# A suggestion for those who miss the resistance table

#### Rurik

##### Mongoose
A mechanic that would simulate the resistance table but have an MRQ feel would be to have STATx5 in an opposed roll.

For example two characters with a 10 and 15 strength would have an apposed roll with target values of 50 and 75 respectively. Resisting a poison would be done with CONx5 vs Potency, etc.

Haters of the halving rule could just Lower the multiplier if one side would result in a score of over 100. For example a 21 STR vs. 16 STR would result in target numbers of 84 vs.64 (multiplier lowered to X4).

I am going to try the rules as written and see what I think, but I gather many people miss the RQ2/3 style resistance test (though obviously have been considering alternatives)

The Resilience skill could still be used where the GM sees fit (resisting pain for example) - or scrapped altogether if they really hate it.

Rurik said:
Haters of the halving rule could just Lower the multiplier if one side would result in a score of over 100. For example a 21 STR vs. 16 STR would result in target numbers of 84 vs.64 (multiplier lowered to X4).

Sorry Ruiki, but fair is fair. Changing the mulitplers to x4, x3 or less is the same effect mathemtiatically as the halving rule, peroportional reduction. Haters of the halving rule would be the last ones to use a reduced multiplier.

P.S> I can just see: "Put an end to Halfling rule!" :shock:

atgxtg said:
Rurik said:
Haters of the halving rule could just Lower the multiplier if one side would result in a score of over 100. For example a 21 STR vs. 16 STR would result in target numbers of 84 vs.64 (multiplier lowered to X4).

Sorry Ruiki, but fair is fair. Changing the mulitplers to x4, x3 or less is the same effect mathemtiatically as the halving rule, peroportional reduction. Haters of the halving rule would be the last ones to use a reduced multiplier.

P.S> I can just see: "Put an end to Halfling rule!" :shock:

That's it! it's "The Hobbit Problem"

wartorn said:
atgxtg said:
I can just see: "Put an end to Halfling rule!" :shock:

That's it! it's "The Hobbit Problem"

It's hard to kick a bad hobbit ('cuz they have high dodge scores!).

atgxtg said:
Rurik said:
Haters of the halving rule could just Lower the multiplier if one side would result in a score of over 100. For example a 21 STR vs. 16 STR would result in target numbers of 84 vs.64 (multiplier lowered to X4).

Sorry Ruiki, but fair is fair. Changing the mulitplers to x4, x3 or less is the same effect mathemtiatically as the halving rule, peroportional reduction. Haters of the halving rule would be the last ones to use a reduced multiplier.

P.S> I can just see: "Put an end to Halfling rule!" :shock:

It is not the same effect as the halving rule. Try the calculator with a STR 20 vs 16 and (enter scores 100 and 80). Then try 21 vs 16 (which becomes 84 vs. 64). The character who increased STR actually has his chance go up. Now try 53 vs 40 (what the halving rule would have done).

It is true that there is the same kind of anomaly around the threshold when you reduce the multiplier but it is MUCH less pronounced than halving - the idea is to reduce the chance to be less than 101 while keeping the high score as close to 100 as possible.

Another bigger advantage is since you are never halving there can be no bad 'halfling' jokes - which definitely does not 'feel' very RQ to me!

Rurik said:
It is not the same effect as the halving rule. Try the calculator with a STR 20 vs 16 and (enter scores 100 and 80). Then try 21 vs 16 (which becomes 84 vs. 64). The character who increased STR actually has his chance go up. Now try 53 vs 40 (what the halving rule would have done).

It is true that there is the same kind of anomaly around the threshold when you reduce the multiplier but it is MUCH less pronounced than halving - the idea is to reduce the chance to be less than 101 while keeping the high score as close to 100 as possible. [/qupte]
It is the same effect. It is just less pronounced, since you are using 0.8 instead of 0.5. Not that that is a bad thing.

In sitations where the stats get higher (>25,33,50) the multipliers get smaller, and the effect become more pronounced, although those numbers are not something a PC is likely to have, and I figure anyone who is up against a STR 60 Dragon could use a break and take the 60 vs. 10.

Or, what if we just bring back all the old STATx5% rolls as skills? We could give then a base starting percentage of STATx5% or Statx4% and let them go up with experience.

Personally, I don't might the idea that these abilities can improve, just that stats play such a minor part of the ability.

Rurik said:
Another bigger advantage is since you are never halving there can be no bad 'halfling' jokes - which definitely does not 'feel' very RQ to me!

I figured you be happy to get away from the trollkin jokes!

You know, the Characteristic X 5 works fine. Even if a dragon has a STR of 60 (so that 300%) it goes to show compared to a human (who if lucky maxs out at 110%) is a far far stronger beast and able to do sa strength feat automatically.

or if your doing a size problem (i.e. a agimori and a duck trying to get down a small well). just reverse it so ([species maximum +1] minus [SIZ]) X 5. Thus a SIZ 8 human would get 70% (22 - 8 then X 5).

I'm sure I'll still use characteristic X 5 skills, and indeed STR vs. STR on a resitance table as it wouldnt be RQ to me personally without it.
Or for the mathematicians: (50 + (([STR] - [STR2]) X 5))

To be honest, I'd prefer this to the opposed rolls in MRQ. i.e. each oppoent rols their skill and whoever rolls highest wins.... Does that work and strugling to get my head around it...

Ravage said:
You know, the Characteristic X 5 works fine. Even if a dragon has a STR of 60 (so that 300%) it goes to show compared to a human (who if lucky maxs out at 110%) is a far far stronger beast and able to do sa strength feat automatically.

or if your doing a size problem (i.e. a agimori and a duck trying to get down a small well). just reverse it so ([species maximum +1] minus [SIZ]) X 5. Thus a SIZ 8 human would get 70% (22 - 8 then X 5).

I'm sure I'll still use characteristic X 5 skills, and indeed STR vs. STR on a resitance table as it wouldnt be RQ to me personally without it.
Or for the mathematicians: (50 + (([STR] - [STR2]) X 5))

To be honest, I'd prefer this to the opposed rolls in MRQ. i.e. each oppoent rols their skill and whoever rolls highest wins.... Does that work and strugling to get my head around it...

Characteristic X 5 does work fine as a simple roll. But lets say you need to resist a poison (Potency 75) with your CON of 12. They way I describe would be to have an opposed roll of CONx5 (60) vs the Potency (75) as opposed rolls are described in the MRQ rules. These rolls seem to work pretty well until halving is involved. This preserves the MRQ way of doing things.

Another way of doing it would be to divide the Potency by 5 and then using the RQ 2/3 resistence table, CON 12 vs. Potency 15 in the previous example. This system does not have anomolies when a stat goes over 20, as would happen with the MRQ method above.

They way I describe would be to have an opposed roll of CONx5 (60) vs the Potency (75) as opposed rolls are described in the MRQ rules. These rolls seem to work pretty well until halving is involved. This preserves the MRQ way of doing things.

Yeah sorry, perhaps you mis-understood or I worded it badly. I'm going to be doing this myself exactly how you describe!

I was just commenting on knocking down the multiplier for a skill that goes over 100% there by it. In fact, I'd probably half the two skills to fit with MRQ (although I'm sorry, I'm gonna be adding HQ bumping for the person over 100%)

Ravage said:
They way I describe would be to have an opposed roll of CONx5 (60) vs the Potency (75) as opposed rolls are described in the MRQ rules. These rolls seem to work pretty well until halving is involved. This preserves the MRQ way of doing things.

Yeah sorry, perhaps you mis-understood or I worded it badly. I'm going to be doing this myself exactly how you describe!

I was just commenting on knocking down the multiplier for a skill that goes over 100% there by it. In fact, I'd probably half the two skills to fit with MRQ (although I'm sorry, I'm gonna be adding HQ bumping for the person over 100%)

I'd be fine adding a rule that says if the difference exceeds 20, the higher characteristic wins automatically - wrestling dragons and ingesting cyanide is not recommended.

The MRP way bugs me a lot, oppose rolls are ok it's two PCs rolling against each other, they can faff about to their hearts content. But why the hell do you need it against NPCs or inanimate objects? don't you as the the reff have enough to do, except rolling huge numbers of dice? like thinking ahead or describing what is happening. MRP seems to have massively increased the number of dice rolled rather than lowering it.

wartorn said:
,

I'd be fine adding a rule that says if the difference exceeds 20, the higher characteristic wins automatically - wrestling dragons and ingesting cyanide is not recommended.

Oh, now he tells me.

Ack!

[THUD.]

The resistance table was never that good.

I have a exel-calculator (and a sheet with the values) for a resistance test that makes sense. I'll fish it out and share it here when I find it.

The point of it is that things are scaled. Str 6 vs. Str 8 is the same as Str 12 vs. Str 18, Or Str 3 vs Str 4. That doesn't work with the simple resistance table.

I think I built it so that a double value is impossible to resist, and equal values give a chanse of 50%. Only the defender rolls.

Ravage said:
Or for the mathematicians: (50 + (([STR] - [STR2]) X 5))
Yup, that's mathematically identical to the Resistance Table, the maths aren't as bad as they look, plus it has the nice touch that you can use it for a characteristic opposing a skill.

I like it.

These days I usually use stat x 5 and apply +/- modifiers for difficulty levels. -10, -20, -40. It seems to work, although I am beginning to fear statistical anomalies. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Replies
13
Views
842
Replies
8
Views
563
Replies
1
Views
451
Replies
54
Views
56K
Replies
20
Views
8K