Shield Parries and the Issue of Armor Points

[Rurik]

The problem with this interpretation is that weapon blocking does not exists. Sure you can see it in movies but anyone actually trained in weapon handling will tell you that this is the case. Blocking with a weapon could happen accidentally or at the last resort but no one would use it knowingly.

Well Shield Blocking certainly exists, and weapon blocking happens. You can say that if your parry stops all AP the blow is deflected if you like, and if any damage gets through it was not deflected (there were a number of house rules suggested in the past allowing you to add your damage modifier to the parry's AP). The only time knockback is a consideration is when the damage exceeds the Targets SIZ (poleaxe anyone?), in which case the force of the blow is very mighty indeed and hard to deflect.

We can argue realism all day - no system entirely models combat and damage accurately. Those that try are often too complex to be 'fun' (unless of course you like simulationist combat - which there is nothing wrong with). RoS was mentioned upthread as an example. RQ 2/3 were attampts to model combat realistically based on the SCA experience of the authors. It has some rough spots but considering it is one of the first RPG's ever it did a remarkable job. MRQ got away from some of that realism for improved playability (no reach, the five second round with potentially 5 attacks and parries - that is 10 actions in 5 seconds!, flurry attacks, etc). Matt Sprange cited the light sabre duels in the new Star Wars movies as inspiration - obviously playability and flavor took precedence in the 'streamlining' of the rules.

I was very critical of many of the rule changes in MRQ when it was first released, lack of realism being a major gripe. But when I started using the system it actually played very well, went smoothly, and still felt like RQ. It was fun - which is why I game after all - and that is the many reason I've stuck with it despite some nasty warts.

And there is a good rules reason why weapons have to be inferior to shields - it takes twice as many Improvement Points to master weapon and sheild than single weapon (or even two weapon) fighting. If weapons are as good or better for parrying sheilds are obsolete (without going back to RQ2/3 type experience checks).

 

[Rurik]

Wow this topic is moving fast today! :shock:

 

[Rurik]

You know the more I look at teh players update again the less I like it. I would probably even use the original rules as written instead, even if it does mean an extra roll - it actually makes sense if you describe the second attack roll as being a test to see how well the attacker responds to the reaction.

For example the Failure/Failure on the matrix equalling the Attack succeeding as normal would be described as the Attacker failing to respond to the opponent's attempt to Dodge or Parry, but the opponent failing to Parry anyway so the attack still strikes true.

What I always did with the old table was this to simulate the two attacker rolls using only one roll:

If the attacker succeeds and the defender parries/dodges and rolls better than the attackers roll use the Attacker Fails row of the table.

If the attacker succeeds and the defender parries/dodges but rolls worse than the attackers roll use the Attacker Succeeds row of the table.

Viola. One roll - same set of results as the two roll system.

There are other combat variants similar to this on the wiki that use opposed roll combat.

EDIT: There is a MRQ Wiki sticky at the top of the forum but here is link to what I affectionately call Mr Qwiki:

http://www.justanotherwebsite.net/mrqwiki

 

[RosenMcStern]

Wow this topic is moving fast today! :shock:

This means MRQ has reached maturity. The actual purpose of Roleplaying games it stimulating endless, pointless arguments about Realism, the mystical Word of Power that is Called Upon to avoid the nuisance of playtesting.

 

[Rurik]

Wow this topic is moving fast today! :shock:

This means MRQ has reached maturity. The actual purpose of Roleplaying games it stimulating endless, pointless arguments about Realism, the mystical Word of Power that is Called Upon to avoid the nuisance of playtesting.

That is fantastic news!

Now if all just start calling eachother insulting names the forum will be there too!

Yipee!

 

[RosenMcStern]

What I always did with the old table was this to simulate the two attacker rolls using only one roll:

And it worked well! Too bad things went the othe way

Well, since it looks like we are all in debate mood, I'll post a new suggestion for tables. I'll start a new thread.

 

[Mikko Leho]

I am peeeerfectly aware of that. I was just suggesting, as both you and kintire, who I suppose have some fighting experience, confirmed, that you cannot redirect a pole weapon after it has started swinging. Anticipating the blow is another story.

To me the parry roll tells how well the defender anticipated the attack. You can't separate observing opponent from performing the actual physical feat.

The problem is that you do not parry with a shield, you block, so the system must represent the blocking mechanics, too.

There is really no need for separate mechanics. For instance Riddle of Steel uses block for shields and parry for weapons but both exactly the same: you deduct defenders success from attackers success and use result as damage if it is greater than zero.

 

[kintire]

I am peeeerfectly aware of that. I was just suggesting, as both you and kintire, who I suppose have some fighting experience, confirmed, that you cannot redirect a pole weapon after it has started swinging.

Yes you can. Admittedly you probably don't want to be trying it with a dagger, but you can redirect it.

The problem is that you do not parry with a shield, you block, so the system must represent the blocking mechanics, too.

Actually, you usually parry with a shield to, though you can block with it to get the opponents weapon stuck in it.

The correct answer would be a double mechanics (parry with weapon momentum, block with weapon resistance), but that would be rather complicate

The correct answer would be "if the parry is successful, the attack doesn't work"... much like the player's update.

We can argue realism all day - no system entirely models combat and damage accurately

Nor is it obvious that it should: after all, few real warriors would fight as many battles in a career as some adventurers manage in a couple of scenarios. The problem arises when a rule crops up that inhibits game play on the grounds of realism... and isn't realistic either.

I was very critical of many of the rule changes in MRQ when it was first released, lack of realism being a major gripe. But when I started using the system it actually played very well, went smoothly, and still felt like RQ.

Now I was, and still am, quite fond of it, apart from the single glaring hole that it is impossible to enter battle without at least ap 5, and the utter, total and complete dominence of two handed weapons, with every other option being madness except heavy armour and shield which gets to the giddy heights of "okay". This is a direct function of the system for defenses, which was biased so heavily to the attacker. think the update is a deeply needed improvement.

 

[kintire]

Realism, the mystical Word of Power that is Called Upon to avoid the nuisance of playtesting.

The irony here being, of course, that the person who called upon this mystical word was you...

 

[Mikko Leho]

This means MRQ has reached maturity. The actual purpose of Roleplaying games it stimulating endless, pointless arguments about Realism, the mystical Word of Power that is Called Upon to avoid the nuisance of playtesting.

What are you saying? Arguing is fun, fun, fun 8)

Also I like to point out that I like the Player's Update not only because included some realism to the game (or not depending where you stand) but because it also made more skilled characters better in combat through the success degradation. The last point is completely gamist and has nothing to do with realism.

 

[Rurik]

The update way of handling skills over 100 is great - but is seperate from the way of upgrading/degrading success really. I have long been a supporter of opposed combat - but am not a fan of the "all or nothing" way it is applied in the new update.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Also I like to point out that I like the Player's Update not only because included some realism to the game (or not depending where you stand) but because it also made more skilled characters better in combat through the success degradation. The last point is completely gamist and has nothing to do with realism.

Noooooope! It made more skilled characters worse in combat, because you must declare defenses before the attacker rolls. Try a Master Swordsman vs. the Two Trollkin battle and tell me! What are the odds that the trollkins will critical on the roll that the swordsman cannot parry because he does not have enough reactions?

Ok, predeclaration of reactions is realistic, no doubt. It is limiting reactions on a DEX basis only that messes everything up. See the thread I have just started for a discussion.

 

[atgxtg]

One thing that gets overlooked in RQ (and I'm including the older versions of RQ) is the difference between a block and a parry.

A block is sticking something in the way of the attack to take the blow. while a parry is really an attempt to redirect the blow, or cut it short..

THe real advantage of shields is that they are very easy to block with. Realistically, even a realitively unskilled fighter can block most attacks directed at him with a shield. In some case just becuase the foe will attack the shield to try a wear down the defense. Getting bashed around by your own shield is rather common. Shielkds are farily tough through, and can sually take some punishment.

Blocking with a weapon, on the other hand, is usually a bad idea. In effect, you turn an attack on you, into an attack on your weapon. Most weapons in ancient\medievial times simply aren't strong enough to be used to block without being damaged. That was one of the major reasons why the shield existed. It is also why the Japanese Katana was such a great weapon. THe mix of hard and soft steels used in it's manufacture meant that it could be used to parry and block.

Now Parrying ican be done with a weapon or a shield. Parrying is much more difficulty, since it requires either a) blocking the attack before it really gets started (for example, by using the shaft of a spear against the sharpt of a poleaxe to prevent the swing), or b) by making contact with the attacking weapon from a "sideways" direction and redirecting
it so that the attack misses.

In real life, parries are desirable, but a bit risky, since a fighter has to put himself in harms way to attempt the parry, and if he screws up, it can make a hit even more effective (I actually saw someone execute a perfect circular parry that turned a near miss into a head/neck hit).

IF someone wanted to work this out in MRQ terms, the easy was would be to allow parries to be done at a penalty (say -40%) , but completely stop an attack. Blocks would use APs. Shields could get a bonus to block (but not parry) based on size. Shields could aos provide cover too (as per cover), with about half that cover applying as concealment to the opponent (the shield obstructs view)

That would resolve the shield vs. weapon parry problem, but would be slightly more complicated.

 

[Rurik]

Also I like to point out that I like the Player's Update not only because included some realism to the game (or not depending where you stand) but because it also made more skilled characters better in combat through the success degradation. The last point is completely gamist and has nothing to do with realism.

Noooooope! It made more skilled characters worse in combat, because you must declare defenses before the attacker rolls. Try a Master Swordsman vs. the Two Trollkin battle and tell me! What are the odds that the trollkins will critical on the roll that the swordsman cannot parry because he does not have enough reactions?

Ok, predeclaration of reactions is realistic, no doubt. It is limiting reactions on a DEX basis only that messes everything up. See the thread I have just started for a discussion.

I also consider pre-declaring actions a 'seperate' change than the new combat table. As far as I am concerned that part of the update can be used or dropped based on preference whether using the update or any of the common alternative house rules out there. I at first hated the idea of only declaring a reaction to a success but have grown quite fond of it after using it.

While on realism, take a step back and look at the broad picture rather than the minutiae of the mechanics of parrying/blocking. Now I've done limited fighting and have no great experience but have observed the following:

Unskilled fighters hit each other a lot (because they suck at defending themselves). Usually when I fight someone as bad as myself blows land within seconds.

Very Skilled fighters don't hit each other nearly as often.

Very Skilled fighters cream unskilled fighters. This doesn't fit into my point here, but boy is it true!

So a realistic curve would be shorter time between blows landing with two unskilled fighters, and the time between blows landing increases as the skill of the participants goes up.

A shortcoming of RQ 2/3 was that low skilled opponent often led to longer combats because of the low attacks involved. Once skills got to about 50% it kind of evened out, and then as the skills involved increased combats took longer, which seems realistic enough. When two rune levels met they took a long time as a stalemate was reached. One side had to roll really good (finally out-duels the opponent) or really bad (doh - made a mistake) to break the stalemate. That seems a fair representation of how combat between two highly skilled opponents should play out based on watching people who actually know how to fight.

Now in the new players update if two opponents both have a 100% skill basically one half of all swings will land with full force. If both opponents have 2 combat actions each will land a blow every 5 seconds (in reality by the time someone has skill 100 3-4 combat actions is more likely). Combats between highly skilled characters will all be over in a matter of seconds using the new update.

 

[Rurik]

The AP of a parry do not represent interpenetration of the weapons involved but instead represent the force of the attack that was blocked or used forcing the parrying weapon aside. Less force impacting the target equals less damage.

And a sword wielded by a STR 8 SIZ 10 wuss has exactly the same "force" as the same sword wielded by a STR 18 SIZ 18 goliath because...?

When two weapons collide, if neither breaks it is the strength of the wielder that decides which gets pushed aside, unless there is a difference in leverage... which means an even more incompetent parry.

I'd mentioned a houserule somewhere else in the thread that adds the defenders Damage Modifier (or subtracts it in the case of a negative DM) from the AP parried. It can be used to address this if you like.

Another idea bounced around was to just roll damage for the parrying weapon and subtract it from the rolled damage from the attacking weapon. Though this again makes sheilds obsolete without also modifying the experience/skill system.

 

[RosenMcStern]

That would resolve the shield vs. weapon parry problem, but would be slightly more complicated.

A very smart suggestion, atgxtg! But maybe it can be further developed. Let's see...

Block: the combat roll is unopposed. Read the tables as they are (recommended if defender is a newbie or feels much less skilled than the attacker)

Parry: the combat roll is opposed. On equal degree of success, downgrade the lowest roll by one step (recommended if the defender is more skilled than his opponent)

Shields have penalties as follows:

Buckler: normal skill
Medium Shield: -10% to Parry, normal Block
Large Shield: -20% to Parry, normal Block

The problem of APs being based on weapon resilience and not on momentum and wielder strength remains, but it looks more realistic. And it is not too complicate. It just uses both variations included in the Player's Update at once!

 

[Rurik]

Ooooooh.

Commencing Grokking.

This could be very interesting.

 

[atgxtg]

That would resolve the shield vs. weapon parry problem, but would be slightly more complicated.

A very smart suggestion, atgxtg! But maybe it can be further developed. Let's see...

Block: the combat roll is unopposed. Read the tables as they are (recommended if defender is a newbie or feels much less skilled than the attacker)

Parry: the combat roll is opposed. On equal degree of success, downgrade the lowest roll by one step (recommended if the defender is more skilled than his opponent)

Shields have penalties as follows:

Buckler: normal skill
Medium Shield: -10% to Parry, normal Block
Large Shield: -20% to Parry, normal Block

The problem of APs being based on weapon resilience and not on momentum and wielder strength remains, but it looks more realistic. And it is not too complicate. It just uses both variations included in the Player's Update at once!

I don't think shields should get a penalty to parry, but they should get a bonus to block. You can parry with a shield just as easily as with a sword. In some ways it is easier, since a failed shield parry usually ends up as a semi successful block. One tactic in sword& Sh8ield fighting is to parry with the shield and try to take the attackers blade out of line to open him up for a weapon strike. An even nastier tactic is to use a shield to lever the denfer's shield out of the way.

THe question of moment can be avoided. Blocks just take the hit (and so don't get as moment effect). Parries, as I defeined them above, avoid all the damage, thus bypassing the whole AP/damage issue. It's not entirely realistic and accruate (in real life, many successful blocks astarted off as unsuccessful parries).


Some things worth tweaking, IMO:

1) Weapon breakage and degradation. A block should be considered an attack on the blocking weapon/shield, so we need to apply that as a effect. IE. Parrying a poleaxe with a rapier is okay, but blocking a poleaxe with a
rapier will probably result in a damaged or broken rapier.

2) Integrating all this with that alternate set of combat tables.

3) Allowing for crtical parries to eat up the attacker'S CA, or generate a free CA for the defender. THe whole parry/riposte thing starts becuase a successful parry should put the attacking weapon out of line and create an opening for the defender. If we allowed crtical parries to eat up CA or could for free, we'd recreate that effect in game terms.

4) Or 3b\ if we go with the CA idea for crticals, then crtical blocks could be free.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I don't think shields should get a penalty to parry, but they should get a bonus to block. You can parry with a shield just as easily as with a sword. In some ways it is easier, since a failed shield parry usually ends up as a semi successful block. One tactic in sword& Sh8ield fighting is to parry with the shield and try to take the attackers blade out of line to open him up for a weapon strike. An even nastier tactic is to use a shield to lever the denfer's shield out of the way.

(In danger of bringing realism into play, my apologies!)

Actually I'd disagree with you on this one. There is a great difference in how easy it is to parry depending on the type and size of the shield in question. Big shields are heavier and thus slower to move. Historical examples (at least the ones which survive more than a single battle) weigh much more than an average sword. That's why many sword+shield combat styles use the sword for upper body defence, or to bind the opponent's weapon before following up.

If you've ever tried using a Norman kite shield in foot combat you'd find that its harder to move the shield to parry a blow, than to simply move yourself round behind your static blocking wall.

Atop that, if you want to parry with a shield rather than block, you need to be able to extend it outwards to intercept a blow at the start of its trajectory. Strapped shields such as heaters simply cannot do this effectively. Although center-grip shields work better, a single handed sword is faster to move and has more reach than a shield, and therefore is easier to parry with. In my experience anyway!

(Don't get me wrong, when I fight sword and centre-grip shield I use shield hooks and presses a lot, and love to hinder my opponent's weapon with the extended edge of my shield... I just don't believe it is as easy to parry with a shield, than it is with any other melee weapon. Block yes, parry no.)

 

[RosenMcStern]

Aaaah, this long argument resulted in something interesting and useful, in the end.

I don't think shields should get a penalty to parry, but they should get a bonus to block. You can parry with a shield just as easily as with a sword.

Not with a large shield, as Pete Nash confirmed. In fact I was tempted to give them both a bonus to block and a penalty to parry, but the situation is already balanced with the penalty. Consider also a 100% shield user: what use is his +20% if skill over 100% is lost in an unopposed contest?

1) Weapon breakage and degradation. A block should be considered an attack on the blocking weapon/shield, so we need to apply that as a effect. IE. Parrying a poleaxe with a rapier is okay, but blocking a poleaxe with a
rapier will probably result in a damaged or broken rapier.

Optional rule: Damage that passes the block APs is applied to both the weapon and the wielder. Blocking with a shortspear results in a broken spear. Fine.

2) Integrating all this with that alternate set of combat tables.

I'll do this tonight.

3) Allowing for crtical parries to eat up the attacker'S CA, or generate a free CA for the defender. THe whole parry/riposte thing starts becuase a successful parry should put the attacking weapon out of line and create an opening for the defender. If we allowed crtical parries to eat up CA or could for free, we'd recreate that effect in game terms.

4) Or 3b\ if we go with the CA idea for crticals, then crtical blocks could be free.

In general my idea is that when the defender rolls better than the attacker the reaction is not used up, and so the defender has a reaction to use for the riposte. In the case of a critical parry vs. a failed or fumbled attack, the reaction originally intended for the parry is instead used for the riposte :twisted: