Combat opposed tests?

[gran_orco]

If the attack is unopposed and the attack is succesful, which table must we use: dodge or parry?

Again, you don't need to use any table. If you stand there, neither dodging nor parrying (because you've been whacked by a paralysis spell, say, or you're overcome by a sudden deathwish), and the attack successfully hits, then you take damage. No table necessary.

If the attacker rolls a critical hit the result is not the same if I use the dodge or parry table. What must I do in this case?

 

[Loz]

If the attacker rolls a critical hit the result is not the same if I use the dodge or parry table. What must I do in this case?

Sorry Gran, but I don't fully understand the question.

If a defender is reacting with a dodge or parry, use the appropriate table to determine the result.

If the opponent is NOT defending (ie, letting the attack happen), then any critical hit by the attacker inflicts maximum damage. You don't need to cross reference on any table. If he hits normally, then normal rolled damage.

If the defender is NOT defending and the attacker misses (it can happen...) then, again, you don't need to use any table. The attacker has simply missed (slipped, perhaps, or in haste misjudged distance).

I think its all pretty straightforward.

 

[gran_orco]

Ok, thank you. Pretty simple

 

[duncan_disorderly]

I should point out, however, that if the defender is just standing there, an attack with a hand-to-hand combat weapon should succeed virtually every time. I'm no swordsman, but I am very confident that I can swing a sword at a motionless, non-reacting, human sized target and hit it.

That was the premise of the first Playtest draft that Matthew Sprange produced. It was quite interesting, but not particularly "RQ" like, especially as other skills did not work the same way. However someone argued it was not actually that true, reporting someone (possibly themselves) managing to fail to hit a stationary post when first picking up a re-enactors sword...

 

[master of reality]

I should point out, however, that if the defender is just standing there, an attack with a hand-to-hand combat weapon should succeed virtually every time. I'm no swordsman, but I am very confident that I can swing a sword at a motionless, non-reacting, human sized target and hit it.

That was the premise of the first Playtest draft that Matthew Sprange produced. It was quite interesting, but not particularly "RQ" like, especially as other skills did not work the same way. However someone argued it was not actually that true, reporting someone (possibly themselves) managing to fail to hit a stationary post when first picking up a re-enactors sword...

Sounds like this person rolled a 96-00, so to speak, or their initial skill level was so low that even with attack bonuses against a stationary target, there was still a significant chance of missing. If it was the first time this person had ever swung a sword, then I still think that my interpretation of the rules makes sense. Another way of looking at it is how often will someone with a 50% chance of success with an ax swing at a tree and miss? An average of once for every two swings? Now, I can certainly picture someone who has never picked up an ax clumsily swinging and missing the tree, but then their skill level will probably be on the order of 5 or 10%. In which case, even with attack bonuses for swinging at a motionless target, there's still a significant chance of missing. On the other hand, pretty much everyone who grows up in the U.S. learns to swing a baseball bat. So maybe I take these skills for granted.

 

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

From memory it may take a few minutes to get the eye and swing in with a wood axe or two handed hammer (used in my youth from time to time) but not all that long. If you pick up a weapon without being familiar with the weight and balance then you could well miss pretty badly first time - assuming you get a second chance your aim will probably improve

Regards

 

[Mugen]

If the defender parrys, I use Pete Nash's wiki rules. If the defender chooses to dodge, I use the updated dodge table. A fumble only occurs on a roll of 00, never from an opposed skill result. The defender must choose whether to parry or dodge before the attacker rolls. If the attacker fails and the defender chose to dodge, the attack misses completely. If the defender chose to parry on a failed attack, then, in accordance with Nash's rules, the attacker rolls 1/2 damage. The defender might also get certain advantages depending upon the outcome of the opposed combat skill test. Between human combatants the defender's weapon usually absorbs all the damage from the attack. Against a Great Troll, however, the defender might not be able to deflect all the damage, even if it is only half, but what kind of a fool tries to parry a blow from such a massive creature anyway.

What about changing the rules in this way :

Attack :

Fumble : (ill effect) + dmg = 0
Failure : dmg = weapon minimum
Success : dmg = rolled
Critical : dmg = weapon maximum

Parry

Fumble : (ill effect)
Failure : dmg reduction = 0
Success : dmg reduction = weapon's AP
Critical : dmg reduction = weapon's AP*2

Dodge :

Fumble : (ill effect)
Failure : no effect
Success : Attack level of success reduced by 1
Critical : Attack level of success reduced by 2

Plus, in case of a tie on the success level, the lowest roll sees its level of success reduced by 1.

 

[master of reality]

If the defender parrys, I use Pete Nash's wiki rules. If the defender chooses to dodge, I use the updated dodge table. A fumble only occurs on a roll of 00, never from an opposed skill result. The defender must choose whether to parry or dodge before the attacker rolls. If the attacker fails and the defender chose to dodge, the attack misses completely. If the defender chose to parry on a failed attack, then, in accordance with Nash's rules, the attacker rolls 1/2 damage. The defender might also get certain advantages depending upon the outcome of the opposed combat skill test. Between human combatants the defender's weapon usually absorbs all the damage from the attack. Against a Great Troll, however, the defender might not be able to deflect all the damage, even if it is only half, but what kind of a fool tries to parry a blow from such a massive creature anyway.

What about changing the rules in this way :

Attack :

Fumble : (ill effect) + dmg = 0
Failure : dmg = weapon minimum
Success : dmg = rolled
Critical : dmg = weapon maximum

Parry

Fumble : (ill effect)
Failure : dmg reduction = 0
Success : dmg reduction = weapon's AP
Critical : dmg reduction = weapon's AP*2

Dodge :

Fumble : (ill effect)
Failure : no effect
Success : Attack level of success reduced by 1
Critical : Attack level of success reduced by 2

Plus, in case of a tie on the success level, the lowest roll sees its level of success reduced by 1.

I'm happy with my way of conducting combat, but your way sounds like a perfectly legitimate variation on the combat rules. It's certainly easier.
I like using Pete's wiki rules when the defender parries because:
1. If the difference in success levels is one or more (a failure versus success represents a difference of one level), the winner gets to choose an extra effect such as disarm opponent, trip opponent, damage weapon, etc.
2. Weapon APs are determined by rolling the weapon's damage. So, sometimes the defender is more successful at deflecting damage from an attack.
3. Attacker always does at least half-damage, reflecting the clash of weapons that occurs when a defender seeks to block the attacker's blow with his weapon, though I have considered the possibility of attacker and defender literally missing each others weapons, doing no damage.

But all this might be too much detail for some. In which case, the system detailed by Mugen might be preferable.
That's the beauty of the MRQ system. It's not that hard to mold the combat system to suit one's tastes. If Matthew Sprange is reading this thread, he might be thinking, why can't they use the rules as written? I use the dodge rules as written. The updated combat rules are fine. I like the idea of multiple combat actions per turn with actions and reactions, though I did find it necessary to create a table from an Excel spreadsheet to keep track of all the actions and reactions. In hindsight, the Runequest 2 combat rules are static compared to the MRQ system. I'm guessing that Matt probably tried to create some variation of the core rules that was detailed enough to keep people like me happy but simple enough to appeal to those who aren't game mechanic nerds, such as myself.
This thread started in response to simple questions about the combat system as written, but I guess I couldn't help using it as a way of saying, "hey, look how I do combat." Hopefully, my comments about the combat system are viewed as an exploration of a system that at its core is pretty cool.

 

[Mugen]

There is a flaw in my system however. There should be a chance that an attacker at some distance from an immobile target miss it.

This can be achieved by giving a bonus to defense depending on the distance, and use this bonus as a flat defense chance if the target doesn't move...