# +100% skill

#### burdock

##### Mongoose
For +100% skills take the amount above 100% from BOTH players. For example 130% vs 80% becomes 100% vs 50% (adjust criticals accordingly)..........If both characters have skills above 100% then deduct the sum of BOTH characters surplus points from each character. For example 120% vs 160% becomes 40% vs 80%.............for VERY highly skilled characters this can still apply. For example 230% vs 180% becomes 20% vs 5% (always have 5% chance of success).

This is really VERY simple. Not sure if it works though. I'm sure someone will do the sums to work out if its fair

burdock said:
For +100% skills take the amount above 100% from BOTH players. For example 130% vs 80% becomes 100% vs 50% (adjust criticals accordingly)..........If both characters have skills above 100% then deduct the sum of BOTH characters surplus points from each character. For example 120% vs 160% becomes 40% vs 80%.............for VERY highly skilled characters this can still apply. For example 230% vs 180% becomes 20% vs 5% (always have 5% chance of success).

This is really VERY simple. Not sure if it works though. I'm sure someone will do the sums to work out if its fair

I have proposed this and it is very fair, but you only have to subtract the higher skill characters amount over 100 from both. 120 vs 160 only needs to become 60 vs 100, there is really no need to subtract the additional 20 from both skills.

EDIT: Additionally, subtracting the amount from both skills breaks when thhe skills are very high, say 350 vs 300. If you just subtract the 250 for the higher skill it is 100 vs 50. If you subtract the amount over 100 for both skills you end up subtracting 450 from both skills. Talk about penalizing someone for having a high skill!

The RQII system, I believe .

(For combat skills above 100% subtract the amount over 100% from opponents parry and defense skills.)

rurik wrote

I have proposed this and it is very fair

Sorry....I should have scanned the forum before repeating your idea.

Yes I agree about just using the higher skill's surplus points.........I think this is the technique I will use. It seems so easy....but maybe that is because of my RQ2 background.....

burdock said:
Sorry....I should have scanned the forum before repeating your idea.

Yes I agree about just using the higher skill's surplus points.........I think this is the technique I will use. It seems so easy....but maybe that is because of my RQ2 background.....

You can't really be blamed, there are about three million two hundred and fifty two thousand eight hundred and fourty three posts on halving spread across dozens of threads. It is hard to follow them all.

Subtracting high skill over one hundred from both is probably what I'll use, though I also have a way of making halving less abusive to skills that just cross the 100 mark.

The problem with direct reduction is that for skills like 360 and 320 they scale to 100 vs 60, or 60 vs 20 if you start subtracting 100's or 'bumping' - halved it works out to 90 vs 80, which seems a little more proportional. This of course is only a problem if you plan ever seeing skills in thet range. It looks like the Legendary Heroes book will probably deal with skills on that level.

Gaheir said:
The RQII system, I believe .

(For combat skills above 100% subtract the amount over 100% from opponents parry and defense skills.)

Not exactly. This is only for opposed rolls, and you only subtract the skill above 100 for the highest skill (but you subtract it from both skills). This brings the higer skill to 100, and reduces the lower skill by the same amount.

In MRQ combat halving or reduction is never used, and I will probably play it like that at first. The advantage for the higher skill comes from the increased chance of a critical.

Rurik said:
The advantage for the higher skill comes from the increased chance of a critical.

I am wondering. While the numerical difference between a 200% skill and a 125% skill is the same as thr 125% to 50%, is the difference actually that great?

If you think about it, once you reach a certain point with any skill you are very goodand difficult to defeat, by anyone. A real world master martial artitis or fencer in a real fight, even for a someone with great skill.

In old RQ, the only real advatages of skills over 100 were:

1) Splitting against multiple foes (useful, but risky)

2) Ability to take more penalties.

3) Improved Critical and Special success chances.

If we ignore points #1 and #2 for a minute, in RQ2 or 3 terms a 200% figher is the same as the 125% except for a 4% greater critical chance, and a 15% greater special success chance. In contrast the difference from 125% to 50% is the same, but includes an appoximately 50% drop in the chance of success! A big difference.

Maybe we shouldn't subtract or halve anything.

I suspect that if we eliminate halving as a bad idea, and put in criticals (with a crit beating a success), opposed tests work work out fine.

atgxtg said:
I suspect that if we eliminate halving as a bad idea, and put in criticals (with a crit beating a success), opposed tests work work out fine.

Not really. Using criticals affects the chances of opposed rolls very little (and make the high roll under skill bit seem pretty funky). Blah Blah Blah a lot of math later the fact is each 1% difference in critical chances translates to a .5% increase in the higher skilled characters chance of success.

So a in a 60 to 40 contest where the chances to crit are 6 and 4 the character with a 60 skill gets a 1% advantage using crits in opposed rolls compared to not using crits.

With your suggestion opposed rolls with both characters having skills 100 or greater would be resolved as a 100 vs. 100 contest which has a base 49.5 chance of success for either side (ties being re-rolled). If the skills are 200 vs 100, the critical chances are 20 and 10, so the 200 skill gains a 5% chance of winning, for a whopping 54.5%. A 500 vs. 100 would work out to a 69.5 % of winning for the character with a 500 skill.

In reality there is up to about 2% in play using the automatic failure rules and you could award ties to the higher skill for another 1%, but you get the picture.

Hard math available on request.

Rurik said:
atgxtg said:
I suspect that if we eliminate halving as a bad idea, and put in criticals (with a crit beating a success), opposed tests work work out fine.

Not really. Using criticals affects the chances of opposed rolls very little (and make the high roll under skill bit seem pretty funky). Blah Blah Blah a lot of math later the fact is each 1% difference in critical chances translates to a .5% increase in the higher skilled characters chance of success.

So a in a 60 to 40 contest where the chances to crit are 6 and 4 the character with a 60 skill gets a 1% advantage using crits in opposed rolls compared to not using crits.

With your suggestion opposed rolls with both characters having skills 100 or greater would be resolved as a 100 vs. 100 contest which has a base 49.5 chance of success for either side (ties being re-rolled). If the skills are 200 vs 100, the critical chances are 20 and 10, so the 200 skill gains a 5% chance of winning, for a whopping 54.5%. A 500 vs. 100 would work out to a 69.5 % of winning for the character with a 500 skill.

In reality there is up to about 2% in play using the automatic failure rules and you could award ties to the higher skill for another 1%, but you get the picture.

Hard math available on request.

THe thing is, those lower percentages are just about right if you look at RQ2/3.For the over 100% skills, this is much close to the number we had gotten in RQ2/3. In RQ3 a 200% vs 100% is almost exactly the same, except for the lower critical chance and the addtion of the special success.

The point is 200% isn't twice as good as 100% in RQ. Once you pass the 95%+ mark, it is the criticals/specials/fumbles that are the difference, and those differences are slight.

In RQ2 or 3 a character with 100% stands a much better chance against a character with 200% than a character with 10% standards against a character with 110%.

If we wanted to we could add in special success or even a "under half" rule to add another degree of success to aid the higher skilled character.

atgxtg said:
THe thing is, those lower percentages are just about right if you look at RQ2/3.For the over 100% skills, this is much close to the number we had gotten in RQ2/3. In RQ3 a 200% vs 100% is almost exactly the same, except for the lower critical chance and the addtion of the special success..

That is assuming you accept the way RQ2/3 handles very high skills as 'right'. Keep in mind RQ was not designed to handle heroic characters - we were promised those rules for years. In RQ2/3 120% is a very high skill. The system wasn't designed to handle skills like 350%. A 500 skill only beating a 100 skill 70% of the time doesn't feel right.

atgxtg said:
If we wanted to we could add in special success or even a "under half" rule to add another degree of success to aid the higher skilled character.

By all means adding more levels of success is a valid fix. It is also a pretty major re-working of the MRQ mechanic. It is very different than:

atgxtg said:
I suspect that if we eliminate halving as a bad idea, and put in criticals (with a crit beating a success), opposed tests work work out fine.

If we add more levels of success it may be worth replacing the whole opposed roll mechanic, or only using it for extended contests. With say Levels of success at 10%, 20%, and 50% the high roll bit seems funky. High roll under 10%, then high roll under 20%, etc seems pretty awkward. A more traditional low roll wins system works better with levels of success like that, where a rolling a 12 is always better than rolling a 17.

burdock said:
Yes I agree about just using the higher skill's surplus points.........I think this is the technique I will use. It seems so easy....but maybe that is because of my RQ2 background.....

This looks ok to me, I'd happily play with this system although I'd prefer to avoid any recalculation of skill percentages. I suppose some calculation of some kind is going to be inevitable.

Simon Hibbs

Rurik said:
That is assuming you accept the way RQ2/3 handles very high skills as 'right'. Keep in mind RQ was not designed to handle heroic characters - we were promised those rules for years. In RQ2/3 120% is a very high skill. The system wasn't designed to handle skills like 350%. A 500 skill only beating a 100 skill 70% of the time doesn't feel right.

When I think about it, it does. I mean sure we see 500 vs 100 as a 5 to 1 ability difference due to math (of a +400), but realsitiically, when someone gets to a certain point of skill, no one can just walk over him anymore. Consdier baseball. With every time someone goes up to the plate we have an Opposed test between a pictcher and a batter. Now some of the pros are, in RQ terms, over the 100% bracket, but we don't see pictchers getting 27 strike outs a game.

atgxtg said:
If we wanted to we could add in special success or even a "under half" rule to add another degree of success to aid the higher skilled character.

By all means adding more levels of success is a valid fix. It is also a pretty major re-working of the MRQ mechanic. It is very different than:

atgxtg said:
I suspect that if we eliminate halving as a bad idea, and put in criticals (with a crit beating a success), opposed tests work work out fine.

How major depends on how much we change. Just adding a 1/2 skill or less category would help but cutting down the "both fail" range. It wouldn't be too radical and would work. IMO thins combined with a low roll win is not only easier than mostof the other options, but seems to be more intuiative that the "roll high sometimes/roll low other times" system in place now.

IMO, a major flaw of MRQ is that it uses three different ways to resolve the D100 tests rather than just one good method for everything. I think about 70% of the posts I've seen here claiming that there were no problems with MRQ are wrong, just becuase the use the wrong method for resolving a test than the one they are supposed to use for a particular kind of test.

One way to roll them all

One way to rate them all
And all our players won't mind then.

If we add more levels of success it may be worth replacing the whole opposed roll mechanic, or only using it for extended contests. With say Levels of success at 10%, 20%, and 50% the high roll bit seems funky. High roll under 10%, then high roll under 20%, etc seems pretty awkward. A more traditional low roll wins system works better with levels of success like that, where a rolling a 12 is always better than rolling a 17.[/quote]

I agree. There is a game that did use 10/20/50, but it we go three levels out, I'm all for low roll wins. IMO it handles a lot of thing better, and can be used as a metasytem.

BTW< If we thre in a "under half%" rule, it could be used to fix the combat matrixc too! JUst replace "failure" with success, and success with "1/2 skill or less" and the matrix is suable, and the game mechanics would make a lot more sense.

atgxtg said:
How major depends on how much we change. Just adding a 1/2 skill or less category would help but cutting down the "both fail" range. It wouldn't be too radical and would work. IMO thins combined with a low roll win is not only easier than mostof the other options, but seems to be more intuiative that the "roll high sometimes/roll low other times" system in place now.

Adding a new level of success isn't going to make much difference to the skill-halving problem because most of the problems with it occur due to the failure odds.

Consider character A with 100% versus B with 70%. I chose this because I think it's a fairly likely sort of contest to come up in play. Because A only fails on 96+, the odds of both characters failing are 0.3*0.05 = 0.015, or a 1.5% chance. If character A's skill goes up 1% to 101%, the odds of both failing become 0.65*0.5 = 0.325 or 32.5% of the time.

This means how you handle the situation where both characters fail has a much bigger impact on the final odds in the contest, much more than it did when A had a 1 point lower skill. The fact that the current rules stack the odds in fail-fail situations in favour of the lower skilled characters is mainly responsible for the way high skilled characters are screwed in this sort of situation. However even if you stack the fail-fail rules in favour of higher skilled characters it still only makes the situation less bad. I don't think it completely fixes the problem.

IMO, a major flaw of MRQ is that it uses three different ways to resolve the D100 tests rather than just one good method for everything.

For a suposedly streamlined system (and to be fair, it's very sensibly streamlined in most areas of the rules) it is odd.

Simon Hibbs

No, no, no.

Use the 1/2 or less category instead of the skill halving rule, not with it. By adding criticals and a 1/2 or less category to opposed rolls (which currently have neither), it will give us another benchmark to determine a winner, be easier, and can be used to make the combat matrix more usable. Essentially it incoprates the half rule into the basic mechanics witrhout screwing up the orignal advantage, since the higher skilled character will do better with the rolls over 50% thean before.

In a way it mixes the good points of two or three of the other variants, but in an easier more streamlined way.

For isntacy your 100 vs 70 situtation. With criticals, an 1/2 or less category and low roll wins.

100 Skill
10% Critical
50% Half-or less
51-95 Success
96-99 Failure
00 Fumble

70 Skill
7% Critical
35% Half or less
36-99 Faiulure
00 Fumble.

See how it would match up. Very weasy to do the math (1/10 and 1/2) and otherwise it is low roll wins, and this system could be used for all rolls not just opposed ones.

atgxtg said:
No, no, no.

Use the 1/2 or less category instead of the skill halving rule, not with it.

Duh. Ok, that makes much more sense. It should resolve the statistical problems, and still allow for reasonably fast character advancement and ability differentiation past the 100% barrier. This is because although your chance of succeeding has stalled, your chance of a 1/2 skill special is still going up.

However you are still going to hit a wall after 200%, because then your 1/2 skill special chance will have stalled. Your 1/10th skill critical chance will only be going up 1% every 10 skill points and will be your only source of improvement in your odds. So this system scales well to 200% but essentialy stops dead there.

The Elric game system, described on my site, scales well to any skill level, and doesn't involve any calculations on your skill chance so it's actualy easier to use than this system, and scales pretty smoothly without any arbitrary cut-offs or sudden shifts in the rate of change in the odds.

Simon Hibbs

Actually it does scale past 200% becuase the 1/10th cagetory will contine to improve. Essentially we are going from tracking 1% increments , to tracking 2% to tracking 10% increments.

If you want it to scale better past 100 we could do what the BOND game does and go with 1/10th,1/5th, 1/2th aand full. .

This is pretty close to RQ3, and the 1/5th special success category will become the next thing worth tracking, and that won't max out until 500%.

The thing with the Elric system is that is indicates that 200% is twice as good as 100%, which doesn't seem to match with RQ. Generally once you past the 100% mark you are very good and the differences become less significant.

For example, if someone can shoot a penny at 100 yards or if someone can shoot a penny at 1000 yards, they both can shoot each other at 50 yards.

The non scaling beyond 100% is consistent with previous versions of RQ but this was always generaly considered (including by the designers of it I've talked to) to be a flaw in the system, not a deliberate feature.

Anyway if you're going to fix the system up to 200%, why stop there?

Yes Elric scales fairly linearly beyond 100%, or beyond 200% or300% or whatever. This is different from previous RQs, but I think it's a good difference.

Introducign a whole bunch of extra success thresholds you have to calculate doesn't seem to me to score very well in the elegance stakes.

Simon Hibbs

simonh said:
The non scaling beyond 100% is consistent with previous versions of RQ but this was always generaly considered (including by the designers of it I've talked to) to be a flaw in the system, not a deliberate feature.

Anyway if you're going to fix the system up to 200%, why stop there?

Primarily becuase that is probably about as far as the PCs are going to get. I've never seen a PC break 200% without something like Berserk up.

Yes Elric scales fairly linearly beyond 100%, or beyond 200% or300% or whatever. This is different from previous RQs, but I think it's a good difference.

Introducign a whole bunch of extra success thresholds you have to calculate doesn't seem to me to score very well in the elegance stakes.
[/quote]

Just rolling the [pooints above 100 and adding one doesn't score well with me on the belieavability stakes. Bascially, that is what HQ does, and I don't find it a very good way to do things. Generally someone who crosses a matery threhold (or 100% threhsold) has a very big edge over someone just on the other side of the barrier-like the 110% vs. a 90%.

THe bump method also requires calculating new thsholds to make it work. IMO the RQ3 method workks, the Bond method works better. Especially if you tie damnage an other effects to the result. THen combat does become more a factor of skill than the biggest damage die.

atgxtg said:
Just rolling the [pooints above 100 and adding one doesn't score well with me on the belieavability stakes. Bascially, that is what HQ does, and I don't find it a very good way to do things. Generally someone who crosses a matery threhold (or 100% threhsold) has a very big edge over someone just on the other side of the barrier-like the 110% vs. a 90%.

Actualy no, because at 110% your critical chance is already 11%, so actualy skill rises from 100 to 110% only give you the beenfit of absorbing skill penalties. Beyond 111% your critical chance starts rising 1-for-1 but remember characters above 100% rise in ability slower that characetrs below 100% so the actual relative improvement rate will still be pretty smooth beyond 111%.

THe bump method also requires calculating new thsholds to make it work. IMO the RQ3 method workks, the Bond method works better. Especially if you tie damnage an other effects to the result. THen combat does become more a factor of skill than the biggest damage die.

You just look at your skill and read the last 2 digits. 133% skill? Crit on 33% or less. 257% skill ? Crit on 57% or less. No extra calculations required. The numbers are right there in front of you.

EDIT - Corrected a screw up in editing of orriginal post - cut-n-pasted two sources together without checking for consistency. My Bad.

Simon Hibbs

simonh said:
The hundreds digit is the amount you bump your success level up by, the rest is the number you're rolling against. You just look at your skill and read the last 2 digits. 133% skill? Crit on 33% or less, bump by one. 257% skill ? Crit on 57% or less, bump by 2. No extra calculations required. The numbers are right there in front of you.

I think that still introduces some sharp changes along the skill range though. I assume a "bump" means you increase the success level by one automatically, right?

I've got a few observations on the skill process in general. First off, I think the OP started by talking about non-combat skills (opposed skill checks) but the discussion has evolved into one about combat skills. Nothing wrong with that, but the two types are different (and are treated differently in RQ2/3 as well as in the new rules).

Frankly I never had a problem with the opposed skill process that RQ3 used. We use a system where you simply make your roll, then the opposed roller attempts his skill but sutracts from his skill the amount you succeeded by. It's a bit more math, but not too hard. Most importantly, it doesn't taint base failure/success values significantly (as long as you judge success by how much you make your skill by instead of crits/specials, this works perfectly).

I think the key concept here has been touched upon by several people. Opposed rolls aren't so much about your total actual skill as how much more or less your skill is then the other guy's. This makes the process work identically (in principle) to resistance rolls, and IMO conceptual consistency is a good thing in an RPG. This process lends itself very nicely to the standard "reduce/increase skills by X amount in Y situation" mechanic, since by not caring about the actual skill value but rather its numerical advantage on the opposed skill (or GM set difficulty if you will), all effects have equal "weight" regardless of total skill value (but may not be significant at all if the character is sufficiently skilled, which is the point).

We use a similar process for combat skills in RQ3 (stolen from RQ2 of course!), where you allow the character to subtract skill over 100% from the opponent's opposing combat skill. Once again, the point isn't relative skill as a percentage, but value +/-. The thinking is that skills are not "relative" past 100%. It's a sliding scale. A 200% warrior is not twice as skilled as a 100% warrior. He's simply 100% better. By making the skill subtraction optional, you give the player the choice of either an increased crit/special chance *or* an increased chance of making his opponent miss his skill (or he can divvy it up if he wants, but I've rarely seen anyone do this). We also allow this only for natural skill. Bonuses from bladesharp/parry don't count (but can certainly protect someone's skill from being dropped too much). So magical power can make up for a lack of skill, but wont give you an advantage over a more skilled foe. We also have a house rule that you can only get a skill increase if the opposing skill is within 100% of yours, which further solidifies the +/- dynamic, and ensures that only fights within that relevant skill range (100% +/-) have any value in terms of experience.

Dunno. It works pretty well. It's simple. It scales well. Higher power groups will fight more skilled foes. As long as the GM scales the opponents (which he should be doing, right?), there's no problem. And certainly, those high skill characters can cream joe random wimpy guy, but they should be able to, and they gain nothing for it except in context of the scenario. Most importantly, you have a smooth skill progression where it matters (opponents somewhat near your own skill level). IMO, if a game system has to choose between accurately representing skill comparisons when skill levels are close or when skill levels are very far apart, I'll take the former every time. Unless you regularly run your characters into scenario significant opponents who are outside that +/- 100% range of course. But if you do that, I think your campaign will have other problems that no amount of rule changes will fix.

Hah. One last thing. Maybe I'm imagining things, but I have this sneaking suspicion that the "Price is Right"(tm) style "high roll under your skill" concept is a holdover from someone who liked the similar process that Pendragon had. I just noticed that the idea cropped up once in RQ3 (the dragon magic "don armor" skill), and seems to have gained ground in the dev for this release. I've never liked the premise. First off, it tosses the normal "direction" of skill rolls out the window. Secondly, it just doesn't scale at all. Far easier/better to calculate success based on the amount someone rolls under their skill. That way, skill levels over 100% actually work the same as those under 100% (simple subtraction), and skill modifiers from difficulty/environment work seamlessly. It just seemed silly to me that a game mechanic could, for instance, prevent a noble dragonnewt from ever having more then 9 points of armor no matter how skilled he was, and the amount was totally random (again no matter how skilled he was). Abilities should be *less* random at high levels, not more. Yeah. Esoteric issue, but IMO relevant to game design. Some ideas sound neat, but really don't work in practice, and I've always felt that was one of them.

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
18
Views
386
Replies
4
Views
525
Replies
46
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
556