Combat opposed tests?

[Host of Angels]

OK - so I went through the combat rules with a fine tooth comb and have a few questions:

1) If an opposed combat roll initially produces a fail (attack) and fail (defend) result (and combatants did not roll the same numerical result) - is the lower rolled result downgraded to a fumble?

2) If an attack is unopposed, and counts as a fail, which table does one use? Dodge or Parry? My guess, logically this would be dodge.

3) If an attack is unopposed (defender fail) and the attacker also fails - is the defender result downgraded to fumble? Seems a bit harsh.

4) On the subject of fumbles - as written, a dodge fumble uses the close combat fumble table, but many of the results make no sense. Is there an alternative dodge fumble table?

Ta

 

[Loz]

OK - so I went through the combat rules with a fine tooth comb and have a few questions:

Answers below...

1) If an opposed combat roll initially produces a fail (attack) and fail (defend) result (and combatants did not roll the same numerical result) - is the lower rolled result downgraded to a fumble?

No. If both attack and defence fail, its a simple fail on both sides. There's no need to downgrade. This should have been more explicit in the rules.

2) If an attack is unopposed, and counts as a fail, which table does one use? Dodge or Parry? My guess, logically this would be dodge.

If a defender has chosen not to defend, which would mean unopposing the attack, and the attack fails, then neither table needs to be used. The attack simply failed to hit through the attacker's own (lack of) competence. Essentially there's no other effect.

3) If an attack is unopposed (defender fail) and the attacker also fails - is the defender result downgraded to fumble? Seems a bit harsh.

No. See above.

4) On the subject of fumbles - as written, a dodge fumble uses the close combat fumble table, but many of the results make no sense. Is there an alternative dodge fumble table?

It depends on whether or not the dodging character has a drawn weapon. If he has, then the Close Combat Fumble table should be used, because there's a weapon drawn which could be broken, hit an ally, etc. If, however, the dodger doesn't have a weapon drawn and is simply evading, then the Natural Weapon Fumble table can quite reasonably be substituted. It offers more meaningful results for dodgers that use natural weapons or don't have a weapon in engagement.

Hope this clarifies things for you.

 

[Host of Angels]

Just about...

Too many rules!

Ta

 

[Loz]

Just about...

Too many rules!

Ta

You should try FGU's 'Aftermath'... RQ's rules-lite in comparison

 

[Rurik]

You should try FGU's 'Aftermath'... RQ's rules-lite in comparison

Ahh, 3 page flowcharts and mandatory calculators - who knew that wasn't the future of roleplaying?

 

[Host of Angels]

I'll stick with RQ and good old fashioned DnD - thanks :?

 

[Halfbat]

Loz has answered your questions pdq, but if you're after an interesting change on the opposed roll rules, try Pete Nash's rules on the wiki at http://mrqwiki.com/wiki/index.php/Combat.

 

[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.
I like Aftermath, but I'd rather use the MRQ combat rules for sword to sword combat. IMO, MRQ achieves a nice balance between playability and "realism".
The Aftermath gun rules, though, are awesome, and what other game gives encumberance down to the match stick!

 

[Loz]

The Aftermath gun rules, though, are awesome, and what other game gives encumberance down to the match stick!

Or bases damage on actual muzzle-velocity and size of the round...

 

[Ssendam]

As I recall there was a SciFi game called Phoenix Rising that was pretty detailed, or at least the modern day combat game was detailed. Each gun had separate charts and the damage tables told you exactly how you were hurt.

A bit too much detail

 

[Loz]

Phoenix Command - Leading Edge Games.

I never played it, but someone I know who did said it took an entire session (4 hrs) to resolve 3 seconds-worth of combat. Dunno how true that is, but I can believe it.

 

[Ssendam]

Phoenix Command - Leading Edge Games.

I never played it, but someone I know who did said it took an entire session (4 hrs) to resolve 3 seconds-worth of combat. Dunno how true that is, but I can believe it.

Ohhh, believe it. I remember now the SciFi rules were called Living Steel and were a more ... "friendly" version of the Pheonix Command rules.

If you ran the tables on a lap top the game would be quite playable. It was one for the realism gamers out there.

Oh ... I have a signed copy

 

[Rurik]

Or bases damage on actual muzzle-velocity and size of the round...

Actually, many have tried this since, though Aftermath! (don't forget the exclamation!) may have been the first. It has led to many gun damage flame wars (I am not a big fan of basing damage on energy alone).

While on the subject of Aftermath! will RQ get different hit location tables based on the target's facing relative to the attackers? :wink:

I really did love the tables for foraging and finding loot though.

(It also got the claymore blast template right if I recall correctly - I've always appreciated it when games get that right.)

 

[Grazelander]

(It also got the claymore blast template right if I recall correctly - I've always appreciated it when games get that right.)

:lol: As the victim of an Aftermath claymore I can understand your appreciation, my PC's name became Stumpy!

 

[Rurik]

:lol: As the victim of an Aftermath claymore I can understand your appreciation, my PC's name became Stumpy!

I hope that wasn't Hit Location 12. :shock:

 

[zozotroll]

I used to have a very nice lamenated sheet with all the claymore zones colar coded for use when I had to teach the class on emplace/recover. I have brought it out for a few games when people didnt like the size of the thing.

I even had 2 guys who argued heatedly that it was to much ground. I finaly told them that we had a range in a couple weeks, they could come out and stand in the disputed area, and if they came back intact I would believe them. Strangely, no takers.

 

[gran_orco]

2) If an attack is unopposed, and counts as a fail, which table does one use? Dodge or Parry? My guess, logically this would be dodge.

If a defender has chosen not to defend, which would mean unopposing the attack, and the attack fails, then neither table needs to be used. The attack simply failed to hit through the attacker's own (lack of) competence. Essentially there's no other effect.

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

 

[Loz]

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.

 

[master of reality]

I agree. If the defender does not or cannot react, the dodge or parry tables are not consulted. The attacker simply rolls to hit. 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. I might not hit exactly where I want or as hard as I want, but the target will be hit. Unless the defender is dazed or otherwise incapacitated, I always assume that the defender is dancing around a little even if he is not dodging. Otherwise any attack should virtually be guaranteed to hit. It seems unrealistic that a character with, say, a 50% chance to hit can only hit a stationary human sized target an average of 1 time for every two attempts. For me, the 50% chance to hit represents how often an attack succeeds in the heat of battle with a defender whose cognizant enough to actively avoid attacks. A dodge reaction represents a slick maneuver that enables the defender to narrowly avoid the blade. That's why the "minimum damage" outcome for a success versus success result on the dodge table makes sense. If the defender is incapacitated, then I give the attacker a suitable bonus to hit. javascript:emoticon(':twisted:')

 

[Rurik]

The Close Combat Situational Modifier table (p. 48 of the Core Rules, not sure about Deluxe) has 'Target Helpless' as an automatic critical hit - which seems about right to me.

I agree the target is always moving and trying to avoid being hit even if they don't have/use any reactions.