Any change to the Experience system?

[Mugen]

If the attacker Fails, and the defender Succeeds, attack succeeds but 2xAP of parrying weapon/shield is deducted from damage.

How come that failed attack succeeds if parry succeeds? This sounds crazy.

In the last draft version I got from playtest (dated from february), there is a conflict between text (which states that a failed defense roll means a hit, but without any reference to the 2xAP thing) and the Attack/parry matrix (which states that a failed attack vs successful parry is a miss).

Is this a fix that occured in the final version ?

 

[wartorn]

So, if I parry succesful I just jump to my opponent's blade even it was seemingly going to miss my torso, and then try to block that obviously bad or misguided thrust.

No, I see what they're going for here -- basically, in each round of combat, there are all sorts of blows being thrown, etc., and it looks as if the game is assuming that each person in a combat will be hitting each other over time -- the attacks and parry/block rolls aren't there to tell you if you hit or not, but rather to compare the relative abilities of each combatant and figure out the damage done each round from there.

Ther better you are at parrying/blocking, the more damage over the course of that round you soaked up with your sword/shield, as represented by the double-AP note when your attacker's check is lousy. That still doesn't necessarily mean that you completely avoided or deflected every shot that round, though.

I understand (and can kind of appreciate) the approach they took, but I'll have to see it in action to see whether or not I like it.

I can see what you're getting at but I think its as plain and simple as "Parrying does not make you impervious" in other words, parrying is effective up to a point but if the blow is strong enough even though you successfully parried the damage may yet get through. This provides an easy way to model why it is stupid to attempt to parry a greataxe (very high damage potential) with a dagger (very low AP).

As for failed attacks still causing damage; I guess the idea is that by parrying you've chosen to place yourself in the way of the attack and are relying on your parry to save you, which if it doesn't means you get hit. Not sure on this one but it adds to the drama.

 

[andakitty]

A quick question about the a/p matrix, for clarification. Do you make a roll to see if you make a successful attack, and then do an opposed roll if the simple attack roll succeeds? Or is it just an opposed roll, right off the bat? The way it is set up makes it look like you need a simple attack resolution roll and THEN an opposed roll. And if so, when does a critical result apply, the simple attack roll or the opposed roll, or both?

 

[Halfbat]

The A/P matrix (and the Dodge matrix) has a fault (still), which was pointed out to MS on the Open day. A missed attack misses and never goes through, otherwise, you might as well not React!

Combat does not cause continuous opposed rolls and is the slight exception to the normal opposed roll rules. The Attacker states what he's doing, does it, and the defender has an option to perform a Reaction, AFTER the attacker's dice are rolled and a hit is determined (though t the Open Day we were declaring beforehand). The attacker always rolls his Attack dice and the Reactor rolls his, if any. Only then are the tables referenced with the dice rolls to see what actually transpired.

Actually, I've just twigged (having previously seen) the other bit in the table where it says a failed attack succeeds but with double AP blocked. This is completely counter to the rules on p47 where it says explicitly that "If a character rolls greater than his Weapon Skill he has missed his target."

 

[andakitty]

I have been pondering this too, and it seems that if you use a two stage resolution, that is a second opposed roll (two separate attack rolls) it works *almost* perfectly. Attacker rolls. If it is a hit, defender gets to oppose it or not. If not, no further roll, just do damage. If opposed the attacker rolls again at the same time as the defender, THEN check the result against the table. But you are saying that it is supposed to be resolved with one roll each? Sorry to be a pest, but I want to be sure I am doing this right. It's the only way to get an accurate handle on the new rules.

 

[waiwode]

I have been pondering this too, and it seems that if you use a two stage resolution, that is a second opposed roll (two separate attack rolls) it works *almost* perfectly. Attacker rolls. If it is a hit, defender gets to oppose it or not. If not, no further roll, just do damage. If opposed the attacker rolls again at the same time as the defender, THEN check the result against the table. But you are saying that it is supposed to be resolved with one roll each? Sorry to be a pest, but I want to be sure I am doing this right. It's the only way to get an accurate handle on the new rules.

Why would the attacker roll again?

The error on the A/P chart is bound to create some confusion.

 

[andakitty]

To confirm the hit against the parry? Consider the implications of one of Hyrum's listed results. 'If the attacker fails, and the defender succeeds, attack succeeds...' How is that going to happen unless you are rolling to see how well a hit did? After having already succeeded with an attack roll.

 

[wartorn]

To confirm the hit against the parry? Consider the implications of one of Hyrum's listed results. 'If the attacker fails, and the defender succeeds, attack succeeds...' How is that going to happen unless you are rolling to see how well a hit did? After having already succeeded with an attack roll.

I would hope that you must choose to react or not before the attack is rolled.

If you make the assumption that parrying puts you at risk it is not counter-intuitive to say that 'if your parry is successful but does not absorb the blow an otherwise missed attack becomes a success'

So:

Aggressor the Axe: "I attack u with ma Gr8ax"

Doomed the Defender: "I shall parry with my Poignard"

(Rolls: Aggressor fails, Doomed succeeds)

Translation: Aggressor swings overhead but the blade arcs to impact short of where Doomed is standing - however - Doomed has leapt forward from where he was and interposed his dagger between the axe and himself in an attempt to knock it aside

(Damage is rolled - Aggressor's damage, enhanced by his ponderous frame, far exceeds 2x Doomed's dagger AP)

Aggressor's Axe, which otherwise would have landed short and missed, now smashes through Doomed's pitiful defense and cleaves him in twain. Had Doomed chosen to dodge, he would have avoided the blow entirely - so question: Does [attack fail / dodge succeed] = hit on the Dodge table?

 

[Ravelli]

andakitty, what Halfbat's saying is that if an attacker misses, the defender doesn't need to defend (Parry/Dodge) at all. Apparently there's an error on that Attack/Parry chart that Hyrum very graciously provided.

A few days ago Halfbat posted this in his Errata & Questions thread:

---------
p50/p51 - Combat the Dodge and Parry tables both state that if an attack fails AND the Dodge/Parry fail then the attack "succeeds as normal". On the Parry table it states the "Attack succeeds but 2AP is deducted..." On p47 the text states that "If a character rolls greater than his Weapon skill, he has missed his target."
If an attack failes, a riposte is _never_ possible.
>>> The guys at Mongoose today confirmed the text was correct : a missed attack misses.
---------

 

[andakitty]

So only one attack roll, then, and go to the chart and use that same roll if there is a reaction to the attack. Not worried about an error on the table, it's an easy fix. Just trying to make sure I understood correctly.

 

[Ravelli]

Many thanks to Hyrum and Halfbat for taking the time to share their insights into how MRQ really works, too!

The more I read about it, the more I want it.

Cheers, guys!

 

[Urox]

To confirm the hit against the parry? Consider the implications of one of Hyrum's listed results. 'If the attacker fails, and the defender succeeds, attack succeeds...' How is that going to happen unless you are rolling to see how well a hit did? After having already succeeded with an attack roll.

It seems that MQ may have some of the editing problems that others have reported plagued Mongoose in the past...

 

[SteveMND]

Not worried about an error on the table, it's an easy fix.

Yah, but considering that it's a pretty significant error on perhaps what is probably going to be the most often used table/chart of the RPG, it doesn't instill a sense of optimism as to the product as a whole, proofreading-wise.

Here's hoping it's just an isolated incident (as I strongly doubt they'll have enough time to fix it now)...

 

[Ravelli]

So only one attack roll, then, and go to the chart and use that same roll if there is a reaction to the attack. Not worried about an error on the table, it's an easy fix. Just trying to make sure I understood correctly.

Yep, and there won't be a reaction if the attack has missed.

 

[andakitty]

Mongoose Matt says in another thread that he is going through it again and that this seems to be the exception to the rule. At least I think this is what he is talking about...'one error in one table, fixed in the text' to paraphrase.

 

[Urox]

Mongoose Matt says in another thread that he is going through it again and that this seems to be the exception to the rule.

Too bad that error is on something so important.

But, I am still confused about combat -- is all that bit about rolling higher/lower thrown out as erroneous, and the table described on page 5 of this thread correct (if you ignore the first 2 entries)?

 

[Dr. Halflight]

Yah, but considering that it's a pretty significant error on perhaps what is probably going to be the most often used table/chart of the RPG, it doesn't instill a sense of optimism as to the product as a whole, proofreading-wise.

Here's hoping it's just an isolated incident (as I strongly doubt they'll have enough time to fix it now)...

Has there been a RPG published that doesn't have erratta? The Conan 1E problem, was an unfortunate production mistake, not sloppy work ethic.


Doc

 

[andakitty]

Yes, it is too bad. I bet some folks are kicking themselves over it, because apparently it is in the main print run. Sigh. Maybe all we will have to do is draw a line through the erroneous text on the chart and be good to go. I'll probably just memorize the nine results anyway.

And yes, I think the rolling high/low is not there at all...it is a rumor that got started from someone's interpretation of something that was said a month or two ago on some thread somewhere. Whew. Anyway, you know how rumors can be.

 

[waiwode]

But, I am still confused about combat -- is all that bit about rolling higher/lower thrown out as erroneous, and the table described on page 5 of this thread correct (if you ignore the first 2 entries)?

If I understand correctly, the rolling higher/lower is for opposed task checks. Arm-wrestling, bickering over the price of a horse, seeing who can run from here to there fastest.

There are some aspects where it may inpact on combat. For instance dodging is pretty much an "all or none" thing, either you do you don't dodge successfully. What happens when Shooter and Dodger both succeed? This seems like a good time to invoke highest roll counts as success concept.

Doug.

 

[Lord Twig]

My understanding was that the High/Low roll comparison was used for skill vs. skill situations like Hide and Search or Sneak and Listen.