 
|
|
|
( 21.08.2008 )
|
|
|
|
( 28.07.2008 )
|
|
|
|
( 21.04.2008 )
|
|
|
|
( 12.02.2008 )
|
|
|
|
( 10.02.2008 )
|
|
|
|
( 12.10.2007 )
|
|
|
|
( 17.07.2007 )
|
|
|
|
( 03.07.2007 )
|
|
|
|
( 13.04.2007 )
|
|
|
|
( 29.01.2007 )
|
|
|
Categories
Discussion
Main - Rune Quest
RE: Combat Rules
|
Author:
Tom Cantine
|
Time:
25.01.2003 07:04
|
Text:
> > 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.
>
> We don't seem to agree on this one, hope you get somthing
> out of this: I've been training with longsword for one and
> a half year, and that is what I base my arguments on. I
> could still be wrong, though (i usually am). One and a half
> year is not much, our traning is based on mostly only one
> medieval master, and we discover new things every week, as
> we have to try and translate the manual from old Italian to
> english as we go... You're allso right in your physics
> arguments above as far as I can see. The bladetips of
> propeller aircraft actually breaks the soundbarrier; that's
> why they make so loud noise!
>
> I still think you're wrong! Fiore (the italian dude) states
> that there are three speeds in a fight. The fastest is arm
> movement, the second fastest is the leg and the third
> fastest is the whole body. Parries are usually arm
> movements performed from a stance (guard). when the parry
> is made, you realign the body so that you are in a new
> guard. The body and legs are slower, so they come after. By
> the way; he allso states that "The arm is quicker than the
> eye". I think he means reactiontime (the reason for keeping
> distance to cars in traffic, etc.) which leads us to timing
> and distance. (Distance is everything!)
I am prepared to concede that a properly executed thrust may take place in less time than a properly executed slash. However, I still am not convinced that deflecting a slash should be easier than blocking it, and for two reasons. The first is physics, and the second is game philosophy.
I've already mentioned part of the physics argument, in that the tip of the blade moves faster in a slash than in a thrust. This has further implications for the requirements of a successful deflection. To deflect any blow, you must apply enough force to the approaching weapon to move it from a trajectory that will intersect with your body to one that will not. Say that's a foot of distance. You also must divert the weapon in less time than it takes for the weapon to reach you. As a rough approximation, that is basically the time it takes the weapon to travel the length of your parrying weapon for a slash, or the thrusting distance of the attacking weapon. (Why the length of your weapon against a slash? Assume you get your sword tip to the approaching blade to start the deflection. The attacking weapon will continue to advance towards you, sliding up your weapon as you apply your deflecting force; if you have not deflected it by the time it reaches the hilt of your sword, then either your attempt at deflection is now a block (using the handguard of your sword) or simply a failure, and you get hit.
In comparison, you have a longer time to deflect a typical thrust with a given force, since the thrust moves slower over a comparable distance. As well, note that the damage zone of a thrust is a line, while a slash describes a plane; your margin for error in deflecting the plane is smaller.
Now for my second reason, the game philosophy argument. Remember that, consistent with our treatment of the melee round as a complex interplay of a multitude of attempts, feints and gambits, the decision to thrust or slash cannot simply be reduced down to a single swing. It rather represents a broader tactical stance; I will be focussing my efforts to overpower you with powerful slashes, or to find a good opportunity for a well-placed thrust. In general, a slasher will tend to wear down his opponent's resistance in an attrition battle (think lots of little wounds, initially insignificant but gradually becoming more serious as the parrying weapon loses AP and lets more and more damage through), while a thruster will play a finesse game of maneuver, where victories will be swift and decisive when they come.
> If you can stand in front of me and slap me with the blade
> before I get time to react, I'm stupid.
Depends on the stance and the conditions of the melee. If a lot is happening, a slash can blindside you as well as a thrust. One significant difference is that a slash can come from nearly any direction, while thrusts are confined to one general area.
> > 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.
>
> -You had allmost convinced me when I stumbeled across a
> section in rhe rules that I think cover aspcts you now
> cover.
What section is that?
> > 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.
>
> I think you makes it harder for your peassant with your
> rules. Say he's got 40% in Schyte, that means that he's got
> 2% chanse for a critical, and 8% chanse for special. If
> your character have 100% in sword parry, you have 1% chanse
> for a failure, 20% chanse for a special and 5% chanse for a
> critical; you'd have to roll "99" the same time as the
> peassant rolls "02". That makes it much safer to go
> peasanthunting in your game than in than dragonmovie with
> Sean Connery...
In either case, the peasant is in trouble. But let's look at the math. If, as you propose, a successful parry stops ANY thrust, even a critical, then only 5% of the peasant's hits of any type will ever get through, including criticals. (Remember that rolling 96-00 is always a failure; only 00 is a fumble for our 100% parry guy.) With the system I propose, 95% of the peasant's criticals will penetrate (though they might be reduced to mere impales or even simple successes). 80% of his impales will get through, though all but 5% will be reduced to simple successes. And of course, only 5% of his simple successes will actually connect. Thus, under my system, the peasant's chance of doing damage to the master is rather higher than under your system, though of course still not stellar. Note, however, that the distribution of hits becomes more natural, because most hits are reduced to simple successes.
In comparison, the current RQ3 rules has the same basic chance of a peasant hit penetrating, but the final results are skewed, because although most hits are rolled as simple successes, few simple successes survive the parry, so in the end, a disproportionate number of actual damaging hits are criticals. You know the problem at the very low end of the skill spectrum; you almost never hit, but if you do it's almost always a critical.
> > Actually, I have special slash rules which I will post
> here
> > when I get a chance...
>
> I hope you considder my arguments, but I'm very interested
> to see them; our little debate have improved my awareness
> on the rules which is useful, as I'm about to launch a
> campagin in 2 weeks.
All right. I'll start a new thread with the slash rules...
|
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
|
|
|
