Pete's Combat Rules from the Wiki

[atgxtg]

Not, It if when you consider that it is parrying a miss. IN RQ2, if you successfully parry a miss, you should suffer no damage (but the attackers weapon might take damage). Parrying a miss isn't so much stepping into the line of attack behind your shield (that's a fumble) but more like pushing away an attack that had already missed the mark, possibly putting the attacker off balance or creating an opening.

Real world SCA Fence experience: parrying an atack you know is going to miss is sometimes useful; you often can use the opponent's blade to guide you in past their other defenses.

His Lordship Nytshaed of Golden Rivers often did that to me.

Yup. Same experience with Shinai. It puts your blade closer to the other guy's body that his own, making it VERY difficult to parry your next attack, and often forcing then to step back.

Fencing has maneuvers for both offense and defense than involve making contact with the foe's weapon and moving it "out of line" to create an opening.

BTW, Thanks. You just helped to give me an idea for a combat system I'm working on. I had "defender retreats" but now have a reason for "attacker retreats".

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Real world SCA Fence experience: parrying an atack you know is going to miss is sometimes useful; you often can use the opponent's blade to guide you in past their other defenses.
.

Even without the RW experience, I am quite prepared to accept this. I'm not sure it holds true for a Durulz armed with a shortsword and buckler against a Great troll with a two-handed lead maul though...

 

[atgxtg]

Real world SCA Fence experience: parrying an atack you know is going to miss is sometimes useful; you often can use the opponent's blade to guide you in past their other defenses.
.

Even without the RW experience, I am quite prepared to accept this. I'm not sure it holds true for a Durulz armed with a shortsword and buckler against a Great troll with a two-handed lead maul though...

It is an extreme example, for sure. The differences in mass, strength and reach might be such that the duck could have little to no effect. Somewhat like a man parrying an elephant. Maybe if he jumped onto the maul that might slow it down?

But the theory is soild. Just that we are at the extremes of melee combat.

 

[AKAramis]

Real world SCA Fence experience: parrying an atack you know is going to miss is sometimes useful; you often can use the opponent's blade to guide you in past their other defenses.
.

Even without the RW experience, I am quite prepared to accept this. I'm not sure it holds true for a Durulz armed with a shortsword and buckler against a Great troll with a two-handed lead maul though...

If the Durulz can get the leverage, yes.

Also, keep in mind: 90% of parries do not stop blows; they merely move the swing out of contact by deflection. I've (in SCA Hardsuit) deflected a greatsword with a dagger. It can be done. It's not easy, nor reliable, but it CAN be done.

 

[Banesfinger]

I think this is a fantastic PDF Pete, keep-up the good work.

Question:
On the Streamlined Combat table, Defender Wins columns for Major and Critical Victories:

They state: "...the attacker selects...special effects."
Did you mean Defender? (Since he won the contest).

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I think this is a fantastic PDF Pete, keep-up the good work.

Thank you!

Question:
On the Streamlined Combat table, Defender Wins columns for Major and Critical Victories:

They state: "...the attacker selects...special effects."
Did you mean Defender? (Since he won the contest).

Opps, yes it should be defender. Sorry about that. Sometimes you work on a project so long that you no longer actually 'read' the text anymore, but your brain automatically substitutes what it thinks is there. A good example of why peer reviews and editors are so necessary...

It might be time to release a new version...

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Version 2.4 of the Opposed Roll Combat Rules has now been completed. It deals with the loophole Rurik spotted and adds his other suggestions. I also fixed the text in the streamlined combat table which Banesfinger kindly pointed out.

I have kept the possibility of turning a failed attack into a miss, as an option on the Special Effects table. This allows characters to decide whether they would just like to avoid being hit entirely, or take a gamble and try for something more advantageous in exchange for potentially suffering some damage. The way I rationalise this is that trying for a trip/disarm etc requires engagement of the attacker's body or weapon, and thus places the character back into harm' way. In the case of creatures much larger than the defender, this could be very nasty.

However looking at the numbers, a duck warrior using a target shield should still be able to survive an average great hammer blow from a troll if the duck wins the opposed roll...

I.e. the duck wins the partial success whilst parrying (using average rolls):

Duck deflects 8 (for shield) -1d2 (damage penalty) = 6.5 AP
Troll inflicts 1d10 (from great hammer) + 1d12 (damage bonus), then halved = 12/2 = 6 damage. Thus the duck emerges unscathed.

Even if the troll rolls maximum damage (11 points after halving) the duck still only suffers 4.5 damage, which is a just survivable wound, assuming no armour.

Of course if the attacking troll wins the partial victory (or if the doomed fowl attempts to parry with a shortsword) then the duck is pate! But that is as it should be. :twisted:

I had to go back and check the numbers since I couldn't understand how I'd let a loophole like that get past the playtests. What I found was that it takes a far larger disparity in size/strength before a halved damage roll becomes consistently deadly. This was borne out during the heroic level playtest (Greek heroes vs mythological creatures) when the huge monsters still had problems penetrating Aspis (large circular shields) if the parrying heroes won the opposed test.

Hopefully Magistus will post when the new file has been uploaded to he wiki.

Cheers!

 

[Magistus]

Page updated.

 

[master of reality]

I really like the Pete Nash combat rules. I use them whenever a player chooses to parry. Players still get the option to dodge. In which case I consult the updated dodge table. IMO this is how the core rules should have been written, or at the very least the Nash rules should have been included as an optional parry rule. It'd be nice to see the Nash rules become an official part of the RuneQuest system.
Perhaps Mongoose could publish an advanced combat supplement. If they did, it should include a new combat action called "combat advance". It's exactly like "combat retreat" except the character or NPC can move half his movement allowance towards an adversary and attack, basically an advance to combat move. The first time we play tested the combat, I laid out a 17x11 sheet of 25 mm hex paper and placed four figures on it, two on either side of the sheet. I played the two figures on one side, human characters, and my friend played their two adversaries on the other side, also human. Each hex represents 1 meter. So, we advanced towards each other at a rate of 4 hexes per combat action. When we got within two hexes of each other, we did not know what to do. If I decided to expend a combat action to move adjacent to the enemy, the enemy would attack me, and according to the rules, that enemy would get a free attack! The only way to avoid this free attack, so it seemed, was to charge, but that required starting the charge action a minimum of 5 hexes away. Moreover, the fact that there was a charge action made us ask why a character could not simply walk up to an enemy and attack. The concept of getting a free attack when an opponent moves adjacent makes sense if the opponent is simply running by, but if a character moves directly toward the enemy with weapon drawn, suffering a free attack from that enemy doesn't make any sense. It certainly does not give any player an incentive to attack. So, we invented the "combat advance " action, problem solved.
Overall the MRQ system is fundamentally solid. So, any problems are easily fixed. For example, the original parry/dodge tables simply needed to have the "attack succeeds as normal" result for a failed attack against a failed dodge or parry changed to "attack fails". In fact, the first time I saw this, I figured it was a misprint. Thankfully, Mongoose took the time to publish dodge/parry tables that rectified this.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I really like the Pete Nash combat rules. I use them whenever a player chooses to parry. Players still get the option to dodge. In which case I consult the updated dodge table. IMO this is how the core rules should have been written, or at the very least the Nash rules should have been included as an optional parry rule. It'd be nice to see the Nash rules become an official part of the RuneQuest system.

Glad you liked them, whichever bits you're using!

Of course, since I didn't fully crystallise my ideas until after helping with the Players Update, it would have been impossible for Mongoose to include them in the core rules. Unfortunately, opposed roll systems aren't everyone's cup of tea. So although a few of my mechanics were included in the GM's Guide, being extrapolations of some of Loz's original conceptions, he could not incorporate the entire system. It is a significant evolution from the core MRQ combat rules.

I did however submit it to S&P last year, but unfortunately I never heard anything back, even to my follow up emails. Of course the staff changes at Mongoose haven't helped.

Its a good system, plays well and gives a greater degree of flexibility to combat. But for the time-being, it doesn't appear as if it will appear in an Official Mongoose publication. But maybe, if fate smiles upon me, it could end up being used elsewhere.

At some point I should post v2.5, but I have a Choasium project to finish off first.

Thanks for showing your appreciation!

 

[master of reality]

Pete Nash wrote: "Glad you liked them, whichever bits you're using!"

I'm using the complete system, not the simplified version. However I only use these rules if the defender parries. Everyone in my gaming circle agreed that they still wanted the option to dodge, although in a sense the defender is already dancing around to avoid being hit. Otherwise, any attack with a hand-to-hand combat weapon would pretty much be automatic. I'm no swordsman, but I'm pretty confident that I could swing a sword at a human sized, stationary, non-reacting target and hit. On the other hand, choosing to dodge could be interpreted as making that slick maneuver that narrowly avoids the blade. That's why I like the success versus success result on the updated dodge table: "minimum damage to defender". With the Nash rules, the attacker at minimum rolls half-damage. Some of my players objected to this, but for a parry, this makes perfect sense. Even if the attack misses, a parry implies some sort of clash of weapons. I suppose if both attack and parry fail, then that could be interpreted as swords literally missing each other. But there must be more to a parry than just absorbing damage, which is why I like all the special results. Without them, the defender might as well dodge all the time, unless he hopes to get a riposte.
For my gaming circle, I think we have the right combination of rules. If fighting, say, a great troll, the defender can dodge to avoid receiving half damage or more. On the other hand, for human to human sword play, the defender can parry in hopes of disarming or tripping the attacker, and for human to human combat, rolling half damage, especially with the variable weapon AP rules (another feature I really like), usually results in all, or almost all the damage getting deflected.

I look forward to version 2.5

 

[adunaphel]

Hi, I find your combat system very interesting.

However I have a little problem with it.

What happens if both oppoments fail their rolls ?

Hypothesis 1 :

The attack is a miss (we don't care about the defending fighter).

In this case the special effect to turn a failed attack into a miss is useless.

Hypothesis 2 :

The contestant who rolled the lower win the opposed test.

In this case the attaquant would hit and inflict some damages reduced by the AP of the defensor.

So, the attaquant will have a better chance to hit a defending opponent than a non defending one (because he would have missed his roll which would have been an unopposed check) !!

Isn't it quite weird ?

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Hi, I find your combat system very interesting. However I have a little problem with it. What happens if both oppoments fail their rolls ?

Hypothesis 1 :

The attack is a miss (we don't care about the defending fighter). In this case the special effect to turn a failed attack into a miss is useless.

Isn't it quite weird ?

As per normal Opposed Tests, if both participants fail, then nothing happens. One participant has to achieve at least a normal success in order to gain any benefit from the victory level.

The 'Attacker Misses' special effect was included, for those situations where you are fighting against creatures or weapons whose damage dice are massively out of proportion to your own. For example fighting against a dinosaur, or using a dagger against a greatsword. In these cases even if the defender wins, their opponent's (halved) damage roll will still penetrate the defender's combined armour and deflection points.

For the same reason the 'Defender Exposed' special effect was included for situations where you're facing larger creatures armed with bigger weapons; a tree wielding giant for example... where your maximum damage roll still cannot overcome their halved deflection points.

I hope that clarifies things.

 

[adunaphel]

Thanks for your reply.

But it does not clarify :lol:

You say that if they both fail there is no damage ... ok

But if the attaquant fail and the defensor is succesful the attaquant does half damage versus that defensor ???

So the defensor is hit because he was successful and would not have been hit if he failed !

It's still quite weird isn'it ?

Wouldn't it be more logical that if the attaquant fail his roll he does no damage whatever ?

 

[Mongoose Pete]

But if the attaquant fail and the defensor is succesful the attaquant does half damage versus that defensor ??? So the defensor is hit because he was successful and would not have been hit if he failed !

It's still quite weird isn'it ?

It is a bit weird, but that's because its an abstraction, based on MRQ's Opposed Tests.

If you actually use the system for real, you'll discover that what normally happens between two opponents of roughly equal Weapon Damage and Damage Bonus, is that the failed attacker's half damage rarely ever penetrates the deflection of the successful defender.

Thus for all intents and purposes, the failed attack has effectively missed. Since by implication (in your example) the defender automatically receives a special effect, he could always just select the 'Attacker Misses' to ensure the miss... In playtesting it was the unarmoured fencer's favourite choice!

Damage only regularly starts to leak through when facing significantly larger creatures/weapons. At this point it comes down to a question of how you interpret the abstraction of the mechanic...

For example, when a bear makes a failed attack against my successful defense, its not that the creature missed me completely (such things are actually rare in real-life combat - assuming you are properly within engagement range). The claws might not have hit past my shield, but the rest of the bear's arm may have buffeted my head as it glanced off, or smacked my shield back into my face, or wrenched the muscles in my arm, etc. Against a fellow human the effect probably wouldn't be very great... but in the case of a bear, it's strength and size means that its still very dangerous.

Such incidental damage is very common in melee combat, and I have seen/experienced many such injuries, despite the fact that the attack had been (technically) blocked/deflected successfully. It becomes more frequent against larger opponents or fighters using bigger weapons.

So from my perspective it wasn't a problem, or even a flaw. Indeed, its a far more realistic portrayal of what happens when a warrior goes up against something out of his weight range!

Wouldn't it be more logical that if the attaquant fail his roll he does no damage whatever ?

In certain circumstance (or game styles), yes it would. And indeed if you look at my 'Streamlined Combat Resolution Table', that's exactly what happens.

However, if you want to have a more detailed system using deflections, the success levels should be interpreted in a more abstract manner to work smoothly. Adding specific exceptions for certain combinations of success levels screws up the simplicity and elegance of the mechanic, ending up with horribly messy tables - which was what I was trying to avoid in the first place.

Whilst at first it might initially seem illogical, try running a few trial combats and you should find that the mechanic works very neatly!

 

[Rasta]

A friend of mine was looking for this thread, so . . . .

BUMP

 

[IndicusSativas]

Pete, I must say that your new combat modifications are excellent. Many thanks for being so innovative. What inspired you to add and/or change these certain aspects of MRQ?

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Pete, I must say that your new combat modifications are excellent. Many thanks for being so innovative. What inspired you to add and/or change these certain aspects of MRQ?

A number of different things prompted me. Initially, the major drive was a desire to harmoniously use Opposed Tests as the core of combat, since they work well for every other type of skill or spell conflict in MRQ. I also wanted to patch the mathematical and mechanical flaws expressed about the system as it stood.

However, when I started to think deeply about the traditional RQ combat rules I discovered that they did not mesh with my real life fighting experience.

To me, the simplistic model didn't reflect the dynamic nature of combat, in which tricks, techniques and movement are an inherent part of every attack and parry. Seriously reducing your weapon skill to do something as basic as attempting a disarm, or to hit a specific location was counter-intuitive. For example, I don't wave my sword about striking at random locations in the hope of an opening to occur in my opponent's defence... its a waste of effort and exposes me dangerously. Instead I force my opponent to expose the area where I want to strike him.

So I replaced the static effects of the MRQ Attack/Parry/Dodge tables with something that allowed players to generate a far more fluid (and realistic) set of combat effects. The other abstract and system modifications followed to support my own personal experiences - the removal of a separate dodge skill, the ability of a lone combatant to outmaneuver multiple foes, modifying wound level effects for quicker combat resolution, etc, etc.

They are not perfect by any means, but I'm still tinkering with it; trying to apply the rules to other genres to see if they work. I'm currently using them with Star Wars to see if I can replicate the seven different forms of lightsabre combat - by application of small bonuses to specific skills, and limiting the range of special effects depending on the style...

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Pete, I must say that your new combat modifications are excellent. Many thanks for being so innovative. What inspired you to add and/or change these certain aspects of MRQ?

Oh, and thank you. Its nice to have ideas and work appreciated!

 

[master of reality]

Pete,


Will Mongoose publish an advanced combat supplement for RuneQuest, and if so, will it be based on your opposed skills combat system?

I'm pretty happy with how I conduct combat now (see previous posts on this thread), but it would be cool to add other details, such as attack styles or possible weapon damage when parrying a particularly strong blow, etc. In the game Flashing Blades, for example, a character can choose to slash, thrust, or lunge. Not to suggest that Flashing Blades should be copied, but something similar for RuneQuest would be nice.