The floodgates are opened!
Combat Confusion Cleared - Comments and Discussion
- Thread starter MongooseMatt
- Start date
Mikko Leho
Mongoose
I think he already did:
msprange said:
WildHealer
Mongoose
Hi Matt,
Thanks very much for your clarifications - that is absolutely excellent news, and makes total sense.
Could you also put your views across also on the mathematical wibble in the halving rule in general? Your clarification goes a long way to settling my concerns over combat, for one, but I'm still uneasy on the opposed rolls for 100%+ characters where you do have to halve.
Secondly, what is the situation when you Dodge to resist a spell, for example? My guess is that this is not an opposed roll, and therefore not subject to the halving roll, and that a successful Dodge means complete avoidance of the spell consequences, regardless of the spell Runecasting roll, but I'm not sure. An example would be a character with 110% Dodge trying to avoid a Skybolt cast with a critical Runecasting roll (at either 90% or 110% - take your pick). Is the dodging character 95% likely to avoid all consequences?
Thirdly - Critical Damage rules. Is it the intention of the rules to basically encourage characters to always make Bypass Armour rolls when facing opponents wearing armour? Otherwise, it seems almost impossible to damage, and certainly to incapacitate / kill, a target wearing anything like chainmail or above.
Lastly (honest!) - integrating Runes. What's the implication of a character integrating a Chaos rune? I'm sure you'll appreciate that from a Gloranthan perspective the concept sounds very dodgy indeed - what's the intention here?
If you could address in due course these four points, I'll be extremely happy to put up and shut up!
Cheers,
Sarah
Thanks very much for your clarifications - that is absolutely excellent news, and makes total sense.
Could you also put your views across also on the mathematical wibble in the halving rule in general? Your clarification goes a long way to settling my concerns over combat, for one, but I'm still uneasy on the opposed rolls for 100%+ characters where you do have to halve.
Secondly, what is the situation when you Dodge to resist a spell, for example? My guess is that this is not an opposed roll, and therefore not subject to the halving roll, and that a successful Dodge means complete avoidance of the spell consequences, regardless of the spell Runecasting roll, but I'm not sure. An example would be a character with 110% Dodge trying to avoid a Skybolt cast with a critical Runecasting roll (at either 90% or 110% - take your pick). Is the dodging character 95% likely to avoid all consequences?
Thirdly - Critical Damage rules. Is it the intention of the rules to basically encourage characters to always make Bypass Armour rolls when facing opponents wearing armour? Otherwise, it seems almost impossible to damage, and certainly to incapacitate / kill, a target wearing anything like chainmail or above.
Lastly (honest!) - integrating Runes. What's the implication of a character integrating a Chaos rune? I'm sure you'll appreciate that from a Gloranthan perspective the concept sounds very dodgy indeed - what's the intention here?
If you could address in due course these four points, I'll be extremely happy to put up and shut up!
Cheers,
Sarah
d(sqrt(-1))
Mongoose
Matt,
Thanks very much for the combat clarifications - those make good sense indeed, and certainly overcome any objections that I had as to how the combat roll works. Unfortunately it means extra work for bluejay to change his calculator!
Now, just Sarah's questions to go...
thanks again,
Mark
PS: the previews for the Glorantha book look extremely good, I'm really looking forward to this one.
Thanks very much for the combat clarifications - those make good sense indeed, and certainly overcome any objections that I had as to how the combat roll works. Unfortunately it means extra work for bluejay to change his calculator!
Now, just Sarah's questions to go...
thanks again,
Mark
PS: the previews for the Glorantha book look extremely good, I'm really looking forward to this one.
d(sqrt(-1))
Mongoose
bluejay said:
That would seem likely. I can't remember the effect of fumbled rolls, there must be a description somewhere, default "drop weapon" or somesuch?
Mark
So the combat example on page 61 is wrong (it clearly states that the trollkin roll twice the attack roll against Bruka, the first suceed and the second fail opening itself for Bruka riposte).
Also, is it possible that weapon damage after armour points could be reduced to 0 or even lower (I don't seem to find any rules that states that 0, or 1 or whatever is the lower limit... I know I stupid by figure the young player who says "ehi, your damage's gone negative. So you healed me, isn't it, Master?"... ok, it's stupid, but something official would be neat on the matter... I'd suggest 1 as lower limit...)
Also, is it possible that weapon damage after armour points could be reduced to 0 or even lower (I don't seem to find any rules that states that 0, or 1 or whatever is the lower limit... I know I stupid by figure the young player who says "ehi, your damage's gone negative. So you healed me, isn't it, Master?"... ok, it's stupid, but something official would be neat on the matter... I'd suggest 1 as lower limit...)
Sure would like to have been a fly on the wall during the Mongosse rules rant you talk about! I wonder if it ever breaks out into d20/d30 dice-fights...
Well... With the halving skills not happenning for combat (which at first I thought a pretty good idea) I guess that explains why experience over 100% wasnt specified either... In a combat situation having a skill over 100%, bar dealing with any negatives the GM puts your way, is now pretty pointless!
...and theres no splitting attack rules so in theory its using combat actions to deal with multiple foes I guess.
...and no folks, there are no extra combat rules in the MRQ Companion
Well... With the halving skills not happenning for combat (which at first I thought a pretty good idea) I guess that explains why experience over 100% wasnt specified either... In a combat situation having a skill over 100%, bar dealing with any negatives the GM puts your way, is now pretty pointless!
...and theres no splitting attack rules so in theory its using combat actions to deal with multiple foes I guess.
...and no folks, there are no extra combat rules in the MRQ Companion
WildHealer
Mongoose
Hmm - you're right. That's a bummer. I s'pose you get the increased critical chance, but with criticals now being a whole less dangerous than they used to be, that ain't much.
I need to go away and think about this. Maybe the HQ-style "bump ups" have a role to play here after all.
Sarah
Another couple of questions: -
If the attacker rolls a critical and the defender parries, then is the damage critical (i.e. maximum damage) or does this occur only if the defender fails (where the result says 'attack succeeds and becomes a critical hit')?
If the attacker rolls a critical and the defender dodges then (from what I've read in the rulebook), if the defender crits, normal damage is done rather than minimum damage. Is this correct? If the defender rolls a normal success, is normal damage or critical damage inflicted?
If the attacker rolls a critical and the defender parries, then is the damage critical (i.e. maximum damage) or does this occur only if the defender fails (where the result says 'attack succeeds and becomes a critical hit')?
If the attacker rolls a critical and the defender dodges then (from what I've read in the rulebook), if the defender crits, normal damage is done rather than minimum damage. Is this correct? If the defender rolls a normal success, is normal damage or critical damage inflicted?
Skills over 100 are still valuable because of the called shots. A skill of 140% can bypass armor every time (or use any of the other called shots.
I assume that once your skill is over 100 you just go up 1% at a time. You get 1% if you fail the skill increase roll, so you just go up 1% at a time if you choose to increase a skill over 100.
Which is fine by me, the called shots are very potent.
I assume that once your skill is over 100 you just go up 1% at a time. You get 1% if you fail the skill increase roll, so you just go up 1% at a time if you choose to increase a skill over 100.
Which is fine by me, the called shots are very potent.
Hey Matt, I'm still a bit unclear on one point - your clarification post states the following:
2. If the attack has been successful, a reaction may be declared -
Then goes on to state (and explain):
So, if an attacker fails an attack, is parried, but the parry fails,
he is suddenly successful?
I was under the assumption from reading the rulebook, and the first part of your clarification post that a Reaction was only triggered by a succesful attack - To me, that would mean that an unsuccesful attack WOULD NOT trigger a reaction, so the victim of the failed attack would not have the option of a Reaction.
The bottom portion of your clarification post seems to indicate otherwise, and that any attack (succesful or not) can trigger a reaction so that the victim of the attack has a chance to parry in order to possibly gain a Riposte.
Mind clarifying ?
Thanks!
2. If the attack has been successful, a reaction may be declared -
Then goes on to state (and explain):
So, if an attacker fails an attack, is parried, but the parry fails,
he is suddenly successful?
I was under the assumption from reading the rulebook, and the first part of your clarification post that a Reaction was only triggered by a succesful attack - To me, that would mean that an unsuccesful attack WOULD NOT trigger a reaction, so the victim of the failed attack would not have the option of a Reaction.
The bottom portion of your clarification post seems to indicate otherwise, and that any attack (succesful or not) can trigger a reaction so that the victim of the attack has a chance to parry in order to possibly gain a Riposte.
Mind clarifying ?
Thanks!
I think I'm clear on what Matt means and it now becomes obvious that it was unfortunately written.Melkor said:
But what was intended was _much_ better Effectively, it is not "a successful [..] attack being made" that can cause the trigger, but an "attack being attempted". I don't have any problems with the defender outsmarting himself and stepping into an attack by trying to achieve more than he is capable of :twisted: - this feels reasonable (even from my own attempts to over achieve). (GM thinks: "That will teach him to be cocksure!")
Thanks, MS, for explaining what was intended - the intented result works well, imho. ::relief::. (btw, can we ask you to please clear it up in an errata with a rephrase and an explicit statement that reactions can be against _any_ attack. For me, despite reading and rereading p47, 50, 51 and the examples, the intent is contradicted or muddied with suggestions of a second roll).
Urox said:
They are actually referred to as 'Precise Attacks' and I am getting my info from the RuneQuest Core Rule Preview 2, last page. A precise attack is made at minus 40% and can be either one of the following: Ignore Armor, Choose Location, Attack Weapon/Sheild, Disarm Opponent.
It doesn't say if you can combine called shots for -80%, Ignore Armor and Choose Location make sense together, but Attack Weapon and Ignore Armor not so much.
