Shield Parries and the Issue of Armor Points

[RosenMcStern]

I agree that there are flaws in how AP are implemented (arbitrary values by weapon, no Str consideration), but I do not believe the system is bad, and it models combat with really big really strong foes pretty well.

Its completely unrealistic, and it models combat between normal people really poorly. Try, for example, a swashbuckling encounter between a King's Musketeer and a Cardinal's Guard. Weapon skills around 80-90%, rapiers, no armour to speak of. There is one roll, and only one, that matters at all: the strike rank determination. Unless the faster character is extremely unlucky, he's won the fight right there.

Please take note that you are, at the very least, the only one who is so drastic against APs. We agree that the all-or-nothing model suggested in the new update models a rapier duel much better than using APs (but please not that it was not the case in RQ3, in which every weapon could with stand a blow of an equivalent weapon without giving way or breaking), but not all combats are swashbuckling duels. Do you really think that the INT 9 Great Troll with his Troll Maul parries by "anticipating the opponent's move and deflecting the force of his blow to the side"? He just places the tree trunk with a "maul" label on it that he is wielding in the way of his foes' weapon. And this is better modeled with APs, although skill still plays an important role here.

 

[kintire]

Do you really think that the INT 9 Great Troll with his Troll Maul parries by "anticipating the opponent's move and deflecting the force of his blow to the side"? He just places the tree trunk with a "maul" label on it that he is wielding in the way of his foes' weapon

Or just smacks it to one side, if his parry skill is decent.

And this is better modeled with APs,

My apologies, its just not. If you had damage that penetrated APs go off the weapon's hits, and penetrate to the wielder only after the weapon was broken then I could see where you were coming from, although I would still point out that the INT 9 Great Troll is a special case, and the fact that there's no way to model normal fights is still an issue. But it doesn't. It "models" a strength versus strength contest with no reference whatsoever to the strength of either party, except the minor contribution of the attackers damage bonus.

 

[RosenMcStern]

[
Or just smacks it to one side, if his parry skill is decent.

He smacks it by means of brute strength rather than skill.

I would still point out that the INT 9 Great Troll is a special case, and the fact that there's no way to model normal fights is still an issue.

What is your definition of "normal"? Note that simulated combats do not reproduce the exact reality of the historical battlefield, not to mention fantasy combat where combatants with STR 20+ and magic weapons are common.

It "models" a strength versus strength contest with no reference whatsoever to the strength of either party, except the minor contribution of the attackers damage bonus.

The alternative is to model it with a skill vs. skill contest only, and at high level STR is a marginal factor in it. The point here is that the superior strength of the troll is modeled by the fact that he can wield a weapon with a huge amount of APs, whereas a human cannot. Not perfect, as an Uzdo would probably have more "APs" even when he wileds a staff, but we can live with it. No problem with the statement that factoring in the actual STR of the contestants is more realistic, but not using AP is equally unrealistic.

 

[kintire]

He smacks it by means of brute strength rather than skill.

False dichotomy. If it works, it works.

What is your definition of "normal"?

Humanoid vs humanoid of comparable size with normal weapons.

The point here is that the superior strength of the troll is modeled by the fact that he can wield a weapon with a huge amount of APs, whereas a human cannot. Not perfect, as an Uzdo would probably have more "APs" even when he wileds a staff, but we can live with it

You can perhaps! :wink:

Actually, in RQ the superior strength of the troll is modelled by his higher strength stat.

but not using AP is equally unrealistic

And here I still have to disagree. APs model nothing. Parries do not work by adding armour to the parrier, but by deflecting the weapon. Blocks do not let damage through to the blocker unless you first smash through the blocking object. If the object is a weapon, it is then broken. The whole idea of a weapon acting as armour and yet being useable once penetrated is profoundly unrealistic. You may like the system, tastes differ of course, but its not in the slightest bit realistic.

 

[Cleombrotus]

I have to get in on this one...i only read as far as page 4, so apologies to those who follow from that...I love these threads that degenerate into thinly veiled arguments that so often revert to use of such phrases as 'with my martial arts training/experience' or 'my SCA experience'. It always strikes me as amusing to ponder why anyone so steeped in martial prowess would need to stoop so low as to indulge in roleplaying games. Surely the level of simulation and realism that you seem to want to achieve could be realised by actually doing the things which you are happy to imply you are capable of?
I was once in the position, as a soldier, to engage in a conversation with another roleplayer about realism. He was talking about the importance of rate of fire and velocity of round in various modern machine guns. "Fuck off", I explained.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Actually, in RQ the superior strength of the troll is modelled by his higher strength stat.

Gosh! I had never realized that :shock:

And here I still have to disagree.

But we can all agree on the fact that yhou disagree

 

[DigitalMage]

I agree, I don't care whether it isn't particularly realistic my first concern is smooth mechanics that facilitate quick game play and greater fun.

If they had parry act exactly like dodge I wouldn't worry - the mechanics could be the same just the description that differs.

My goals for RPG combat are:
One initiative roll per combat at most - rolling every round is an extra roll that has no immediate impact on the resolution of that combat. RQ fails here.

Max of two rolls for combat - attack and defence with damage not rolled, or attack and damage with static defence. ideally only a single roll is desired. Unfortunately again RQ lacks this.

I really want to like this game, but so far combat looks too clunky. D&D seems to do it better (unfortunately I feel restricted by D&Ds class system hence why I bought RQ).

I am beginning to think I shoudl try Savage Worlds!

 

[Rurik]

I agree, I don't care whether it isn't particularly realistic my first concern is smooth mechanics that facilitate quick game play and greater fun.

If they had parry act exactly like dodge I wouldn't worry - the mechanics could be the same just the description that differs.

My goals for RPG combat are:
One initiative roll per combat at most - rolling every round is an extra roll that has no immediate impact on the resolution of that combat. RQ fails here.

Max of two rolls for combat - attack and defence with damage not rolled, or attack and damage with static defence. ideally only a single roll is desired. Unfortunately again RQ lacks this.

I really want to like this game, but so far combat looks too clunky. D&D seems to do it better (unfortunately I feel restricted by D&Ds class system hence why I bought RQ).

I am beginning to think I shoudl try Savage Worlds!

RQ has always been more simulationist than D&D. You can roll initiative once per combat if you like (actually, all earlier versions had fixed Strike Ranks, everyone acted in the same order always - these were modified by weapon reach, but still static). The Two rolls (attack and defense) plus location roll and damage roll if necessary are definately more rolling than D&D, but combat is very evocative - it practically describes itself through the mechanics, and once you grasp the system (which really is not complicated) it flows very well. The fact that there are more rolls than D&D is balanced by the fact that combat is deadlier, and usually over in less rounds than a D&D combat (at least with moderate level characters - low level D&D is pretty deadly).

As a whole, the system is much more streamlined than D&D, even if combat is more detailed. Try it out a few times before giving up on it. It is not for everyone but there is a reason it has been around in some form since 1978.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I love these threads that degenerate into thinly veiled arguments that so often revert to use of such phrases as 'with my martial arts training/experience' or 'my SCA experience'. It always strikes me as amusing to ponder why anyone so steeped in martial prowess would need to stoop so low as to indulge in roleplaying games. Surely the level of simulation and realism that you seem to want to achieve could be realised by actually doing the things which you are happy to imply you are capable of?

Well, I've been doing both since my teenage years and I still exalt in a damn good fight and roleplay weekly too. Nowadays I'm a knight and royal peer in the SCA, an avid student of classical and European martial arts and am writing RPG supplements!

Why do I do both? Because I enjoy them!

I gain physical and spiritual enjoyment from teaching and practicing combat.

I get social interaction and exercise my imagination when I roleplay.

On one side I do perform the things I imply I'm capable of, and on the other I like to model them for those people who can't!

Does that clarify things a bit?

 

[Cleombrotus]

Well, I've been doing both since my teenage years and I still exalt in a damn good fight and roleplay weekly too. Nowadays I'm a knight and royal peer in the SCA, an avid student of classical and European martial arts and am writing RPG supplements!

Why do I do both? Because I enjoy them!

I gain physical and spiritual enjoyment from teaching and practicing combat.

I get social interaction and exercise my imagination when I roleplay.

On one side I do perform the things I imply I'm capable of, and on the other I like to model them for those people who can't!

Does that clarify things a bit?

I certainly wouldn't want to imply that the two are mutually exclusive by any means. I just get amused by the thinly veiled threat implied by many of the statements. Forum fisticuffs. I want a system that plays simply and consistently with a degree of logic. I couldn't give a rat's arse about whether a parry represents a block or a deflection. I like RQ and APs because they explain to me (the GM) that a blow from a weapon didn't maim the target as well as it possibly could have done because the guy got his shield in the way. I then explain the imaginary details of that to the player in nice, flowery and dramatic terms, as is my job. I don't start getting hung up about 'realism' because it's about suspension of disbelief. If realism is your thing, go and do something real. Or rather don't, because I like reading your threads...

 

[Cleombrotus]

Actually Pete, when I re-read my post, it sounded like it was directed at you specifically. I appreciate that certain real life activities can inform a roleplaying system, and of course the origins of the RQ system are steeped in the SCA experience, but there are a large proportion of 'talk the talk' roleplayers, and they always amuse me...and before anyone says it, of course I'm not entirely immune - I am still, after all, a gamer...

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Hey, no problem! None of us wants to see forum fisticuffs. I'll keep on posting (hopefully) fun threads, and working on better rules...

 

[DigitalMage]

RQ has always been more simulationist than D&D. You can roll initiative once per combat if you like (actually, all earlier versions had fixed Strike Ranks, everyone acted in the same order always - these were modified by weapon reach, but still static).

Thanks for the reply, I guess I was on a bit of a downer - I want to love this system but I am finding it difficult to.

When I saw the optional rule for taking all your combat actiosn at once I expected to also see an optional rule for rolling initiative once.

I know some people may not be bothered as to whether such a rule is published as an official optional rule or can just be houseruled, but when I run at conventions I would prefer to be able to direct players to an official optional rule I am using rather than explaining my own houserules.

The Two rolls (attack and defense) plus location roll and damage roll if necessary are definately more rolling than D&D, but combat is very evocative

I just feel that maybe there are more elegant ways to do this, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay's way of determining hit loocation by reversing teh digits on the attack roll is a great idea, gives the same effect but avoids the need for another roll.

As a whole, the system is much more streamlined than D&D, even if combat is more detailed. Try it out a few times before giving up on it.

I will be going to the Mongoose open day and hope to play in a game of RQ (my first) so that will really be make or break for me I guess. I will be asking some rather tough questions of the Mongoose staff as well (like when will the players update be incorporated into future printings? will the PDFs be updated accordingly and will those who already own the PDFs get free updates?

 

[kintire]

I agree, I don't care whether it isn't particularly realistic my first concern is smooth mechanics that facilitate quick game play and greater fun.

Oh I agree as well. My problem with the AP system is that it doesn't do this. Because parries are unreliable with a shield and next to pointless with a weapon, whole swathes of fighting styles just don't work. Rapier swashbuckling, two weapon fighting, in fact any style that doesn't involve heavy armour and shield or heavy armour and two handed sword. Nobody seems to deny this, and the only argument anyone put forward for it was that it was realistic.

 

[atgxtg]

Oh I agree as well. My problem with the AP system is that it doesn't do this. Because parries are unreliable with a shield and next to pointless with a weapon, whole swathes of fighting styles just don't work. Rapier swashbuckling, two weapon fighting, in fact any style that doesn't involve heavy armour and shield or heavy armour and two handed sword. Nobody seems to deny this, and the only argument anyone put forward for it was that it was realistic.

THe old RQ AP system did work out fairly well. It is the reduced APs in MRQ that made defense unrelaible. Seems like they wanted to go with the D&D idea of most attacking scoring some damage.

Lots of people didn'T like that, so we now have the neew "all or nothing rule".


IMO the old method, was more effective, simpler, and more playable.

 

[atgxtg]

Most accounts I've seen indicate that the parry didn't really develope unitl around the 15\16th centuries. THat was the time that the metalurgy had reached the point where it was practical to try to parry with a blade rather than risk destroying that very expensive sword

I'd be interested to read those. As far as I'm aware, the earliest accounts of fighting we have, including techniacal manuals, take the parry for granted. And metallurgy wasn't that bad. Celtic pattern welded swords were perfectly capale of withstanding parries (though we don't have any accounts of the details of their use AFAIK).

THe early accounts I've seen, stress using the shield for defense and the weapon for attack. Celtic pattern forged swords were very rare, since patter forging techniques are for use with steel weapons rather than iron (the object of patter forging is to distribute the carbon through the blade to make it strong for cutting without becoming to brittle). and the celtics were an iron age culture.

Swords were rediculously expense in ancient and medieval times (iron was often more expensive that gold). Swords were rare, and good swords even rarer.

The major obstacle to sword development was how to make a weapon hard, without it becoming brittle. That is one reason why a lot of medieval swords were more like clubs-they were made of softer steel for strength. It is also part of the reason why early swords were shorter , and why it took so long to develop a good thrusting sword.

THe earilest fencing styles stressed the use of a buckler for defense, rather than a sword parry.

 

[soltakss]

THe earilest fencing styles stressed the use of a buckler for defense, rather than a sword parry.

Fencing rather than fighting?

The film Moliere has a scene that shows exactly how much use fencing is. One of the main characters is a merchant who want to be seen as a Renaissance Man and has lessons in painting, dancing, horse diding, fencing and so on. His wife comes in after his fencing lesson and he boasts about the new parry he has just learned and asks his wife to hit him with the training sword/foil. She picks it up and swipes him, hitting him in the arm. "What?" he says, "That was a side-on attack and isn't allowed!"

Probably nothing to do with the discussion, but I liked it.

 

[kintire]

Celtic pattern forged swords were very rare, since patter forging techniques are for use with steel weapons rather than iron (the object of patter forging is to distribute the carbon through the blade to make it strong for cutting without becoming to brittle). and the celtics were an iron age culture.

Actually, swords made up of several rods of different irons producing a composite blade were normal from 500BC. Later period produced true pattern welding, but even the earlier forms were highly effective weapons with hard edges and flexible blades. Some (about 50%) were actually steel edged.

That is one reason why a lot of medieval swords were more like clubs-they were made of softer steel for strength

This is a myth.

and why it took so long to develop a good thrusting sword.

And this is a little odd. Its much easier to build a thrusting sword than a cutting one, because the impact is against the strongest axis, lengthways, rather than laterally. Narrow bladed thrusting weapons were popular in the Bronze Age, and surely the Gladius needs no introduction.

 

[atgxtg]

THe earilest fencing styles stressed the use of a buckler for defense, rather than a sword parry.

Fencing rather than fighting?

The film Moliere has a scene that shows exactly how much use fencing is. One of the main characters is a merchant who want to be seen as a Renaissance Man and has lessons in painting, dancing, horse diding, fencing and so on. His wife comes in after his fencing lesson and he boasts about the new parry he has just learned and asks his wife to hit him with the training sword/foil. She picks it up and swipes him, hitting him in the arm. "What?" he says, "That was a side-on attack and isn't allowed!"

Probably nothing to do with the discussion, but I liked it.

THat is somewhat true of any martial art/combat training. It usually takesa about six months before you have learned enough for your training to be of any pratical benefit, and several years before you are good enough to rely on it.

Then there is always the distinction between real world experience anf formulized training. THere are things that modern fencers do to win matches on points that rthey wouldn'T think of attempting when lives are at risk.

 

[atgxtg]

Actually, swords made up of several rods of different irons producing a composite blade were normal from 500BC. Later period produced true pattern welding, but even the earlier forms were highly effective weapons with hard edges and flexible blades. Some (about 50%) were actually steel edged.

Interesting, but early steel was nowhre near as good as what came later. THe quality is just not there. Also,many sword were made with wrought iron, or cast ion, rather than pattern formed. While the odd blade or two might be good, they were still ararity. Doubly so, since swords were usually tooi experience for the common man to afford.

That is one reason why a lot of medieval swords were more like clubs-they were made of softer steel for strength

This is a myth.

Well, then it is a myth that is believed by many historians and armorers. It also matches up well with the weapons I've seen. Sword quality startds to improve during the middle ages.

and why it took so long to develop a good thrusting sword.

And this is a little odd. Its much easier to build a thrusting sword than a cutting one, because the impact is against the strongest axis, lengthways, rather than laterally. Narrow bladed thrusting weapons were popular in the Bronze Age, and surely the Gladius needs no introduction.

THe Gladius, and most other early thrusting swords, had a relatively short blade. One obstacle facing swordsmiths is that the longer you make the blade, the eaiser it is to break it.

With a thrustibng weapon, there is a good chance that the point will hit bone, or the target will move, resulting in a chance of angle of attack. As the attacker is applying force to the blade, this change in angle works as a lever against the cross section of the blade near the tiip.

Also, none off the early thrusting swords and knives, such as the Gladius, were used to parry much. FOr that the warrior carried a shield.