look at combat modifiers, nearly every single ranged combat modifier is a negative. Still, one of my group's feedback comments in playtesting was "ranged combat is scary" and the response was 'good.' On the other hand, there's a PC in my campaign with a short bow and it has proved, even with Firearrow, to be largely ineffectual.

(This response is really a response to multiple threads)

 

[PhilHibbs]

Same with closing though - you can't close on a spearman and use your shield to knock his spear aside, you have to use Evade to close the distance. As has been quoted before - "Hoplites, no dodging in the ranks!"

That is not strictly true. You could charge using your shield to attack, gain a CM and go for a disarm...

Oh, I see, under "Charging" it says the charger gets one combat action, and doesn't say that it has to be an attack. I was thinking about closing rather than charging. So, if you want to close range on someoene who has a spear, and you have a shield, then the only way to do it while getting a parry is to charge, you can't take it slowly because that has to be an Evade action.

 

[daxos232]

I noticed the nerfing of the ranged weapons as well Deleriad.

I've got two PCs who use bows, a short and a recurve. They picked off 4 or 5 guys between them in one fight. But for their CMs they always picked Hit Location: Head, so they were headshotting them and knocking them unconscious.

It only took one PC getting his arm disabled by an arrow to make them fear enemy missles as well.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

But yes, think about it. You are firing a weapon at a person who is not trying to get out of the way. Why can't you aim for the head?

Save for range considerations which I should have buttoned up better, Delariad pretty much sums up my thought processes behind the design. He also correctly ascertains that for missile weapons in general, an Impale is better than a Select Target.

If you think about it, what happens when people are shot with arrows or crossbow bolts? If its not prevented by the armour, the target usually ends up with it impaled in them. :wink:

I noticed the nerfing of the ranged weapons as well Deleriad.

The 'nerfing' was not so much to rebalance missile weapons in the system, but to more accurately reflect the lethality of arrows etc from a historical context. There are dozens of period accounts where knights wearing mail are near immune to archery fire, riding around looking literally like pin cushions.

Of course the odd lucky shot could get through (that's why the Ignore Armour CM is there) but an arrow wound or two rarely kills quickly, more often acting more as a painful hindrance.

Just for fun, here's a few Viking Saga quotes...

Snorri Thorbrandson was the briskest of those brothers, and he sat at table beside his namesake that evening. Curds and cheese they had to meat, but Snorri noted that his namesake made but little play with the cheese, and asked why he eat so slowly.

Snorri Thorbrandson answered that lambs found it the hardest to eat when they were first gagged.

Then Snorri the Priest drew his hand down his throat, and found an arrow sticking athwart his gullet and the roots of the tongue. Then Snorri the Priest took drawing-tongs and pulled out the arrow, and then Snorri Thorbrandson fell to his meat.

and

"I see him kinsman," said Asgrim, and then he shot a spear at Skapti, and struck him just below where the calf was fattest, and so through both his legs. Skapti fell at the blow, and could not get up again, and the only counsel they could take who were by, was to drag Skapti flat on his face into the booth of a turf-cutter.

and one from Magnus Barefoot's Saga just to show that archery can be fatal. A classic example of a combined Ignore Armour and Choose Location!

King Magnus shot with the bow; but Huge the Brave was all over in armour, so that nothing was bare about him excepting one eye. King Magnus let fly an arrow at him, as also did a Halogaland man who was beside the king. They both shot at once. The one shaft hit the nose-screen of the helmet, which was bent by it to one side, and the other arrow hit the earl's eye, and went through his head; and that was found to be the king's.

 

[cthulhudarren]

Having not actually played this edition yet, I thought I understood the combat rules from the example in the main rulebook. But I get confused. You guys are saying most times you hit a foe you get a combat maneuver? I didn't think that would be the case. If you had say 2 combatants, 100% skill, evenly matched, same number of CAs, most of the time you'd get successes on the rolls but not a greater level of success, so you'd have mostly normal hits and parries.

I wish there was a more in depth combat example written out so I could understand this more.

 

[PhilHibbs]

If you had say 2 combatants, 100% skill, evenly matched, same number of CAs, most of the time you'd get successes on the rolls but not a greater level of success, so you'd have mostly normal hits and parries.

I wish there was a more in depth combat example written out so I could understand this more.

I wasn't counting a parried attack as a "hit".

 

[Deleriad]

Having not actually played this edition yet, I thought I understood the combat rules from the example in the main rulebook. But I get confused. You guys are saying most times you hit a foe you get a combat maneuver? I didn't think that would be the case. If you had say 2 combatants, 100% skill, evenly matched, same number of CAs, most of the time you'd get successes on the rolls but not a greater level of success, so you'd have mostly normal hits and parries.

I wish there was a more in depth combat example written out so I could understand this more.

You only get a CM if you "do better" than your opponent. In the case of two 100%ers, that might take some time. One aspect of this, however, is that if missile fire is used against an opponent who can't defend (e.g. due to surprise) then any hit will also create a CM.

I'll try to write up the brawl in the alley that happened in my last session as that created quite a lot of combat manoeuvres.

 

[cthulhudarren]

Having not actually played this edition yet, I thought I understood the combat rules from the example in the main rulebook. But I get confused. You guys are saying most times you hit a foe you get a combat maneuver? I didn't think that would be the case. If you had say 2 combatants, 100% skill, evenly matched, same number of CAs, most of the time you'd get successes on the rolls but not a greater level of success, so you'd have mostly normal hits and parries.

I wish there was a more in depth combat example written out so I could understand this more.

You only get a CM if you "do better" than your opponent. In the case of two 100%ers, that might take some time. One aspect of this, however, is that if missile fire is used against an opponent who can't defend (e.g. due to surprise) then any hit will also create a CM.

I'll try to write up the brawl in the alley that happened in my last session as that created quite a lot of combat manoeuvres.

I'd appreciate it! I'd also like to see how some of the normal attacks with normal parries worked out, and results without combat maneuvers. Did any hits parried with shields or weapons get through to damaging a hit location?

 

[PhilHibbs]

You only get a CM if you "do better" than your opponent. In the case of two 100%ers, that might take some time.

11.525% chance per exchange, and that assumes equal CAs. *edit* Oops no, it's 12.75%.

 

[Deleriad]

I'd appreciate it! I'd also like to see how some of the normal attacks with normal parries worked out, and results without combat maneuvers. Did any hits parried with shields or weapons get through to damaging a hit location?

Generally, and I presume this is deliberate, once someone has parried successfully you can pretty much call it quits and move on to the next action. This means that you resolve a parried attack in just two dice rolls. In previous editions you would nearly always end up rolling for damage and hit location after every attack in case some damage got through. In RQII about the only time you end up with a bigger attacking weapon than parrying one is if someone tries to parry a 2H weapon with a 1H one that isn't a shield. That's actually pretty rare in my experience. (E.g. if someone has suffered a stun location to their left arm and can no longer use a shield).*

This means that RQII runs *much* faster than previous editions until something significant happens.

*There is one counter-example. If you have someone using a big two handed weapon against a relatively small person then sometimes you want to roll damage in case of knockback.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

You only get a CM if you "do better" than your opponent. In the case of two 100%ers, that might take some time.

11.525% chance per exchange, and that assumes equal CAs. *edit* Oops no, it's 12.75%.

Hmm. I originally calculated it as 12.49% per roll, i.e. 1 in 8. My original equations might have been wrong though...

 

[PhilHibbs]

You only get a CM if you "do better" than your opponent. In the case of two 100%ers, that might take some time.

11.525% chance per exchange, and that assumes equal CAs. *edit* Oops no, it's 12.75%.

Hmm. I originally calculated it as 12.49% per roll, i.e. 1 in 8. My original equations might have been wrong though...

Yes, that's what I meant, per attack-vs-parry pair of dice rolls. There are two possibilities that result in one or more CMs:
1. Attacker succeeds (0.85) and defender fails or fumbles (0.05)
2. Attacker crits (0.1) and defender succeeds, fails, or fumbles (0.9)
Multiply each pair of numbers, then add them: (0.85*0.05)+(0.1*0.9)=0.1325 which is 13.25% - looks like I miscalculated twice, my correction of 12.75% was based on outcome 2 being crit vs success, 0.1*0.85, rather than crit vs anything that isn't a crit. Probabilities aren't easy and definitely aren't intuitive.

*Update* This means that, in a combat round of two attacks each and two parries each, the chance that neither participant gets an attacking CM is 56.6%, in other words, each combat round there is a 43.4% chance that someone will score an attacking CM on the other one.

*Update* The chance that one or more of some kind of CM, either offensive or defensive, will occur in the aforementioned combat round is 70.8%. So, this 100% vs 100% fight shouldn't be that long and boring.