weapon style flexibility

[andakitty]

If you have sword and shield as a weapon style, at what percentage would you use spear and shield? I understand that you would use sword OR shield at the same chance as both in combo, but how would changing one weapon (versus not using one or the other) effect the skill percentage? Pardon me if this has been previously discussed.

By the way, an impressive overhaul of MRQ. I am not sure how much I would like it in play (due to little niggles like the one above), but it certainly is full of good ideas.

 

[Loz]

Weapon styles, as Pete Nash will tell you, are very unique things and ways of fighting. But the point you raise is valid and one we should have made clearer.

Personally, I'd give a -20% to using a Spear and Shield combo if you are trained in Sword and Shield. I feel that's fair enough and matches the general skill modifiers.

And thank you for the nice thoughts on RQII.

 

[andakitty]

A quick reply, thanks. What I had in mind was harsher (use base %). I'll go with -20.

I will try playing it soon. It's the only way to be sure how well it suits me. I fear it may be a bit too involved, but word of mouth says it plays faster than it reads. The CMs are clever and innovative, that's for sure.

Sorry about the harsh commentary in the past. It looks like I was dead wrong.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

A quick reply, thanks. What I had in mind was harsher (use base %). I'll go with -20.

This is one of those ephemeral things which is nearly impossible to model with a ruleset. At the beginning when first learning to fight, the equipment you use is vitally important - it limits the techniques you attempt and messes with your safety zone if forced to use, or even face, a different combination of weapons.

However, as you grow in experience, confidence and skill, you (very) slowly come to realise that once you know the fundamental aspects and techniques of combat, it doesn't really matter what weapons you are armed with; you still know how to disarm, choose the correct range, trip, predict or force open up a specific location, etc, etc.

At that point fighting has become independent of the skill with a particular weapon. Give a top class fighter almost any melee weapon and he'll be able to use it effectively. He might not be comfortable, but he is the weapon, not the object he's holding.

Trying to replicate that mathematically would inevitably set up a break point in percentile skill progression. Thus using a standard penalty or allowing Combat Styles to be inclusive of all cultural/class weapons is a method of allowing greater and more realistic flexibility.

Sorry about the harsh commentary in the past. It looks like I was dead wrong.

No problem,! Loz and I don't mind negative commentary, as long as its an informed opinion based on actually playing the game. :wink:

Glad to see you are back. Have fun!

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Oh and just to let you know, a -20% penalty in MRQII combat is actually far more serious than it sounds. Against an equally skilled opponent it'll hurt. Against a superior, it usually costs you the contest.

 

[Deleriad]

I must admit that I have a problem with this approach from a purely gamist perspective. It has always been an issue in RQ. How much does skill in fighting with one weapon help you when it comes to fighting with a different one?

The answer depends on the genre, personal preference, attitude towards crunch and so on.

My personal preference is to stay clear of allowing skill substitution because it just gets tangled.
E.g. If someone with sword & shield can use spear & shield at -20%, surely someone can use a 1h spear at a skill equal to 1H sword -20%? Similarly, what about using a sword in your off-hand and so on. I would rather just have a blanket approach. If you don't have the skill, you don't have the skill.

However, if you were playing a more cinematic game where a single person is master of multiple weapons then that's a different issue entirely.

One possibility for a highly cinematic skill would be to make combat styles work a bit like grimoires. E.g. three combat styles (close, unarmed/natural weapon & ranged).
Then you learn new weapon combinations to add to your styles by spending 2 IRs.

E.g. you might start with
Close Combat 73%: 1H Sword, Sword & Shield, Dagger
Then during play you can add more combinations.
If you find yourself needing to use a weapon combination you haven't learned, then you can use it a minus (e.g. -20% or 1/2% or whatever suits better).

 

[Mugen]

One possibility for a highly cinematic skill would be to make combat styles work a bit like grimoires. E.g. three combat styles (close, unarmed/natural weapon & ranged).
Then you learn new weapon combinations to add to your styles by spending 2 IRs.

E.g. you might start with
Close Combat 73%: 1H Sword, Sword & Shield, Dagger
Then during play you can add more combinations.
If you find yourself needing to use a weapon combination you haven't learned, then you can use it a minus (e.g. -20% or 1/2% or whatever suits better).

Very good idea !

However, I would use a slightly different approach, with 3 close combat skills :

*One handed weapons fighting (include shields);
*Two handed weapons fighting;
*Two weapons fighting.

I might consider that some very specific styles (knife fighting for instance, and perhaps some martial arts weapons such as the Tonfa) fall under the Unarmed skill.

I might also treat weapon learning individually. So that if one is trained with a shield he doesn't have a malus when parrying with it simply because he has lost his main hand weapon...

EDIT : maybe the 2 weapons fighting skill is not such a good idea : I could consider using a dagger in off hand as being different from using it in main hand.

 

[Simulacrum]

I'm using a few tweaks which are entirely within RAW:

Military training can be more flexible - a combat style will include a range of options which add up to a similar outcome as the "grimoire" approach mentioned above, e.g:

Targeteer: A light infantryman is trained to use shield and javelins up close, and switch to sling from a distance, all these covered under a single combat style

Also to ensure noone is ever left finding their 90% skill with a shortsword is useless to them because they only have a club to hand in which they are at basic:

Sidearm: Bring Your Own weapon to the party and the military will give you some basic training in it, under a style that covers a range of "secondary" weapons. These will mostly be defined as any 1H cutting cut-and thrust or bashing weapons that do D6+1 or less damage, and exclude the key set of arms for the type of unit you are trained in.

Rather than too narrowly define the combat style, there may be a limitation on what is regarded as an appropriate weapon to actually equip yourself with - or carry in public.

On civilian training and possibly for militia troops with a more limited skill set I am going for narrower definitions of combat styles, but regular weapons users like Hunters may be an exception, tbc. Playtesting coming up soon, will post again if it looks like this works really well or really doesn't.

 

[Draconis13]

I have been going with a more relaxed way of using weapon styles. Say having both Sword and Shield and Hammer and Axe both at 70%. This would allow you to use ANY combination of swords, shields, hammers and axes at 70% so if you want to throw a hatchet with your off or main hand while using a sword or shield in the other it would be fine. However of course if you use a javelin or other weapon you will be at the weapons percentage

Also with having broad categories like this did anyone else notice that even though backgrounds give out +10 percent to various weapon styles that none of the weapons are listed as belonging to any set group? Javelins are spears unsurprisingly but stuff gets odd where nets are considered flails, but does that apply to throwing or do I need flail and shield and nets for ranged? The rapier and quarterstaff both got shafted by being put into the rapier and staff on the weapons categories by the background weapons styles.

I have put some effort organizing the weapons into my own groups but I am kinda mad I am having to do house rules on such a basic rule. Having the weapon styles laid out in a vanilla style by the book with the option of making broader groups relevant to various man at arms styles of combat would have worked out much better. Instead I am having to sort out where a pole axe and discus belong in regards to the basic sword and shield styles I am using my game.

 

[andakitty]

Me too. However.

If someone has rapier I will allow use of any one hand sword, and so on. I think the rough guide is enough. One thing I didn't like about some of my old favorite rpgs was the lack of competence of some supposedly very experienced warriors. Like Stormbringer, where the warrior got six weapon skills and had to specify attack, parry, and throw each as a separate skill percentage.

Also, I read somewhere that the authors encourage 'warrior weapon styles' where a hoplite might have 2h spear, spear and shield, javelin, staff, sword, and whatever other weapon skills a hoplite would reasonably have just because those were what he would have been trained in to be a hoplite...all at the base percentage. It would be fairly obvious what he would need to start at base in (2h axe, bow, etc.) I think it was in S&P.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I have been going with a more relaxed way of using weapon styles. Say having both Sword and Shield and Hammer and Axe both at 70%. This would allow you to use ANY combination of swords, shields, hammers and axes at 70% so if you want to throw a hatchet with your off or main hand while using a sword or shield in the other it would be fine.

What if I have "Sword & Shield at 70% but "Hammer and Axe" at 55% and want to use my Sword and Axe together?

owever of course if you use a javelin or other weapon you will be at the weapons percentage

It still seems odd to me that you forget how to use your shield if you drop your sword and pick up a spear or mace...

 

[andakitty]

I'd say the first would be 55% (two weapon style) and the second would be base for the spear and shield only. I'm trying to think like it was old Warhammer rpg here...i.e. a hand weapon is more or less a hand weapon.
So I guess I would define the styles as 2h, 1h and 1h, shield and spear, 1h and shield, etc.

The game seems flexible enough to allow freedom in interpretation....

 

[dbhoward]

What if I have "Sword & Shield at 70% but "Hammer and Axe" at 55% and want to use my Sword and Axe together?

Hammer & Axe? OK whatever... 70 with the sword 55 with the axe, where's the problem? Rules-wise they were just doing the Combat Styles approach so you don't have to spend skill % on each weapon separately.

It still seems odd to me that you forget how to use your shield if you drop your sword and pick up a spear or mace...

Well, that's not how I'm playing it. Sword and Shield combat style means that is how you were trained. When you drop the sword you don't lose the shield skill, you still use the shield at the same %. If you pick up a mace though you are at a -10% (say) because you are used to having an edge or point and now you don't, mace is a different animal.

 

[Nostrildamus]

Yeah, I think some of these situations are cases of overthinking the application. I don't think weapon styles are supposed to be quite so restrictive. I think of them as more open than the old way of doing things, because you can build percentages more easily through the use of them. For instance, 1H sword and shield at 70%: if your sword breaks and you have to pick up a different weapon from a fallen foe or comrade, it doesn't mean you suddenly don't know how to use your shield effectively. Though the rules may not specifically say so, I think it's implied that the shield can stand alone as a skill at 70%, it was just conveniently learned alongside the 1H sword skill because that's how you trained in your background. As has already been stated, if you pick up a weapon with which you haven't trained, such as a mace, there is a penalty to the use of the mace, but not the shield. The great thing about RQII is that a lot of thought was put into the system and, specifically, ways to allow adventurer development at wholesale prices, so to speak. Combat styles allow greater development than the old method of learning everything individually (for example, 1H sword 70%, shield 58%). Developing those two things separately costs a lot of points in the beginning as well as too many improvement rolls. It's nice to have one improvement role that handles an entire combat style. Personally I think it's a huge step forward from the original method and shouldn't be over-analyzed or over-complicated

 

[duncan_disorderly]

The game seems flexible enough to allow freedom in interpretation....

Which is good, except, with my grumpy head on, I wonder why I am buying rules if they are so open to interpretation that I need to do all the work myself before I can make use of them...

I find Combat Styles in MRQ2 rather like Rune Magic in MRQ1 - a nice toolkit idea which can be used to tailor the rules to fit your specific setting, but not really useable straight out of the box without tailoring because they leave to many unanswered questions
(eg if I have Sword & Shield at 70% and Spear & Shield at 55%, what is my skill if I only have a shield? )

 

[Deleriad]

The game seems flexible enough to allow freedom in interpretation....

Which is good, except, with my grumpy head on, I wonder why I am buying rules if they are so open to interpretation that I need to do all the work myself before I can make use of them...

I find Combat Styles in MRQ2 rather like Rune Magic in MRQ1 - a nice toolkit idea which can be used to tailor the rules to fit your specific setting, but not really useable straight out of the box without tailoring because they leave to many unanswered questions
(eg if I have Sword & Shield at 70% and Spear & Shield at 55%, what is my skill if I only have a shield? )

The basic answer to your question is 70%. That is actually RAW. My grumpy head tends to agree with yours. I would have liked a default system for Combat Styles right there in the book with some notes about how to modify it to fit different preferences. I think the problem is that they omitted weapon categories which are the most obvious default system to hang combat styles on.

It is more of an issue on paper than it is in practice but it does niggle.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Yeah, I think some of these situations are cases of overthinking the application. I don't think weapon styles are supposed to be quite so restrictive. I think of them as more open than the old way of doing things, because you can build percentages more easily through the use of them.

They are not the old way of doing things. The old way was quite clear - you had a separate attack and parry skill with each weapon. Unambiguous, but meant you had a lot of skills to (potentially) improve - you might get by with "Sword Attack" and "Shield Parry", but you probably wanted at least some "Sword Parry" too, in case you lost your shield...

Then Attack & Parry were rolled up into a single skill - still reasonably unambiguous, and fewer skills to improve.

For instance, 1H sword and shield at 70%: if your sword breaks and you have to pick up a different weapon from a fallen foe or comrade, it doesn't mean you suddenly don't know how to use your shield effectively. Though the rules may not specifically say so, I think it's implied that the shield can stand alone as a skill at 70%, it was just conveniently learned alongside the 1H sword skill because that's how you trained in your background.

But what if it's not the only style you've trained in your background. You joined the local militia and trained in 1H Spear and Shield to 50%. Then you joined the Cult of Humakt and learned 1H Sword and Shield to 70%.

Now what happens if you drop your Sword? You can argue that it should be 70%, but on the other hand, you no longer have a sword to block attacks from the opposite shide to your shield, so you could argue it should be lower.
What happens if you are able to pick up a spear from the battlefield? You have a Spear & Shield skill, so it seems somewhat counter-intuitive to say that you actually use a different skill instead.

As has already been stated, if you pick up a weapon with which you haven't trained, such as a mace, there is a penalty to the use of the mace, but not the shield.

Well, not exactly. If you pick up a weapon with which you haven't trained, then you use it at the base chance. But if all you have on your character sheet is combat styles you don't have a skill with "Shield" to be unpenalised. - If you have "Sword & Shield 70%" and "Spear & Shield 50%" and then pick up a Mace & Shield, you either have to decide it is covered by one of your existing styles, or determine what your skill is with the new combat style of "Mace & Shield".

Combat styles allow greater development than the old method of learning everything individually (for example, 1H sword 70%, shield 58%). Developing those two things separately costs a lot of points in the beginning as well as too many improvement rolls.

You can go further than that, by defining your combat styles widely enough. "Sword & Shield" can cover Broadsword, Short Sword, Scimitar, Rapier, Buckler, Target Shield, Kite Shield, all of which might have been separate skills. You can go further and make the style "1h Weapon & Shield" - now it includes maces, spears and 1h axes too - now it doesn't matter if you break or drop your sword, you can easily switch to any other 1 handed weapon - This might or might not be realistic (Pete has argued a couple of times that once you attain a level of proficiency it is more a case of your ability to read and react to the situation than the specific tools you have in your hands at the time), but it gives the game a different feel...

It's nice to have one improvement role that handles an entire combat style. Personally I think it's a huge step forward from the original method and shouldn't be over-analyzed or over-complicated

You could possibly achieve the same thing by saying a single Improvement Roll covers an increase to 1 attack skill and 1 parry skill at the same time, without ending up with a number of potentially overlapping styles which cause problems when trying to determine what skill to use when none of them are a perfect match.

 

[andakitty]

Well, I can understand where you are coming from.

Mind you, I am not advocating the MRQII weapon styles because I have not played it. It is hard to tell how a game will run until you actually run it, and my present group like the old Chaosium style BRP (currently we are in the middle of 'Shadows of Yog-Sothoth') and I was in the midst of devising my perfect swords and sorcery system from Basic Roleplaying (and other games) and had an opportunity to pick up MRQII cheap. Some of it looks good but I have to say that the game might not work for me overall. These fiddly bits do keep popping up. Like duncan_disorderly I like clear rules so I don't have to pause to think about what percentage the next weapon Bob the fighter picks up will be at. Not that MRQII doesn't have it's apparent attractions.

Whatever. The argument about constant interpretation is telling...and since I have a happy group (with me, and with old style BRP) I am not likely to move over soon. The point is basically moot for me, so.

 

[Lord High Munchkin]

I think the point of MRQII is that it intentionally doesn't have hard and fast rules — you are meant to be flexible and fluid.

 

[andakitty]

Yeah, but maybe it's a bit TOO loose for some of us.

Mileage variance is OK, isn't it?

I think where I am at is, I would love to play RQII but I am beginning to suspect I would not enjoy running it. I have some other little niggles besides the loose weapon skill categories, too. I like the resistance table and the old major wound system, for instance. It begins to be too much hassle, I fear.

I don't mean to be argumentative? but its just the way I feel. Please enjoy RQII, it looks like a great choice for the right audience.