 
|
|
|
( 02.11.2011 )
|
|
|
|
( 27.05.2011 )
|
|
|
|
( 17.11.2010 )
|
|
|
|
( 23.09.2010 )
|
|
|
|
( 23.07.2010 )
|
|
|
|
( 09.01.2010 )
|
|
|
|
( 09.01.2010 )
|
|
|
|
( 01.08.2009 )
|
|
|
|
( 07.07.2009 )
|
|
|
|
( 15.06.2009 )
|
|
|
Categories
Discussion
Main - Rune Quest
RE: Combat Rules
|
Author:
Tom Cantine
|
Time:
24.01.2003 09:51
|
Text:
> But then I'm only Norwegian, and can be exused : )
I'm Canadian, and can excuse anything.
> > But diverting a slash is much more difficult, and should
> > only occur on a special success or better. Most of the
> > time, one is lucky to get one's weapon in the way in
> time.
>
> Are you sure? I'm not. A slash is much slower than a
> thrust, so if your argument is that you divert a thrust but
> not a slash because a slash is too quick, I think you're
> wrong.
In terms of speed and momentum, a slash is much faster. That's because a thrust can only move as fast as the hand holding the weapon, whereas the tip of a slashing sword is moving in an arc around your wrist. How far can you throw a ball if you push it directly away from your chest? Now how far can you throw it if you windmill your arm? Then try it with a sling, or a trebuchet, even.
True, you can put your weight behind a thrust more, but you simply cannot move the tip of your spear NEARLY as fast as the tip of your broadsword, unless you swing it like a sword.
> Let's see if I get you right:
> You may divert\sidestep a thrust partially, and you want
> that to show with a new principle to the game; pitting
> level of successes against eachother. I think that allready
> is illustrated in the rules by the fact that you roll
> damage, and don't operated with fixed damage. If B parry A
> with a success, but A got a special, he could still roll
> snake eyes, and that would simulate that B managed to
> divert the thrust from his heart to somewere else on his
> body (The spear from your example above doing 4 damage.)
You can get an impale with a spear that does only 4 points, but it's still an impale and has the chance of the weapon being stuck, plus doing additional damage if the weapon is wiggled around in the wound. You can also get a normal success for 9 points but not impaled. So what? A normal success could of course be anything, from a proper stab with the point to slashing the tip sword-like across your opponent's throat. An impale might do less damage if you roll poorly, but it's LIKELY to do more, and besides, it has those other ghastly effects.
Here's another parry-vs-impale interpretation. You get a simple success parrying against an impale, you could interpret it as your parrying making it tough for the guy to land a proper thrust blow, so he surprises you with a blunt thump to the head with the shaft of his spear. Does maybe less damage than an impale, (because it's not an impale, by my house rule, shifted down a success level by your parry) but it gets past your parry to hurt you nonetheless, whereas he would've hurt you REAL bad if you hadn't been parrying so well to make it hard on him.
Or consider this one: You keep parrying, and he notices that you always tend to deflect his thrusts to the left. So he deliberately thrusts a bit to the right, and your skillful (but alas, not special) parry turns what would have been a miss into a normal jab in the ribs, though not a full impale.
There are, of course, all sorts of interpretations that can be applied. I just think that the dodge/parry house rule for shifting success levels, at least against thrusts, is an elegant solution.
> What we must as ourselves when evaluating your house rule
> is wether it is:
> A - made because of a glitch in the existing
> system.
I did think it was a glitch, mostly as a result of two things I noticed. First, I had a character take an impale to the head, which he managed to parry for 10 hp and then his helmet stopped another 4, leaving him still conscious but with a spear sticking through the side of his helmet. It just didn't seem very smooth to say the sword BLOCKED 10 points of damage (and lost one AP in the process).
Second, I noticed that one particular player in my game ALWAYS thrusted with his broadsword, and I got to thinking that there had to be some reason why swords would be given a sharp edge if the thrust were really that superior. Thus my analysis, and house rule...
> B - made to alter the lethality of the existing
> system.
Not in this case. I think the rules are plenty lethal enough, which is proper.
> I don't think that it is a nessecary change, because we
> have dice rolled damage. But if you think combat is too
> deadly with the Normal - Special - Critical -system as it
> is in the rules, I guess your house rule is OK.
Rolled damage is only one aspect of the effectiveness of a hit. See above. (I should post my knockback rules here, but not tonight; I have a factum due tomorrow...)
The system
> as it is is very compromiseless. If a character meets a
> Troll NPC that get a critical success, it's time to make a
> new character... I don't think that's very unrealistic,
> allthouth deadly. With your house rule, you only get
> critical success if the opponent fails his parry \ dodge
> that diminishes the possebilities for surviving a fight
> with a very powerful person. If Rasalkark have 250% in
> parry, and you have 50% in attack, you would have to roll
> "01, "02"or "03" the same time Rasalkark rolled to get a
> critical and rasalkark roll "00" to kill him.
One of the things I love about RQ is that combat is ALWAYS dangerous; the peasant can critical, and the master can fumble. There is ALWAYS a risk anytime someone uses lethal force, and I hate systems which make it too easy to ignore the risks. A simple parry or dodge against a critical success should have SOME effect, but it should take a whole critical to completely stop a critical.
> If you think the thrust is too lethalized compared to the
> sweep (as I mabye do), we could either say that a sweep
> attack does doubble damage if the opponent wears no armor,
> or let the "overhead blow"-rule be used by everyone, not
> only gigants armed with monoliths and oaks.
Actually, I have special slash rules which I will post here when I get a chance...
> A suggestion to differenciate between blocks and
> deflections (as they have differenciated between thrusts
> and sweeps in the rules): A deflection attempt reduces the
> P% with 10% (as that is fairly easy to calculate in ones
> head), but you can add... -say 4AP's to the parrying
> object.
I dunno. I think I'd rather have the block/deflect distinction depend more on the type of attack, although I'd think a critical parry would almost always be a complete deflection, except in those circumstances where there's an advantage to it not being so. For example, if you have a swordbreaker on your weapon, or you're using a Viking round shield, or you parry with a sword or axe against an unsuccessful attacking weapon. (That's actually one of my favourite tactics against natural weapons, by the way; use the sword to PARRY, because if they miss their attack and you make your parry, you can do damage to the attacking weapon. If that happens to be a fist, claw or bite, so much the better!)
|
Message threads
| Topic: |
Author: |
Time: |
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
09.01.2003 08:31
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
20.01.2003 15:55
|
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
23.01.2003 09:08
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
23.01.2003 13:43
|
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
24.01.2003 09:51
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
24.01.2003 11:14
|
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
25.01.2003 07:04
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
25.01.2003 13:58
|
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
26.01.2003 01:18
|
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
28.01.2003 06:24
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
28.01.2003 15:37
|
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
29.01.2003 06:07
|
|
|
|
Bjorn Are Stolen
|
30.01.2003 13:09
|
|
|
|
Tom Cantine
|
01.02.2003 04:50
|
|
For any questions or comments about this site,
contact the webmaster
www.runequest.za.org is hosted by
www.wack.co.za
W&C Information Consultants CC
|
|
|
