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

[Deleriad]

Just to go back to the feint discussion a second because it does bring up an interesting issue. With the usual caveat that people should play whatever way brings most fun out of the way there is an issue of how house rules interact with a system.

The RQ combat system puts about 95% of the decision making after the dice are rolled. So if the dice say there's no decision to be made, then you just get on and roll the dice again. The feint idea you mention puts the decision making before the roll. That is roughly how RQ worked in previous editions. You chose a tactic, took some sort of drawback and made the roll. The result of that was that before each roll you needed time to make a decision and fewer attacks succeeded. That's why the current version swapped things around.

It's a bit like playing poker. You can't play your hand until you know your cards so your decision making comes after the random element.

My preference then is to try and house rule the system through the use of Combat Manoeuvres rather than expanding the range of attack possibilities. And be flexible in how you use CMs.*

As Phil Hibbs says. It might look as if two people with 3 CAs each both at 100% will take forever to get a CM but once you calculate the odds it's surprising the number of times that a CM occurs.
---

*E.g. in last night's session the PCs were raiding a temple in Pavis. One PC had been grabbed around the left arm by a guard (unarmed attack to grab). Next CA he used an unarmed attack to grab back got a CM and chose location (head) stating that he wanted to put his hand over her mouth to silence her. Her next CA was an unarmed attack to do damage (i.e bite the hand.) That succeeded. I ruled that a bite attack could count as a larger attack so he took 1 point to the hand. For his next CA he had hoped to do damage and, if he got a CM to start choking her. There is no such thing as a Choke CM but it makes sense in this context. He rolled, got a CM then changed his mind. Asked if he could use stun location by bashing her head against the wall. Normally stun location is bludgeoning weapons but I said yes. She was wearing a helm and he had hold of the head so he didn't need to choose the location. There was a risk that he wouldn't do enough damage to stun her but he decided to go for it. 1 point got through, she failed her resilience test and down she went. There's a lot of room for interpretation of CMs as they come up in play which probably isn't immediately obvious from reading the book. I tend to think of the CM list as a starting point rather than being an end point.

 

[Redcrow]

It's a bit like playing poker. You can't play your hand until you know your cards so your decision making comes after the random element.

Thats a good analogy.

I really like the CM system in MRQ2 and find it a stroke of genius, but I have spoken with a few others online that have difficulty wrapping their head around making tactical decisions after the dice are rolled because thats just not how every other game does it.

Personally I find the CM system better reflects a skilled fighter waiting for the proper opening to perform a maneuver instead of trying to force an opening round after round until they get lucky. YMMV.

 

[Mixster]

What else CAN they do besides jab at each other?

IMO there's tons of things they can do. If one of them has a better evade score than the other. Disengaging to have the other one engage again can be a decent idea. If the other one doesn't engage, switch to some weapon you can throw (preferably while still holding your shield).

If you have acrobatics, look around you and find something where you can use that skill. Then as your opponent tries to use it, he will be at a disadvantage.

But Ofc your runequest is different, so including a feint is probably a pretty neat idea.

You could always say that if you make a feint attack you roll Influence (to throw him off his guard) vs. Combat style, and if you succeed his weapon counts as one size smaller for parrying. If you fail, the attack automatically misses, with no need to roll. I'm just throwing ideas out here for you to work with, the main downside with this Idea is that it increases dicerolling, which is always annoying.

 

[Mortimer]

Wow lots of good posts since I last visited.

Deleriad:

I see the danger in putting too many decisions before the roll, I was just looking for something to add so that a duel between two evenly matched fighters doesn't come down to who has better luck on a single die-roll (other games are less lethal, so a lucky roll won't instantly win or lose you the fight). But I like the lethality of RQ quite a bit, so instead of making a safer alternative, I made a more dangerous alternative to the regular attack (if you go back and read my proposed Feint, you'll see its basically a 50% chance to give your opponent a CM in exchange for a ~25% chance you'll get a CM and do damage). In my mind, the only reason to use feint the way I envisioned it was if you needed to end the fight quickly and were willing to take a risk. It definitely wasn't something to use round after round on every attack.

If you don't mind, I'm going to steal that paragraph about using CM's creatively to show to my players. That's exactly the way I'd like them to approach CM's.

Redcrow:

I do thing some of it was that I was having trouble wrapping my head around it. I definitely wasn't trying to make feint something you use constantly though. I agree that the RAW system reflects melee combat SO much better than D&D and other systems that I've tried.

Mixster:

My impression was that nothing special happens when you (re)engage an opponent who's weapon has the same reach as yours?

Yes my original idea for feint used Sleight and Insight (D&D style), but I realized the problem with that: the point of having Combat Style skills is so that "combat" only comes down to one skill. That's why I switched it to CS vs CS Opposed Test. It seemed silly that someone with a high proficiency in combat could be completely unable to read a feint just because his Insight score was low. It gets back to what Mongoose Pete was talking about with how actually learning the weapon is only a small part of learning to fight.

I appreciate the suggestion but your version of feint is actually quite a bit stronger (compared to a regular attack) than I'm comfortable with. Also, my version of feint didn't increase die rolling. It's still 1 roll per CA.

Completely unrelated note:

Does anyone have any house rules they use for balancing dual wielding (like rapier+main gauche)? I'm trying to figure out how to let my fencer friend play a fencer character in this new system without being out-classed by the rest of the party. My players know I like to GM brutal games (another reason I love this system), so he probably won't choose to play a fencer (which he really wants to do) if it means weakening the party.

 

[Deleriad]

Does anyone have any house rules they use for balancing dual wielding (like rapier+main gauche)? I'm trying to figure out how to let my fencer friend play a fencer character in this new system without being out-classed by the rest of the party. My players know I like to GM brutal games (another reason I love this system), so he probably won't choose to play a fencer (which he really wants to do) if it means weakening the party.

By balancing do you mean making dual wielding stronger or weaker? And by fencer do you mean that the player would like to play someone wielding just a 1-handed sword?

Rapier & Main Gauche is more offensively powerful than Sword & Shield but defensively weaker. It is borderline suicidal against wielders of large 2-handed weapons due to the smaller parrying size. Then again, that's probably not unreasonable. RQ is not by nature a fair and balanced system. As a GM I would be keen to set up situations where the comfort blanket of sword & shield or 2-handed axe is taken away. I'm currently running an urban campaign so the PCs haven't been able to use much more than a knife or a shortsword for months.

There is one CM you could add.
"Superior Riposte" (Dual-wield only; defense). This can only be chosen by someone using a dual-wield style that does not include a shield. The defender can make an immediate attack - just like a normal riposte - however the target of the riposte cannot parry the riposte with the same weapon that was just used for an attack.

This CM is irrelevant against sword & shield and other dual wielders but is extremely nasty against 2-handed weapon users.

 

[Mortimer]

By balancing do you mean making dual wielding stronger or weaker? And by fencer do you mean that the player would like to play someone wielding just a 1-handed sword?

He tells me that wielding just a 1-handed sword rather than a sword + parrying dagger is unrealistic (ie, even though the sport of fencing doesn't allow the use of your offhand, he's still been trained to use it because it's so effective). So I'm not trying to balance just having a sword + nothing, I'm trying to balance Dual Wield. And by balance I mean make it stronger.

Rapier & Main Gauche is more offensively powerful than Sword & Shield but defensively weaker.

It's probably inexperience with the system, but how is it offensively more powerful? Right now I see it as being on par vs a sword+shield but at a huge disadvantage vs two-hander and ranged attacks. Weapon+shield seems better or equal in every situation.

It is borderline suicidal against wielders of large 2-handed weapons due to the smaller parrying size. Then again, that's probably not unreasonable. RQ is not by nature a fair and balanced system. As a GM I would be keen to set up situations where the comfort blanket of sword & shield or 2-handed axe is taken away. I'm currently running an urban campaign so the PCs haven't been able to use much more than a knife or a shortsword for months.

I wouldn't want to change the advantage 2-hander has over dual wielding, I think it's fine as-is. Right now I basically see it as a guy with a huge 6 foot sword comes charging at your fencer, he uses evade and runs around the room until the huge guy trips.


I see two choices for changing the balance of the weapons. I can give Dual Wielding a slight offensive edge in some way, or I could make it so that the combined ENC of the weapons you're using has some sort of effect, (like maybe lowers your Strike Rank).

 

[PhilHibbs]

I see two choices for changing the balance of the weapons. I can give Dual Wielding a slight offensive edge in some way, or I could make it so that the combined ENC of the weapons you're using has some sort of effect, (like maybe lowers your Strike Rank).

That's an interesting idea, treat weapons and shields just like armour for SR purposes.

 

[Deleriad]

Rapier & Main Gauche is more offensively powerful than Sword & Shield but defensively weaker.

It's probably inexperience with the system, but how is it offensively more powerful? Right now I see it as being on par vs a sword+shield but at a huge disadvantage vs two-hander and ranged attacks. Weapon+shield seems better or equal in every situation.

What I mean by that is that a main gauche is a better attacking weapon than a shield is. There's not a lot in it. Combat Re-enactors (I'm not one) will probably tell you that sword & shield is, simply, better than sword & dagger. re-enactors love their shields and RQ has been written by re-enactors since the late 70s. Probably why shields tend to be very highly favoured in the system.

One previously popular house rule was that the bonus CA for carrying a shield could only be used for parrying with the shield. You could then say that the bonus CA for a dual-wield non-shield can be used for attacking or parrying with that weapon. It's a marginal boost that looks more useful than it actually is.

The easiest thing as a GM to do though is probably to make it easier for him to do cool tricks. For example allow the rapier + main gauche style to include the ability to throw the dagger or give a bonus to the Change Range manoeuvre when facing 2h weapons or sword&shield users to represent his greater mobility. You could also give him say a +10% bonus to attack with his main gauche against an opponent who is not expecting it, that kind of thing. It might be that the player starts to find creative uses of the style that overcome the imbalance if you pitch it to him as a challenge.

 

[Dan True]

Also, remember the a lot depends on setting and the general area your in. If you play a late medieval or renaissance campaign, in a city then next to no one will carry a shield around, but many nobles will have swords and daggers (for eating) at all time. And if he did carry a shield around with him, the social consequences would be dire. So your fencing fellow probably will never find a guy carrying a sword in his natural environment.

And, if your renaissance-players decide to take a hike into the northern wilderness where the barbarian tribes roam free... Then the player is pretty silly if he believes he can still fight effectively without making changes to his style/weaponry. Adaptability is key here.

What I mean by that is that a main gauche is a better attacking weapon than a shield is. There's not a lot in it. Combat Re-enactors (I'm not one) will probably tell you that sword & shield is, simply, better than sword & dagger. re-enactors love their shields and RQ has been written by re-enactors since the late 70s. Probably why shields tend to be very highly favoured in the system.

Yep. On the battlefield, sword and dagger simply isn't as effective and lifesaving as sword/spear + shield is. However, sword+shield would be view badly upon in a 17th century court or at a ball.

- Dan

 

[Mortimer]

I think a Main Gauche should be a better attacking weapon than a shield, but it isn't in RQ. Shields do more damage and have size Large rather than Small.

I think I'm going to further explore the weapon ENC having an effect idea. It seems like a guy carrying a heavy mace in one hand and a kite shield in the other should have some penalty for being 2 ENC higher than a Great Sword and 5 ENC higher than a fencer. Maybe I'll increase the role of fatigue in combat or something, like make your fatigue depend on your ENC not just your CON.

 

[Dan True]

I think a Main Gauche should be a better attacking weapon than a shield, but it isn't in RQ. Shields do more damage and have size Large rather than Small.

A Main Gauche has bleed, which is a brilliant combat manoeuvre. But, you can always decrease the damage of shields and remove the "Impale" manoeuvre of the target shield... That would also do the trick,

I think I'm going to further explore the weapon ENC having an effect idea. It seems like a guy carrying a heavy mace in one hand and a kite shield in the other should have some penalty for being 2 ENC higher than a Great Sword and 5 ENC higher than a fencer. Maybe I'll increase the role of fatigue in combat or something, like make your fatigue depend on your ENC not just your CON.

Yep, it would make sense. I've been thinking along those lines too - but too keep it simple you could say you a penalty to SR equal to the ENC of your weapons.
I wouldn't bring fatigue into it though, because even large weapons don't weigh enough to seriously tire you in the long run ( a normal sword weighs around 1-1.5 kg) and a two-handed sword around 3-4 kg. Enough to make a difference in armour (which it does if you've already spent your available ENC on armour), but not enough to be heavy in itself.

- Dan

 

[Mortimer]

I like the Strike Rank idea, but does going last in Strike Rank make a significant difference? I don't have enough experience with the system to know, since I haven't actually played a game yet.

 

[Deleriad]

I like the Strike Rank idea, but does going last in Strike Rank make a significant difference? I don't have enough experience with the system to know, since I haven't actually played a game yet.

In an environment where the norm is 3 CAs then going first means you attack twice and the other guy once. In general being able to hit fist is a huge advantage.

There are issues with counting weapon ENC against SR. For example would it include sheathed weapons? what about other sources of ENC such as a coil of rope and so on do they count against SR? It does add extra book-keeping. It's ok for players but as a GM trying to play multiple antagonists intelligently my preference is to keep the system simple.

 

[Mortimer]

Only readied weapons (or things in your hands) would be counted, because something in your hand that you're trying to wield competently has a much bigger impact on your agility than something strapped to your body.

As the GM I try to make things work well from the player's perspective and then if I find its too much work for me I'll fudge it on the less important enemies. The idea is similar to the optional rule letting you drop the locational damage on Underlings. If the PCs go up against an important villain, then I'll keep track of his weapon ENC as if he was a player character.

Also, I read a post from someone who said he's never had a combat go past 4 rounds. Since this change only effects initiative (once per round), I don't think it'll be too taxing.

 

[Deleriad]

Also, I read a post from someone who said he's never had a combat go past 4 rounds. Since this change only effects initiative (once per round), I don't think it'll be too taxing.

Well it has been my experience that disarming is pretty common. This would mean that a character would get disarmed and then their SR would increase. That is pretty counter-intuitive. Similarly in the games I run, attempted ambushes are a fairly common way for a fight to start which means that both PCs and NPCs may spend the first round or two scrabbling around and trying to arm themselves. That and things like missile users swapping out bows for melee weapons and so on.

Very unusual edge case from the fight last night, the PC had no weapons but was holding up a semi-conscious NPC and trying to use her as a meat shield. That would be a pretty tricky ENC calculation.

It probably seems like I'm trying to shoot down all your ideas. Just that I recognise someone like me who likes to tinker with rules. Personally, whenever I consider new rules I like to run through all the potentially undesirable outcomes I can think of.

 

[Mortimer]

Well it has been my experience that disarming is pretty common. This would mean that a character would get disarmed and then their SR would increase. That is pretty counter-intuitive. Similarly in the games I run, attempted ambushes are a fairly common way for a fight to start which means that both PCs and NPCs may spend the first round or two scrabbling around and trying to arm themselves. That and things like missile users swapping out bows for melee weapons and so on.

This only changes the initiative calculation at the start of each round, so you don't do it any more frequently no matter how people swap around their weapons. And the way I treat it is that Initiative = 1d10 + Strike Rank - Weapon ENC, so its changing your initiative, not your Strike Rank. If someone is unarmed and then uses 2 CAs to pull out a mace and kite shield, I'm fine with him spending the rest of that round at the top of the initiative (most likely his last 2 CAs are used on parrying anyway).

I don't really see a problem with waiting until the start of the following round to recalculate initiative. I don't think it rewards people that pick up weapons nor significantly penalizes people that drop them.

Very unusual edge case from the fight last night, the PC had no weapons but was holding up a semi-conscious NPC and trying to use her as a meat shield. That would be a pretty tricky ENC calculation.

That's not tricky at all, just put them at the bottom of the initiative. Tricky would be if TWO people were trying to carry bodies around. :wink:

It probably seems like I'm trying to shoot down all your ideas. Just that I recognise someone like me who likes to tinker with rules. Personally, whenever I consider new rules I like to run through all the potentially undesirable outcomes I can think of.

That's fine, I like to try to think of problems with the rules too. If there are any big problems with the Weapon ENC idea, I do want to catch them before the game starts, that way I have time to come up with a different rule.

 

[Mixster]

Reducing SR because of enc sounds like a decent idea.

When initially reading through the rules, I also thought strike rank was kind of meaningless. Then after having played a few games, I found out it actually meant quite a good deal. Now my current character also has a crapload of CAs so that might be why, but I find acting fast is terribly useful.

 

[Mortimer]

On the subject of "alternatives to a standard attack" (such as my proposed feint rule), how is Leap Attack not an example of an alternative to a standard attack? It says "some creatures", does that mean not humans?

I'm going to start a whole other thread about charging cause I really don't understand how that one works.

 

[ThatGuy]

On the subject of "alternatives to a standard attack" (such as my proposed feint rule), how is Leap Attack not an example of an alternative to a standard attack? It says "some creatures", does that mean not humans?

Yes, that means "not humans." Panthers, cougar, Chimeras- that sort of thing (I think).

However, if my player could convince me that this should apply to him, I would probably allow it. (ie. Waiting on a low bridge for the bandit to come walking through with spear in hand, or hiding in a tree to attack a passing patrol. I would probably demand a stealth roll, but I might allow the leap attack if an athletics roll were made. And my guess is, you are starting to see how a good GM can bend and apply these rules to fit almost any situation...)

 

[Mortimer]

I think those uses for it are perfect, I just don't want one of my players to read that and go "hmm I'm going to make a character that leaps on people instead of attacking them".

One of my players complained there were no elevation rules for bow damage. :roll: