[Noob Question] Highly Skilled Melee Duel, What Happens?

[Mortimer]

Hello, I read through the core book yesterday and I fell in love with the overall feel of the system. I'm not at all afraid to use House Rules to clarify or even change something from RAW, so this system is perfect for me.

That said, I could use some help in understanding a particular situation:

You have a fight between two melee fighters both having a CS of 99% in sword + shield. They both have the same number of CA per round, and their initiatives are close enough that when they are rerolled each round they swap Strike Ranks every time.

Now, the problem these two have is that every time one attacks, he rolls a success, and every time one parries, he also rolls a success. Their weapons are of equal size, so they do no damage on a parried attack. They keep hacking away at each other and successfully avoiding all damage.

So what happens? How does one win out over the other in this situation? Is there any alternative besides just waiting for one to roll a critical or a fumble? Is there some sort of trick like breaking away from your opponent and throwing dirt in his eye or something? I didn't see anything about "feinting" in the rules, so maybe I should add that?

The only other modifier on this situation that I've noticed was that you can knock your opponent to the ground if you roll higher damage than his size. I'm not sure how likely that is for two equally-sized opponents, but what advantage is gained vs an opponent on the ground anyway?

Thanks for any input!

 

[Dan True]

they will start to tire after CON actions, and then taking Atheltics checks to avoid fatigue. They are in a battle of attrition, so most likely the warrior in best shape winds.
Or they realise that fighting a same-skilled opponent is a bad idea, and go seperate ways

There are tricks for throwing sand in the eyes, but they require a CM so in this case they won't be used. In a rela fight however, they will arise sometime and bring flavour to any combat.

However, they can use the "disengage" action to break off the fight.

The only other modifier on this situation that I've noticed was that you can knock your opponent to the ground if you roll higher damage than his size. I'm not sure how likely that is for two equally-sized opponents, but what advantage is gained vs an opponent on the ground anyway?

You gain a bonus to hit vs. targets on the ground, as per the table under combat. I think it's a +20 bonus.

- Dan

 

[PhilHibbs]

The attacker has a 13.25% chance of landing a blow on each attack against either a failed or inferior parry. Assuming they have 4 CAs each, and are attacking twice and parrying twice, the chances that neither of them land a blow in a melee round is only 56.6%. After two combat rounds, the chance drops to 32% that no-one has scored a worthwhile hit. So, it shouldn't be too long before something happens.

If that something is a critical hit versus a successful parry, then the attacker won't have scored any damage (assuming a large shield versus a medium weapon, so even Bypass Parry won't help), but it might be a trip, overextend, blind, or something else interesting. Even an "acrobatic manoeuvre" to score a psychological advantage, à la Princess Bride.

*Edit* This latter occurrence will be two thirds of all the "something happens" results, so this could make for entertaining and creative fighting, where the attacker has to do something other than just hack bits off the enemy.

 

[Dan True]

The attacker has a 13.25% chance of landing a blow on each attack against either a failed or inferior parry..

He specified that they always succeeded or all their attacks and parrys (even though it's unrealistic). Btw, what do you mean by Inferior parry? Are you by any chance using the opposed-rules house rule?

The opposed rule house rule would in any case make this combat much more interesting.

- Dan

 

[PhilHibbs]

He specified that they always succeeded or all their attacks and parrys (even though it's unrealistic). Btw, what do you mean by Inferior parry? Are you by any chance using the opposed-rules house rule?
- Dan

No, this is calculated straight by RQ2 rules. And yes, I kind of ignored the "what if the coin always lands on its edge" side of the question. Something interesting will happen, just roll the dice as fast as you can until it does.

 

[Loz]

Or, if the situation continues, one of the warriors says:

'Gadzooks, sir, I see we are evenly matched to be point of this contest being tiresome. What say you to calling this quits and going to get a stiff drink at yonder tavern?'

To which the other responds.

'Only if you're buying.'

 

[Mortimer]

Thanks for the quick responses!

The main reason for my question was 2 of my players were concerned about it. The responses were very helpful however, and should help to placate any concerns. Both the disengage option and the fact that its very unlikely to go past a couple rounds will fully placate one of the players. To be honest this system as a whole is so great I'm thinking more in terms of "what should I house rule when we make the switch" not "should we switch to this game".

This morning, I had a long talk about this issue with one of the two players. This player is a fencer (won a NCAA championship in college) and is very interested in the prospect of a more "realistic" combat system. Given this, he was astonished to see there is no Feint action. He says realistically in fencing a regular attack has about a 10% chance of success, while a Feint attack has about a 20-30% chance, and Feint is by far the most important skill in a fencer's arsenal.

So, I give a grateful nod to the fact that this combat system is very flexible and proceed to create my own House Rule for feint:


-To make the Feint as realistic as possible, let it be employed as a type of attack-CA. So you declare your attack, then the opponent declares his parry, and then you can say "FEINT". All of this happens before anyone rolls attack or parry. Furthermore, it allows you to simply attack the person if they don't opt to parry. Performing and recognizing a Feint is a "combat skill" so it uses the Combat Style roll from both opponents. Unlike an attack vs parry, however, this roll is a true Opposed Skill Test.
-If you use a Feint, there can be two outcomes:
--Feinter wins: The Feinter may immediately spend another CA to make an attack (with a new attack roll) against the defender's Evade roll. This case is described in the rules under Evading.
--Feinter loses: defender gets to take a defensive CM
--Also, change the rules for Dual Wielding because "maintains their effectiveness if one weapon is pinned, entangled or dropped" should be true for sword+shield as well. Instead, add "once per round may make an attack following a successful feint for free rather than for 1 CA".


What do you guys think?

 

[Deleriad]

So, I give a grateful nod to the fact that this combat system is very flexible and proceed to create my own House Rule for feint:


-To make the Feint as realistic as possible, let it be employed as a type of attack-CA. So you declare your attack, then the opponent declares his parry, and then you can say "FEINT". All of this happens before anyone rolls attack or parry. Furthermore, it allows you to simply attack the person if they don't opt to parry. Performing and recognizing a Feint is a "combat skill" so it uses the Combat Style roll from both opponents. Unlike an attack vs parry, however, this roll is a true Opposed Skill Test.
-If you use a Feint, there can be two outcomes:
--Feinter wins: The Feinter may immediately spend another CA to make an attack (with a new attack roll) against the defender's Evade roll. This case is described in the rules under Evading.
--Feinter loses: defender gets to take a defensive CM
--Also, change the rules for Dual Wielding because "maintains their
effectiveness if one weapon is pinned, entangled or dropped" should be true for sword/shield as well. Instead, add "once per round may make an attack following a successful feint for free rather than for 1 CA".


What do you guys think?

To be honest, you're likely to find it causes more problems than it solves. The idea behind the combat system is that it is a "post-roll" system which is to say that when the dice read "successful attack vs failed parry" then this means that the attacker did something to cause the parry to fail or the defender made an error. The attacker may have feinted, caused the defender to leave himself open then attacked for the kill. The rules don't really care and leave it up to the players to decide after the fact. If you start adding more attack options in you may find that you start to congest the system. Either feinting becomes better than a regular attack so everyone feints or it becomes worse than a regular attack so no one feints or it becomes only situationally appropriate meaning that the game tends to pause while a player tries to decide whether or not to to feint.

I also don't understand your proposed rule. What it seems to say is that if I attack and win the opposed roll I don't do any damage but can attack again. It would seem to make more sense to simply do damage.

To go with the grain of the rules you could create a new Combat Manoeuvre called Feint. That reads "you may attack again but the defender cannot parry with the same weapon." Or "defender loses 1 CA" (if no CAs left then loses one next round). This, simply put, changes the tempo while going with the flow of the game. They're probably powerful enough to make excellent critical choices or even be critical only.

Naturally you can do whatever's most fun to you but it's probably worthwhile playing RAW first before trying to house rule. Things fit together in ways which aren't immediately apparently on paper.

 

[Mortimer]

... it becomes only situationally appropriate meaning that the game tends to pause while a player tries to decide whether or not to to feint.

Situationally appropriate is what I'm going for, and I think once players get used to it the game won't pause any more than it does when someone decides which CM to use.

I also don't understand your proposed rule. What it seems to say is that if I attack and win the opposed roll I don't do any damage but can attack again. It would seem to make more sense to simply do damage.

The result of winning the Opposed Feint Test is that you have forced the enemy to evade your next attack. Evading puts the defender at a decent disadvantage even if the Evade is successful(as per the "Evading" rules), and also an attack vs Evade is probably more likely to hit than an attack vs parry. If I do my job, sometimes it will be better to use Feint and sometimes it will be better to use a regular attack.

To go with the grain of the rules you could create a new Combat Manoeuvre called Feint. That reads "you may attack again but the defender cannot parry with the same weapon." Or "defender loses 1 CA" (if no CAs left then loses one next round). This, simply put, changes the tempo while going with the flow of the game. They're probably powerful enough to make excellent critical choices or even be critical only.

That makes sense. Maybe make a CM called Feint that requires dual wielding weapons (like some others require blunt or thrusting weapons). Part of this is that I'm trying to re-balance dual wielding so that my players don't feel like they HAVE to pick two-hander or sword+board. The other part of it is that I'd like them to have a "high risk high reward" option in their inventory.

Naturally you can do whatever's most fun to you but it's probably worthwhile playing RAW first before trying to house rule. Things fit together in ways which aren't immediately apparently on paper.

I can understand this in theory but I don't think it's physically possible to play any RPG RAW. There is always some degree of interpretation that must be made, so I might as well start thinking about that ahead of time. I agree this is a pretty drastic change for a first-play though, but I think if I can come up with something good the players will appreciate it.

 

[Dan True]

This morning, I had a long talk about this issue with one of the two players. This player is a fencer (won a NCAA championship in college) and is very interested in the prospect of a more "realistic" combat system. Given this, he was astonished to see there is no Feint action. He says realistically in fencing a regular attack has about a 10% chance of success, while a Feint attack has about a 20-30% chance, and Feint is by far the most important skill in a fencer's arsenal.

I agree with Deleriad. First of all, try the system first. And if you then believe there should be a kind of feint, make it a critical only CM that removes a CA or something similar.

However, remember that there is a whole lot of difference in fencing (I assume he is a modern fencer, i.e. with a modern fencing blande) and fighting with a bronze-age shortswords or a Medieval 1½ hand sword. In my experience from medieval reenacting (which is Inferior to some other blokes in here, so they might have tried something else) feinting isn't so much of use as the swords are so heavy and the armour is so thick. It's hard to quickly spin the blade around from a feint.

1½ hand sword fighting is more about either locking your sword with the opponent, and hit his head/groin/knee with you pommel - or have superior footwork and put him in a disadvantageous position or even tripping him (which ends the fight).

Fights with roman-style shortswords are very different again, as they are about getting close and then slicing the legs or angles.

I feel the system really reflects this in the way it works. But, you are of course free to change it to fit your style - but I would advise doing it as Deleriad suggest - do it within the system.

- Dan

 

[Mixster]

He specified that they always succeeded or all their attacks and parrys (even though it's unrealistic). Btw, what do you mean by Inferior parry? Are you by any chance using the opposed-rules house rule?
- Dan

No, this is calculated straight by RQ2 rules. And yes, I kind of ignored the "what if the coin always lands on its edge" side of the question. Something interesting will happen, just roll the dice as fast as you can until it does.

I might have misunderstood the rules then, but if warrior A and warrior B both have 75% in their relevant combat skill. And Warrior A rolls 70 for his attack, and Warrior B rolls 54. Will warrior A hit?

Since Combat rolls is not an opposed skill, I assumed not, Warrior B has parried, and thus he will deflect damage based on his weapon size.
If this is not the case, the "bypass parry" combat maneouvre, is completely pointless.

At the OP:

If the two warriors keep jabbing at eachother with their swords, and none of them wants to do anything different. It will come down to the first one to roll a critical, who will then probably blind, disarm, bypass parry, or trip his opponent. (I would probably Disarm him, since him succeeding against a critical is pretty hard, and while he is picking up his weapon he I can stab him till my hearts content).

IMO, the Bypass parry mimics feinting pretty well, I haven't done as much fencing as your friend (only a very little), but I'd assume feinting to be less viable when your opponent is fighting with a shield and trying to Pin your rapier than in actual rapier on rapier combats.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

This player is a fencer (won a NCAA championship in college) and is very interested in the prospect of a more "realistic" combat system. Given this, he was astonished to see there is no Feint action. He says realistically in fencing a regular attack has about a 10% chance of success, while a Feint attack has about a 20-30% chance, and Feint is by far the most important skill in a fencer's arsenal.

If it helps your player to visualise it, the fact he wins a CM means that he'd already opened up a hole in his opponent's defence by successfully feinting, seeing a gap in his timing, beating his blade aside, etc. That part is all abstracted in the Combat Style roll.

However, remember that there is a whole lot of difference in fencing (I assume he is a modern fencer, i.e. with a modern fencing blande) and fighting with a bronze-age shortswords or a Medieval 1½ hand sword. In my experience from medieval reenacting (which is Inferior to some other blokes in here, so they might have tried something else) feinting isn't so much of use as the swords are so heavy and the armour is so thick. It's hard to quickly spin the blade around from a feint.

Proper feinting is the application of body language to misdirect, so its not just limited to weapon movements. Rather it is somewhat akin to prestidigitation, but in combat instead of the hand, the opponent's eye follows the emphasised body movement and loses track of what the weapon arm (and consequently weapon) are actually doing.

Correct feints are not dependent on being fast either, so they can be performed with two handed weapons just as easily. Indeed relying on speed to achieve a feint is a glaring indicator of poor technique, since it means your distracting body language is not convincing enough.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Since Combat rolls is not an opposed skill, I assumed not, Warrior B has parried, and thus he will deflect damage based on his weapon size. If this is not the case, the "bypass parry" combat maneouvre, is completely pointless.

Bypass Parry works in unaugmented combat if the attacker gains a critical and his opponent merely succeeds.

Spells, Heroic Abilities, Spirits, Magical Weapons and other similar things may also give you a default or additional 'level' of Bypass Parry too - which could affect the situation if both the attacker and defender succeed.

If the two warriors keep jabbing at eachother with their swords, and none of them wants to do anything different. It will come down to the first one to roll a critical, who will then probably blind, disarm, bypass parry, or trip his opponent. (I would probably Disarm him, since him succeeding against a critical is pretty hard, and while he is picking up his weapon he I can stab him till my hearts content).

Probably, but there's also the possibility that he might roll an automatic miss (96-99) or a fumble (00) so its not always a critical which resolves the situation. :wink:

IMO, the Bypass parry mimics feinting pretty well, I haven't done as much fencing as your friend (only a very little), but I'd assume feinting to be less viable when your opponent is fighting with a shield and trying to Pin your rapier than in actual rapier on rapier combats.

Technically speaking a feint merely distracts the foe from the real purpose of your attack - which may or may not be to actually hit him.

 

[Mortimer]

If the two warriors keep jabbing at eachother with their swords, and none of them wants to do anything different. It will come down to the first one to roll a critical, who will then probably blind, disarm, bypass parry, or trip his opponent. (I would probably Disarm him, since him succeeding against a critical is pretty hard, and while he is picking up his weapon he I can stab him till my hearts content).

IMO, the Bypass parry mimics feinting pretty well, I haven't done as much fencing as your friend (only a very little), but I'd assume feinting to be less viable when your opponent is fighting with a shield and trying to Pin your rapier than in actual rapier on rapier combats.

What else CAN they do besides jab at each other? I tried to introduce an alternate option and everyone yelled at me. I agree with you on Bypass Parry, it feels very much like the sort of thing a feint would produce, unfortunately Bypass Parry is only useful on criticals (as far as I can tell, even though the rules don't state this). Overall if he brings it up again I'll probably just rename Bypass Parry to Feint and grin.


As for the suggestions for new CMs, I don't really like the idea of making it "duel-wielding only" AND "critical only" in the same CM. Also, why would "removes a CA from the defender" have to be a critical-only CM? "Stun Location" is not critical-only and can remove multiple CA's from the defender. I think this thread has done plenty to address any concerns about the original question (ie, "does this game need some other sort of attack for dealing with stalemates"). Thanks for all the help everyone!

 

[ThatGuy]

Not sure if you were killing the thread, if so apologies for the post.

But as people have said there is the CM that insinuated a successful feint. But the loss of a CA is a BIG issue as it is a huge advantage that can lead to an undefended attack. I would humbly suggest a CM that imposed a temporary negative modifier. Maybe -10%. You could make it an opposed roll before the actual attack, the loser taking on the -10% (so if the defender sees the feint coming, he has an enhanced chance of successfully defending it).

Don't mind the yelling. . Most folks here are super friendly (Mongoose Pete is one of the writers of the system), and the discussions are purely system based, not personal criticisms. If your players want feints, by all means, give 'em feints, these are just suggestions of how to go about it. I would just say let your players know you will change the mechanic if you see it being abused, or generally not working.

I have an online game over at RPOL that has a bunch of extra CM's I borrowed (and some I made up) from these boards. Check it out, and feel free to post any questions here, pm me here, or ask me at the game.

Glad you like the system! It is, in my opinion, probably the best one out there.

Here is the link to the RPOL game:

http://rpol.net/game.cgi?gi=44090&date=1297797236

 

[Mortimer]

I wasn't really closing the thread, just stating that I was happy with the answers. I decided I will try it out without the feint and then add it later if I decide I want it. Trying out new house rules is another thing my group likes to do to keep things fresh.

About CM's that remove enemy's CA's, please read Stun Location. That has the potential to render someone unconscious (ie take away their CA's completely), and even the less aggressive outcomes like "they are unable to use one of their arms" gives you a pretty huge advantage. Even forcing someone to do nothing but defend for X CA's (X = the attack's effective damage) seems stronger than just removing one of their CAs.

Thanks for that link I'll check it out.

 

[Mortimer]

So I'm trying to figure out what is the benefit of having longer reach compared to your opponent.

I'm having trouble with this statement from p92:

However, if the opponent decides to use the closing action to take
an attack instead, then the opponent resists the Evade Opposed
Test with his combat skill. Whether or not he is hit, the closer
succeeds in reaching close combat distance.

It's saying you have a "closer" and an "opponent". If the opponent chooses to attack the closer rather than step back and maintain the distance, then.... something. I'm not really sure what the bold part means.

Sorry if this has been explained elsewhere, please link if that's the case.

 

[Dan True]

What else CAN they do besides jab at each other?

A part of the beauty of the system is that real-world stuff can be dangerous too. People don't have tons of HP to withstand getting things thrown in their heads or tipped over them - instead of hacking away at each other they could try to disengage, keep fighting and moving around the area and try to fling a bookcase down over their opponent or make him trip over the loose tile across the room.

So I'm trying to figure out what is the benefit of having longer reach compared to your opponent.

I'm having trouble with this statement from p92:

However, if the opponent decides to use the closing action to take
an attack instead, then the opponent resists the Evade Opposed
Test with his combat skill. Whether or not he is hit, the closer
succeeds in reaching close combat distance.

It's saying you have a "closer" and an "opponent". If the opponent chooses to attack the closer rather than step back and maintain the distance, then.... something. I'm not really sure what the bold part means.

Sorry if this has been explained elsewhere, please link if that's the case.

Not sure what you're asking, so I'll explain all reach.

When you're fighting, you're fighting at a certain reach. You cannot attack someone outside of your reach, and you cannot parry an attack originating from within your reach. The rules say that you cannot attack someone fighting with a weapon two or more sizes larger than yours (shortspear and dagger for example).
So a guy with a dagger cannot attack his foe with a shortspear, without first getting "within" his reach (i.e. moving beside the spear and forcing him to jerk it back to still be able to attack) - but if that dagger guy get's close (via. the "Change Distance" Action), then the spear guy cannot parry his attacks (unless he has a shield... which he properly has).

Now, the quote you're addressing is from the Closing and Disengaging action. So, when the dagger guy tries to manoeuvre closer to his spearwielding opponent, he uses that action.
When dagger guy tries to close, spear-guy can either choose to counter the closing move or simply strike at him (but allowing him to close). If he tries to counter the move, then the most make an opposed test of evade (i.e. trying to move around to not give the opponent an edge). If he decides to hit him, then he gets a free attack which the daggerguy opposed with his evade.

When spearguy on his next CA wishes to move back a bit to be at a range where he can parry again (imagine a spear wielder with a daggerwielder 30 cm from him...) things are just the same. Spearguy chooses "Change Distance", daggerguy can now either opposed with evade (i.e. trying to keep up with spearguy as he is backing up) or simply hit him as he comes at a disadvantage by moving backwards.

So the advantage to having reach is quite simply - you can reach your enemy, he cannot reach you. Which is why most spear wielding guys have shields to when the enemy comes up close (and that's when you slam 'em with the shield ).

So, simply put:

Guy A tries to close/disengange:
Guy B can then:
1) Try to stay at the current distance (Evade vs. Evade) OR
2) Hit guy A (Combat vs. Evade).

- Dan

 

[Mortimer]

I guess I can see it. If you rearrange the words to say "the opponent uses his combat skill in an Opposed Test resisted by the closer's Evade".

In any case your explanation makes perfect sense, I'll just consider it "slightly house-ruled".

 

[PhilHibbs]

I might have misunderstood the rules then, but if warrior A and warrior B both have 75% in their relevant combat skill. And Warrior A rolls 70 for his attack, and Warrior B rolls 54. Will warrior A hit?

No, that's a parry. Given equivalent weapon sizes, nothing happens. There are three possibilities that result in a hit - hit versus miss or fumble, which is 0.85*0.05=4.25%; crit versus miss, which is 0.1*0.05=.5% chance; and crit versus success, which is 0.1*0.85=8.5%. Sum those up, there's the 13.25% chance. I didn't even add in the fail-vs-fumble chances, but that's only a .08% chance per exchange. (numbers are per the OP's example of 99% skills)

Since Combat rolls is not an opposed skill, I assumed not, Warrior B has parried, and thus he will deflect damage based on his weapon size.
If this is not the case, the "bypass parry" combat maneouvre, is completely pointless.

Bypass Parry is only useful in the 99v99 fight if the attacker criticals (10% chance) and the defender succeeds, and even then if the shield is big then it's still no use.

Actually, it's better than that even. I am only calculating the chance of the attacker getting a win. There's an equal chance that the defender can get a defensive CM by beating the attacker's level of success. So the chance of a CM being generated from an exchange is twice the figure quoted, 26.5%. The chance of a combat round passing with no CM awarded to either party is only 29%, and the chance that this will continue for two full combat rounds is 8.5%. So the suggestion that the boring status quo will go on for ever is nonsense, someone will probably get a CM in the first round.