Combat Confusion Cleared - Comments and Discussion
- Thread starter MongooseMatt
- Start date
bluejay said:
You are correct, just saw that.
But as per my previous post, it definately rewards players for getting REALLY good, -80% or -120% is a pretty stiff Penalty.
Logically I would think Ignore Armor and Choose Location would have to go together, as you are targeting a specific weak spot in their armor. I can see why they didn't do it for game play reasons, and won't change it - it is plenty deadly as is. I may allow combining the two though.
Well being the one who posted about the two attack rolls, what can I say!
2 attack rolls was how the game was played in the demo games played in at Contiuum (3 different games) and how I've since played it. Also this is how the example of combat reads on page 61, Fego's club attack at the top of the page is quite clear in this.
To be honest the game works realy nicley with two rolls, adding depth to combat, especially to those combats where both sides are below 100%. Its not like old school RQ or other BRP, odd at first, but I quite like it.
Either way, one roll or two, I'm just realy realy happy that the game is out, and every time I look at the comming products... man am I happy.
Let the good times roll!
2 attack rolls was how the game was played in the demo games played in at Contiuum (3 different games) and how I've since played it. Also this is how the example of combat reads on page 61, Fego's club attack at the top of the page is quite clear in this.
To be honest the game works realy nicley with two rolls, adding depth to combat, especially to those combats where both sides are below 100%. Its not like old school RQ or other BRP, odd at first, but I quite like it.
Either way, one roll or two, I'm just realy realy happy that the game is out, and every time I look at the comming products... man am I happy.
Let the good times roll!
Well, considering it was run that way and is apparently wrong in the example, we'll forgive you 
If the combat example is truly wrong, as others have also pointed out (I won't have my book till tomorrow
), I think we will find most people will end up playing with two rolls anyway. The average person will just accept the example as how it is supposed to work.
If the combat example is truly wrong, as others have also pointed out (I won't have my book till tomorrow
), I think we will find most people will end up playing with two rolls anyway. The average person will just accept the example as how it is supposed to work.Dr. Halflight
Mongoose
atgxtg said:
Well I, like Itto, thought it was 2 rolls. I might try it both ways. I have to say though, I think One roll for the attacker is more logical to traditional roleplaying games. Sorry for adding to the confusion. I'm glad we got a final answer--thanks Matt!
Doc
Two rolls was one logical conclusion. That it can be used either way and works illustrates that.
Personally, I won't use dual attack rolls, nor would I have if it had been declared official. Mostly because I'm stuck in my ways. However, I still think the 'statistical anomaly' was dicey and reaction to it overblown. Other games have the same sort of rough spots and work quite well. Earthdawn for one.
MRQ looks like it will be an excellent addition to an ailing hobby.
Personally, I won't use dual attack rolls, nor would I have if it had been declared official. Mostly because I'm stuck in my ways. However, I still think the 'statistical anomaly' was dicey and reaction to it overblown. Other games have the same sort of rough spots and work quite well. Earthdawn for one.
MRQ looks like it will be an excellent addition to an ailing hobby.
WildHealer
Mongoose
Imagine it was D&D, and there was a rule saying "at 11th level and every level thereafter, any additional skill point gained will cause a -1 penalty to the die roll rather than a +1 bonus".
Overblown? Not really - although the answer is just not to use the Very High Skills rule. Though, as has been pointed out elsewhere on this forum, skill levels over 100% become pretty meaningless then. I can't see my players (who are pretty much in the low 100s with key skills after YEARS of play - D&D equivalent of 10th / 11th level or so) accepting the massive limitation of their abilities if I tried to switch over from RQ3.
Sarah
Mikko Leho
Mongoose
sarahnewton said:
Years of play and their characters are not dead yet? You must be one sad GM. In our games all it took was a farmer with a pitchfork, pissed off donkey, looking someone funny etc. Let evolution do its job, you know you want to :wink:
A
Archer
Guest
Mikko Leho said:
Hamster, Dodge 200%, Attack 120% Damage 1 Point.
"It bites, and bites, and bites. It takes hours before you die!"
While I was never a huge fan of Special success from RQ3, but having every 4 skill points have a game effect is a lot more significant than every 10 points. I guess the point is to get to 135% so every attack is a Called Shot (although I am not sure how well this works against high Dodge/Parry skills).sarahnewton said:
Urox said:
I think precise attacks will prove to be very potent and be reward enough for skills over 100.
As far as duels between very high skilled characters, it seems like they will play out much like RQ 2/3 duels - drawn out affairs until someone blows a roll or crits assuming both sides have equal actions/reactions. I am intigrigued as to Matt's bit about ways to deny reactions.
Also, I expect we will get more on high 'level' characters in the Legendary Heroes supplement when released.
Newton, it was overblown. And is. Any effect would be minor, if the model is even accurate. 'Massive'. :roll:
Besides, the attack percentage itself would be unaffected. Maybe having a little chaos in the opposed roll would better reflect the actualities of combat better anyway. But it just isn't anything to get ruffled over.
I sympathize fully with Mongoose Matt in wondering why anyone would think they would publish a broken game. It doesn't matter now anyway.
Besides, the attack percentage itself would be unaffected. Maybe having a little chaos in the opposed roll would better reflect the actualities of combat better anyway. But it just isn't anything to get ruffled over.
I sympathize fully with Mongoose Matt in wondering why anyone would think they would publish a broken game. It doesn't matter now anyway.
andakitty said:
It was not overblown. The as the rules were presented - and remember they were presented this way by someone who had the book and played the game - a character with a 100 skill had a 95% chance of blocking a blow, a character with a 102 skill had a 51% of blocking the same blow. That is pretty massively broken.
Which brings me to my next point. The book IS broken. The mechanics work well as intended, but are not presented clearly. The fact that the release of the book did not really clear up any of the questions shows this. The example of combat in the book directly contradicts Matt's explanation on these boards.
So players will buy the book, many of them will be confused or come to the same conclusions we came to. And that is too bad, because it will turn some players off, which is bad for Mongoose, and bad for those of us who want this game to do well.
Rurik said:
I don't think this is a big issue. Not so many beginning characters will have over 100% skills to start with? Our group has played RQ 3 a long time and if I remember correctly only once there has been somebody over 100% in his skills. Until that happened, we were never even checked rules regarding >100% skills.
Similar threads
