Quick question about bonus CAs
- Thread starter Quill
- Start date
Deleriad
Mongoose
The official rule is that you can use the extra CA for anything you like. In practice I know very few people who play that.
Personally, I assign the bonus CA to the combat style and let it be used for any action by that style. E.g. If using sword and shield style I allow the bonus to be used for an attack or a parry by either weapon. I wouldn't allow it to be used for an evade or lighting a cigarette.
Rationale: well if you have a shield covering your body you could swing relentlessly with your sword to keep your foe on the defensive even if you never actually do anything with your shield.
Long term: I'm starting to think the bonus CA isn't actually a good rule. Generally any rule which no-one plays the same is probably not a good rule. I'm tempted to ditch it and revise riposte to say that if you riposte it has to be with a different weapon than the one that parried and your opponent can't parry with the weapon that just attacked. That way dual wielding becomes the most practical way to riposte and riposte becomes a lot more productive. (You could still parry with a greatsword then riposte with a headbutt of course and that's a cool thing...)
Personally, I assign the bonus CA to the combat style and let it be used for any action by that style. E.g. If using sword and shield style I allow the bonus to be used for an attack or a parry by either weapon. I wouldn't allow it to be used for an evade or lighting a cigarette.
Rationale: well if you have a shield covering your body you could swing relentlessly with your sword to keep your foe on the defensive even if you never actually do anything with your shield.
Long term: I'm starting to think the bonus CA isn't actually a good rule. Generally any rule which no-one plays the same is probably not a good rule. I'm tempted to ditch it and revise riposte to say that if you riposte it has to be with a different weapon than the one that parried and your opponent can't parry with the weapon that just attacked. That way dual wielding becomes the most practical way to riposte and riposte becomes a lot more productive. (You could still parry with a greatsword then riposte with a headbutt of course and that's a cool thing...)
Deleriad said:
As Riposte is a combat manoeuver, don't you think it would be a rather marginal advantage ? Note that you could even remove it from the general CM list and give it to a few weapons (such as off-hand weapons and shields)
As I see it, I think you're giving a big advantage to 2H weapons. With the +1CA rule, there is some kind of "rock-paper-scisors" game with weapon styles :
1H+Shield wins over 2H styles because they can parry it effectively and have that extra action.
2H wins over 2x1H style because the latter have a poor parry capacity.
2x1H style wins over 1H+shield because it has sufficient parry capacity to block 1H weapons and a better offensive capacity.
Of course, 1H styles are the big losers...
If you remove the extra action from 1H+Shield and 2x1H, you're putting 1H+Shield styles in trouble versus 2H styles that deal lots of damage and have a good parry capacity.
Deleriad
Mongoose
Mugen said:Deleriad said:
As Riposte is a combat manoeuver, don't you think it would be a rather marginal advantage ? Note that you could even remove it from the general CM list and give it to a few weapons (such as off-hand weapons and shields)
As I see it, I think you're giving a big advantage to 2H weapons. With the +1CA rule, there is some kind of "rock-paper-scisors" game with weapon styles :
1H+Shield wins over 2H styles because they can parry it effectively and have that extra action.
2H wins over 2x1H style because the latter have a poor parry capacity.
2x1H style wins over 1H+shield because it has sufficient parry capacity to block 1H weapons and a better offensive capacity.
Of course, 1H styles are the big losers...
If you remove the extra action from 1H+Shield and 2x1H, you're putting 1H+Shield styles in trouble versus 2H styles that deal lots of damage and have a good parry capacity.
Well the change to riposte for all intents and purposes makes it a dual-wield only style so it's up there with sunder, stun, bleed and impale. At the moment riposte is only occasionally more useful than choosing not to parry a missed attack and saving the CA. (Basically you need to have a lower initiative than your opponent and either 3 or 5 CAs and even that is debatable as you're forfeiting a potentially undefendable attack later in order to attack now).
As for the rock-paper-scissors argument, it's pretty reasonable and really the only thing holding me back as 2H weapons, especially with reach, may become overpowering. On the other hand, as soon as a 2h weapon user misses an attack then they're at risk of a basically undefendable attack straight away. The other good argument is that a sword and shield makes a normal 2CA person into someone who can withstand a 3CA person so a shield is basically the dim, slow fighter's best friend.
Deleriad said:
I agree. It does reflect real combat; add a shield and a poor fighter becomes just that bit better, or at least lives a bit longer!!
Also 2H weapons tend to deal more damage, have more combat manoeuvres to choose from and they have the reach to hold people off, so I reckon it balances out even with the extra CA for a shield.
Jujitsudave
Mongoose
They used to say of you lost your shield on the battlefield, you are as good as dead.
One thing thats not really addressed by the rules is stance and the target you presenting to your opponent.
Weilding a single weapon tends to keep your body side on to your opponent (presenting a smaller target, if you exclude the beer gut), where as twin weapons and 2h weapons styles tend to either drop the shoulder round or present your body square on, making you a bigger target.
Its not going to make much of a difference in larger skirmishing but smaller engagements it could be significant.
Deleriad wrote:
Coming from fencing perspective: a riposte is when you either defleft the attack wide or bind the opponents weapon (turning its point away from you) and ride you blade along theirs and strike them. In effect turning their attack to your advantage. You could possibly manage a bind with a katana but a hand and a half is pushing it.
I can't see how heavy hacking, mauling, or polearms could reposte effectively.
I generally think of ripostes coming from lighter/tactical weapons, rather than pole arms and great swords.
Coming from fencing perspective: a riposte is when you either defleft the attack wide or bind the opponents weapon (turning its point away from you) and ride you blade along theirs and strike them. In effect turning their attack to your advantage. You could possibly manage a bind with a katana but a hand and a half is pushing it.
I can't see how heavy hacking, mauling, or polearms could reposte effectively.
Aquarium_Drinker
Mongoose
Exubae said:
The hand and a half is very good at the riposte. The following videos show several ripostes based on historical training manuals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kj4Ng6DBfrg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC5FIyfI8TA
Single 1H weapon users don't have it as good as dual wielders or 2H weapon users, but they can do some stuff. That open hand can use the Take Weapon action and steal the opponents weapon.
They can also use the Grip action, which is like Pin Weapon. I had a PC in our group who had only a dagger take on an enemy with a great sword. We all assumed he'd die, but he used that free hand to Grip the enemies arm, to prevent him from using his sword, and stabbed him in the face.
That said, I would still use a shield or 2H weapon in my case.
They can also use the Grip action, which is like Pin Weapon. I had a PC in our group who had only a dagger take on an enemy with a great sword. We all assumed he'd die, but he used that free hand to Grip the enemies arm, to prevent him from using his sword, and stabbed him in the face.
That said, I would still use a shield or 2H weapon in my case.
Aquarium_Drinker said:
I've seen greatswords used with a pommel or quillion attack similar to a riposte, just as you start thinking your safe as the blade points down you get a face full of crossguard! Ouch! Then you have stun parries where you parry a powerful blow dead and then use the opportunity for a strike back on your opened opponent. There are even simular parry and counter attack moves with spears. There probably technically not ripostes but the result is much the same.
I read this some where a riposte technically is done with the parrying weapon, and that the blades must stay engaged.
The videos clearly show some pretty cool tactical combat, and yep there are a few repostes in there, but alot just seem to be just standard attack- parry then attack again...
I'm sticking to my guns on heavy hacking, mauling, or polearm weapons can't reposte effectively.
There seems to be a fine line between parry followed by a strike and a reposte. When does a series of engagements become a series of repostes?
The videos clearly show some pretty cool tactical combat, and yep there are a few repostes in there, but alot just seem to be just standard attack- parry then attack again...
I'm sticking to my guns on heavy hacking, mauling, or polearm weapons can't reposte effectively.
Deleriad
Mongoose
Exubae said:
From a pure game perspective in RQ then a riposte would be part of two attacks in a row. E.g. a riposte for two combatants with 3 CAs each would look like:
A attack (miss), B parry
B attack (riposte) A parry
B attack, A parry
If not riposting then it would look like
A attack (miss)
B attack A parry
A attack B parry
B attack (A no actions left)
As I say, currently in RQ riposting is a pretty marginal choice because most times you're better off saving your action for a free swing.
To be honest, I really doubt that real world examples can clarify anything because there are always counterexamples and in the end real world combat doesn't make for a fun or interesting game. For me the key issue is whether the combat subsystem for the game that is RQ is fun, exciting, and internally consistent. I think the extra CA for dual wields causes enough confusion and complexity that I am minded to drop it for that reason.
