From: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com (RuneQuest Rules Digest) To: runequest-rules-digest@lists.ient.com Subject: RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #54 Reply-To: runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Sender: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Errors-To: owner-runequest-rules@lists.ient.com Precedence: bulk RuneQuest Rules Digest Monday, May 14 2001 Volume 04 : Number 054 RuneQuest is a trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. All Rights Reserved. TABLE OF CONTENTS Re: [RQ-RULES] set shield Re: [RQ-RULES] set shield Re: [RQ-RULES] set shield Re: [RQ-RULES] set shield Re: [RQ-RULES] set shield Re: [RQ-RULES] set shield [RQ-RULES] Fatigue Re: [RQ-RULES] set shield Re: [RQ-RULES] set shield Re: [RQ-RULES] set shield Re: [RQ-RULES] Fatigue Re: [RQ-RULES] set shield Re: [RQ-RULES] set shield RULES OF THE ROAD 1. Do not include large sections of a message in your reply. Especially not to add "Yeah, I agree" or "No, I disagree." Or be excoriated. If someone writes something good and you want to say "good show" please do. But don't include the whole message you praise. 2. Use an appropriate Subject line. 3. Learn the art of paraphrasing: Don't just quote and comment on a point-by-point basis. 4. No anonymous posting, please. Don't say something unless you're ready to stand by it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 11:13:33 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] set shield On Mon, 14 May 2001 12:43:20 -0700, Brad Furst wrote: >As well, I found that RQ3 as published allows Set Shield only for >defense against missiles. RQ4:AiG allows it in melee as well as for >missile defense. >RQ4:AiG allows it with almost any combination of weapon and shield. > >In each case the AP of the shield is halved when set rather than >manipulated in parrying. I'm not sure that I agree you should be able to "set shield" in melee with virtually any melee weapon; it seems to me that trying to keep the shield in one place while vigourously attacking with a sword or axe would seriously compromise your fighting skills. If I did allow it, I would penalise attack skill, not reduce shield protection. Note that the errata for Sun County overturns the halving of the set shield when used with 2H spear. I don't see any particular reason to halve the shield protection vs. missile weapons, regardless. The shield is what it is; parry *skill* represents the ability to maneuver it etc. If the skill isn't applicable (because the shield is set), why should the AP be reduced? - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Nobody gets me. I'm the wind, baby." ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 18:27:40 +0000 (/etc/localtime) From: Brian Newman Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] set shield > [...] > I don't see any particular reason to halve the shield protection vs. missile > weapons, regardless. The shield is what it is; parry *skill* represents the > ability to maneuver it etc. If the skill isn't applicable (because the > shield is set), why should the AP be reduced? Isn't it true that a buckler shield applies as its AP against attacks that hit that arm, whether the user parries with it or not? A successful parry with a shield means you *deflected* the blow and it does *no* damage to you or your shield. An unsuccessful parry that hits your shield does damage and has to get through the shield. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 11:50:26 +1000 From: "Jim Lawrie" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] set shield > I'm not sure that I agree you should be able to "set shield" in melee with > virtually any melee weapon; it seems to me that trying to keep the shield in > one place while vigourously attacking with a sword or axe would seriously > compromise your fighting skills. If I did allow it, I would penalise attack > skill, not reduce shield protection. I'm not sure if this is particularly relevant, but the new *in* SCA shield style here in Oz is to hold it rather stationary and to dodge around behind it. You move the shield to interpose it between your opponents position and yourself, and then leap, cavort and frolic away. The shield is just there to get in the way of the opponents attacks, rather than actively blocking with it. i know I'm getting right down to sub-nitpicking level, this is more a trivia post than anything else! : ) Jim (who always wondered about the SCA, until Mr Perrin egged him into it) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 22:01:10 -0400 From: "Jim Bickmeyer" Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] set shield >> I don't see any particular reason to halve the shield protection vs. missile >> weapons, regardless. The shield is what it is; parry *skill* represents the >> ability to maneuver it etc. If the skill isn't applicable (because the >> shield is set), why should the AP be reduced? I think the example of reduced shield armor is if the shield is slung on the back. Then the shield is passive armor and half value. From: Brian Newman >Isn't it true that a buckler shield applies as its AP against attacks that >hit that arm, whether the user parries with it or not? > >A successful parry with a shield means you *deflected* the blow and it >does *no* damage to you or your shield. An unsuccessful parry that hits >your shield does damage and has to get through the shield. It does not necessary mean that the shield gains full AP value if it is used for active parry. How do you explain the reduction of the full AP when the shield is overcome? As an expansion of the passive shield rule, our house rule is if the hit location with the shield is struck the shield provides 1/2 AP. Thus if the left arm is hit and the character has a target shield he gains 6 AP in addition to the arm AP. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:02:39 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] set shield On Mon, 14 May 2001 18:27:40 +0000 (/etc/localtime), Brian Newman wrote: >Isn't it true that a buckler shield applies as its AP against attacks that >hit that arm, whether the user parries with it or not? No. At least, not in the RQ3 rules as written. >A successful parry with a shield means you *deflected* the blow and it >does *no* damage to you or your shield. An unsuccessful parry that hits >your shield does damage and has to get through the shield. That's your interpretation, maybe, but it doesn't match what the *rules* say. A successful parry is one that isn't a failure or a fumble. If you still end up being damaged, then the parry was *insufficient*, not *unsuccessful*. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Nobody gets me. I'm the wind, baby." ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 19:14:47 +0000 (/etc/localtime) From: Brian Newman Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] set shield On Tue, 15 May 2001, Bruce Probst wrote: > >Isn't it true that a buckler shield applies as its AP against attacks that > >hit that arm, whether the user parries with it or not? > > No. At least, not in the RQ3 rules as written. I can't find it, but I seem to recall something, either in RQ2 or something that one of my old RQ GMs adapted from somewhere else, that a worn or stowed (on the back) shield provided some of its protection. > >A successful parry with a shield means you *deflected* the blow and it > >does *no* damage to you or your shield. An unsuccessful parry that hits > >your shield does damage and has to get through the shield. > > That's your interpretation, maybe, but it doesn't match what the *rules* > say. A successful parry is one that isn't a failure or a fumble. If you > still end up being damaged, then the parry was *insufficient*, not > *unsuccessful*. Calm down, I'm not trying to challenge anyone's religious views or anything. You're right, you could make your parry roll and still take damage. I should have made that exception. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:31:45 +1000 From: "Jim Lawrie" Subject: [RQ-RULES] Fatigue I know Fatigue Points are almost universally loathed, but the truth to be told, I've used RQ3 for so long now that they're second nature to me. I can be waving my arms around and describing my PCs actions while hopping from foot to foot and still mark off my FP, as well as keeping a running account of a platoon of Broo's FP tallies when I GM, I suspect it's the same with everyone by now. So, how about a look at the FP and where they can be applied, if they weren't so despised!? Firstly, everyones say's Sorcerors are too tough, how about whenever someone expends an MP, they also expend a FP? Now when Mick the Magus blasts the opponent with Drain Intensity 20, Duration 10, he will also drop 30 FP, his next spell will not be so easy! I suppose he can use his familiars FPs as well, but that's a finite source as well. I like the 'I'm very drained by my powerful' efforts type gig, I think it's more like many of the fantasy works I've read. I also think Knockback should do FP 'damage' as well as sending you flying, or perhaps the 'hit obstacle damage' listed should be also 'FP Damage'? That way you could batter your opponent around the environment and tire him out, very like real combat. ("can't . . . lift . . . . shield") There must be others, any thoughts? Jim Lawrie *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:53:06 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] set shield On Tue, 15 May 2001 11:50:26 +1000, "Jim Lawrie" wrote: > I'm not sure if this is particularly relevant, but the new *in* SCA >shield style here in Oz is to hold it rather stationary and to dodge around >behind it. You move the shield to interpose it between your opponents >position and yourself, and then leap, cavort and frolic away. The shield is >just there to get in the way of the opponents attacks, rather than actively >blocking with it. I know that RQ combat was modelled on SCA combat, but after a bit the allegory drops away; ultimately, SCA combat models only itself, not necessarily "real" historical combat. (I'll grant that it's better than all the metal-weapon combat I've seen, which seemed to be designed to demonstrate how well you can aim for your opponent's shield.) >Jim (who always wondered about the SCA, until Mr Perrin egged him into it) I read about it in RQ2, joined, was active in Lochac for about 10 years, became politically unsound and was thrown out. The secret to success in the SCA is to never be ambitious. If you succeed, you become a Right Prat. If you fail, all the *other* Right Prats cut you off at the knees. I failed . - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Nobody gets me. I'm the wind, baby." ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:55:25 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] set shield On Mon, 14 May 2001 22:01:10 -0400, "Jim Bickmeyer" wrote: >I think the example of reduced shield armor is if the shield is slung on the >back. Then the shield is passive armor and half value. Which is a rule I mostly disagree with. It's the *skill* that makes the shield "active". IMO. I concede that there are reasonable arguments the other way. Ultimately it comes down to what "feels right" to you as an individual GM. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Nobody gets me. I'm the wind, baby." ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 12:59:17 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] set shield On Mon, 14 May 2001 19:14:47 +0000 (/etc/localtime), Brian Newman wrote: >I can't find it, but I seem to recall something, either in RQ2 or >something that one of my old RQ GMs adapted from somewhere else, that a >worn or stowed (on the back) shield provided some of its protection. Yes, that's in RQ3. I disagree with it, but that's another matter (see other post). However, that still has nothing to do with bucklers being worn on the arm. The RQ3 rules screw up bucklers pretty badly, actually. Treating them as extra arm armour would be a better way of depicting them than the printed rules, IMO. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Nobody gets me. I'm the wind, baby." ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 13:03:44 +1000 From: Bruce Probst Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] Fatigue On Tue, 15 May 2001 12:31:45 +1000, "Jim Lawrie" wrote: > So, how about a look at the FP and where they can be applied, if they >weren't so despised!? If you use the FP rules at all, you should definitely *use* them. Knockback damage, fistfight damage etc. ought to chew up Fatigue much more than they do Hit Points. In my house rules, I don't use FP other than as a measure of ENC limits -- I really don't care for the extra book-keeping it requires. I do use "subdual damage", though, which in some ways compensates for many of the *effects* of Fatigue. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce Probst bprobst@netspace.net.au ICQ 6563830 Melbourne, Australia MSTie #72759 "Nobody gets me. I'm the wind, baby." ASL FAQ http://users.senet.com.au/~mantis/ASLFAQ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 20:06:35 +0000 (/etc/localtime) From: Brian Newman Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] set shield On Tue, 15 May 2001, Bruce Probst wrote: > >I can't find it, but I seem to recall something, either in RQ2 or > >something that one of my old RQ GMs adapted from somewhere else, that a > >worn or stowed (on the back) shield provided some of its protection. > > Yes, that's in RQ3. I disagree with it, but that's another matter (see > other post). However, that still has nothing to do with bucklers being worn > on the arm. Well, you're still wearing a big thick hunk of metal or wood on your back. Would you say that it blocks absolutely nothing? What good is, say, an upturned table in a bar fight then, if it doesn't block any damage? > The RQ3 rules screw up bucklers pretty badly, actually. Treating them as > extra arm armour would be a better way of depicting them than the printed > rules, IMO. I think that's what we did, and I was misremembering which was which. :) It gave people a reason to *have* Arm Parry. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 23:52:12 +0100 From: William Wenz Subject: Re: [RQ-RULES] set shield > I'm not sure if this is particularly relevant, but the new *in* SCA >shield style here in Oz is to hold it rather stationary and to dodge around >behind it. You move the shield to interpose it between your opponents >position and yourself, and then leap, cavort and frolic away. The shield is >just there to get in the way of the opponents attacks, rather than actively >blocking with it. It depends on what kind of shield you are using. A targ HAS to be active to be effective, the hopilite shield style I have used with a spear is almost completely static. In the SCA we do not go for legs below the knee, this changes fighting quite a bit. Also, shields for the SCA are basically indestructible, a big advantage over real shields, but do not catch weapons, which is an advantage and disadvantage for real shields- depending in the kind of weapon stuck in the shield. I have heard a lot of debate on how realistic/effective some of our sword blow styles would be with a sword. This is a long way of saying that I don't think this is one area that SCA combat is a good model for determination. W. Kurt Wenz *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of RuneQuest Rules Digest V4 #54 ************************************ *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe runequest-rules' as the body of the message. RuneQuest is a Trademark of Hasbro/Avalon Hill Games. With the exception of previously copyrighted material, unless specified otherwise all text in this digest is copyright by the author or authors, with rights granted to copy for personal use, to excerpt in reviews and replies, and to archive unchanged for electronic retrieval.