Combat: Multiple Resilience Tests?

[Archer]

In combat, if you have a Serious Wound in the stomach, a Major wound in an arm.

Does this mean that you roll 2 Tests to see if you become Unconscious (one for the stomach, one for the leg) and one test to see if you die?

Or does it mean that you roll one Roll to see if you die followed by just one roll to see if you become unconscious?

Simply put, do you make rolls overall (as soon as you have a certain type of injury, you just roll once at the end of combat) or do you roll per hit location (one roll according to damage per hit location)?

I just did a combat between the Barbarian Farmer Börje and a Black bear (he lost, after getting his stomach shredded to pieces) and a Duck (he won by disabling both the ducks arms, and then the duck failed its Resilience tests and became unconscious).

And thats when the question hit me. As written, the rules can be used both ways.

 

[atgxtg]

Mutiple rolls seem to be the correct way. According to the book, it says that characters must immediately make a Resisilence terst. THat would seem to indicate that you take the wound, make the test, take the seconds wound, make the second testm and so on.

It makes more sense that way too. Otherwise a guy with a 90% Resistance is going to very hard to drop. At least woith mutiple rolls, he chances of remaining on his feet with mutplie locations cripppled starts to drop off:

1 test= 90%
2 tests=81%
3 tests=73%
4 tests=66%

 

[Sigtrygg]

I've played it as roll as soon as the wound is inflicted, it just seems to make more sense that way.

 

[Zotzz]

Sigtrygg wrote

I've played it as roll as soon as the wound is inflicted, it just seems to make more sense that way.

The rules specifically say that this is what you do.

As for Archers question about the end of round roll, I assumed that you would roll for each wound. However after looking at atgxtg's percentage breakdown it might just be easier to roll once and add a 10% penalty for each additional wound.

 

[atgxtg]

As for Archers question about the end of round roll, I assumed that you would roll for each wound. However after looking at atgxtg's percentage breakdown it might just be easier to roll once and add a 10% penalty for each additional wound.

That is because I was using a Resiliance of 90% for the test example, and 90/100 is about a 10% reduction. With lower (or higher) resilience scores the numbers are different. Basically it is squaring, cubing, ^4, ^5, etc. SO if we use a different resilience we get different results. A 50% Resilience would be:

1 roll= 50%
2 rolls=25%
3 rolls=12.5%
4 rolls=06.25%

Much worse than a 10% penalty.

 

[Archer]

As for Archers question about the end of round roll, I assumed that you would roll for each wound. However after looking at atgxtg's percentage breakdown it might just be easier to roll once and add a 10% penalty for each additional wound.

Yes, that would be easier.
But I have to question what the idea behind the rule were, was it meant to be rolled for each wound or not?

Quote from RQ Main Rulebook;
A character with either the Abdomen, Chest or Head
suffering a Major Wound must immediately make a
Resilience test or die. If the character lives, another
Resilience test must be made to stay conscious. Both
tests will have to be repeated at the end of every Combat
Round, until the location is restored to 1 hit point or
more, or the character receives First Aid (see page 24).

The way it is phrased, it could be either way. And to me, the use of "A character with either the Abdomen, Chest or Head suffering a Major Wound" implies that you roll only one roll for these areas being wounded (immediately and then at the end of every round).

 

[atgxtg]

I think the idea is that a guy with a hole in his chest and in his abdomen should be more likey to passout and die than one with only one hole.

Not that either of these condtions is a good one.

a flat -10% is much more generous to the character, as it wwill make the roll muche asier to make than normal, at least until you hit the 90%+ range, where it starts to hurt you more.

 

[Zotzz]

It sounds like multiple rolls to me.

Look at the text for limbs. It says that the player immeadiatly goes prone and makes a resilience test or fall unconscious. If the player remains consious, THIS test will have to be repeated at the end of every combat round.

That sounds like an additional limb with a majour would would generate another set of rolls, once when it happend and then repeated at the end of each combat round.

Abdomen, chest and head would work the same way.

That does bring up the question of blood loss since multiple woundled limbs should shorten the time you have to live.

 

[Archer]

I think the idea is that a guy with a hole in his chest and in his abdomen should be more likey to passout and die than one with only one hole.

Not that either of these condtions is a good one.

a flat -10% is much more generous to the character, as it wwill make the roll muche asier to make than normal, at least until you hit the 90%+ range, where it starts to hurt you more.

I agree, he should be more likely to pass out. The problem is, that I can see that it easily becomes a lot of rolls for a character that is injured but does not go down, at the end of combat.
two to five rolls at the end of each combat round for a character that has Severe / Major injuries in several body parts, will significantly slow down the pace of the combat.

I am, and have always been, an adversary to any form av "chock/trauma/etc." tests to see if a character can withstand damage or not. To me either you do or you dont, and there is a clear threshold for this. When passed you pass over, no question about it, and no checks necessary.

 

[Archer]

That does bring up the question of blood loss since multiple woundled limbs should shorten the time you have to live.

That is why it would have been more efficient to use a penalty/wound system, and just make one roll for dying and one for staying conscious.

 

[Zotzz]

Is a 10% penalty really that out of whack. True the lower skilled characters get a bit of a bonus but they tend to get hit more and have a lower chance of making the roll anyway. Seems like it will even it self out to some degree.

Anyway how many characters are going to leave this skill low knowing that it determines thier fate.

 

[Archer]

Is a 10% penalty really that out of whack. True the lower skilled characters get a bit of a bonus but they tend to get hit more and have a lower chance of making the roll anyway. Seems like it will even it self out to some degree.

Anyway how many characters are going to leave this skill low knowing that it determines thier fate.

I think a -20% per Hitlocation with Severe or Major wound sounds reasonable. That way, even the hardiest characters will have trouble surviving or stay conscious with all seven hit locations having severly/major injury.

I swear that I do not get how the rule-designers thought when designing some rules (no offense), but their idea of making things simple and running "smooth" so that you do not have much to keep track of, are in some cases (like this) far from smooth working.

RQ3 had far less bookkeeping and rolling per round and character than MRQ, and the new RQ should be an improvement...

*Archer is getting a bit grouchy regarding RQ rules*

 

[atgxtg]

I agree, he should be more likely to pass out. The problem is, that I can see that it easily becomes a lot of rolls for a character that is injured but does not go down, at the end of combat.
two to five rolls at the end of each combat round for a character that has Severe / Major injuries in several body parts, will significantly slow down the pace of the combat.

Not really, as the character blowing the rolls speeds up combat considerably.

I am, and have always been, an adversary to any form av "chock/trauma/etc." tests to see if a character can withstand damage or not. To me either you do or you dont, and there is a clear threshold for this. When passed you pass over, no question about it, and no checks necessary.

A simplier way would be to make ONE test, and then say you can stay up for a number of rounds based on the test result. Somethinglike like read the tens didgit. SO if you rolled a 56 you could stay up for 5 rounds before you keel over. It does about the same thing. You could even add "extra" rounds for skill over 100 to make scores >100 useful. Like a 120 would get 2 extra rounds on a success.

A critcal result might give double the duration or a wound could "stabilize".

 

[Archer]

Well, for now, I know this is something that I will have to tinker with later on when we start playing. I wonder in what ways the critical injury tables are going to affect how these rules work.

I will most likely adopt the max one die roll max one unconscious test roll, but with multiple injury penalty, in some form. But I do not like having to modify the rules to the extent it looks I will have to (not only this that is an issue, but other parts of the rules as well).