combat question

[warzen]

Hi all,

sorry if this has already been posted but I can't find the answer:

how is it possible to achieve a failed roll from the attacker on the reaction table knowing that reaction occurs only if the attack is succesfull and that the attacker is using the same result (he's not rerolling) as stated in the player guide pdf ?

Thx,
W.

 

[soltakss]

Well, you can't.

But, if you go by the old idea of Statement of Intent, then you might allow the defender to roll his reaction in any case. So, you can then get a failed Attack/Successful Parry/Dodge, whatever that does.

 

[Halfbat]

It's wporth looking at the player's guide (see the runequest page) which explains what the table is there for. There's been a lot of discussion...

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/rqplayersguide.pdf

 

[warzen]

It's wporth looking at the player's guide (see the runequest page) which explains what the table is there for. There's been a lot of discussion...

http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/rqplayersguide.pdf

That's because of this pdf that I posted my question.

I never understood before that the first row of each reaction table are not used (except if you roll a second time your attack).

W.

 

[Rurik]

There is a lot of evidence that the combat system was designed with two rolls in mind. The text and example in the rules being a major source of this impression, and also a Mongoose Demo run prior to the release used a two roll system (where the attacker rolls once for the attack, and if it hits and the defender parries/dodges the attacker rolls a second time for the opposed dodge/parry roll).

I've played with the two roll system and it works well - I think others are planning on using it as well. It gives good variety to the possible results. That being said I think I am going to use one roll - it just feels better (and is in line with the 'official' rules).

 

[GoingDown]

I've played with the two roll system and it works well - I think others are planning on using it as well. It gives good variety to the possible results. That being said I think I am going to use one roll - it just feels better (and is in line with the 'official' rules).

On our session last weekend we first tried two-roll system, but after a while all of us felt that second roll is just waste of time, so we switched to one roll system and it worked better.

I did just one small modification to tables: on success attack versus critical dodge, attack fails AND attacker is overextended. Didn't happen on our game but I just wanted to include "attacker overextended" result being possible.

 

[warzen]

Ok. Thanks for the feedback.

W.

 

[Halfbat]

The wiki has some extended tables for a one-roll system if you are interested.
http://mrqwiki.pbwiki.com/

 

[RosenMcStern]

Well, there is one way to use the first row of the table without making a second die roll, which many people here do not like, and without forcing the defender to declare his reaction before the attack is rolled, which makes combat too deadly by wasting unnecessary reactions. But it involves introducing the "Skill over 100%" rule into combat too, whereas the Mongoose team had intentionally left it out.

First of all, roll the attack normally and record the success number. If the attack succeeds, the defender may declare a reaction.

If the attack is opposed, check whether one of the involved skills, after modifiers are applied, is above 100%. If at least one is, halve both skills until they are below 101%, and then roll the defense skill. Note that this can downgrade the attack roll to a failure. Note also that if your attack is downgraded to a failure but your opponent does not defend, or does not ctitical in case of a Parry, you have still hit him.

In this way overextensions and ripostes can happen, but are limited to duels where at least one master is involved.

 

[warzen]

Hum. I don't really like the fact that you spend your "reaction" before knowing the attack is hiting you. After all, it's the only way to survive against multiple opponents (hoping they don't all hit).

And I though that the rule over 100% had a math problem.

What about tweaking the tables to add a row on "special success" (a fifth of your success percentage - a Stormbringer rule IIRC) ?
Basically, the 3 rows would be "success", "special" and "critical" in that order.

If 1/5 is too low, you could raise it to 1/2. A guy with 60% of success would make a critical from 01 to 06, a "special" (or "good") from 07 to 30 and a succes ("acceptable") from 31 to 60.

Adding one layer of quality of success could be nice. I'll try to dig my Alternity stuff to give you the ratio used between "amazing", "good", "normal", "failure" and "fumble".

W.

 

[soltakss]

What about tweaking the tables to add a row on "special success" (a fifth of your success percentage - a Stormbringer rule IIRC) ?
Basically, the 3 rows would be "success", "special" and "critical" in that order.

Or even an old RQ rule (RQ2/3). It was abandoned for some reason, probably to make the maths easier and to speed up the game.

HeroQuest has Critical/Success/Failure/Fumble. Now, RQ has the same. Spooky, eh?

Adding one layer of quality of success could be nice. I'll try to dig my Alternity stuff to give you the ratio used between "amazing", "good", "normal", "failure" and "fumble".

Well, I like having specials and I think that critical at 1/10th is too high, personally. I'd use the RQ3 values but the RQ2 specials. But, I'm a dinosaur.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Hum. I don't really like the fact that you spend your "reaction" before knowing the attack is hiting you. After all, it's the only way to survive against multiple opponents (hoping they don't all hit).

In fact I suggested you only roll for reaction if the attack succeeds.

And I though that the rule over 100% had a math problem.

Only in opposed rolls, where a failure vs. failure and success vs. success result determines the winner by looking at the number rolled, with odd math results. But in this case it does not, because the combat tables have different outcomes than the standard opposed rolls. To make it clear, if you originally hit and your opponent parries, you have still hit even though the attack results in a failure because of the halving, unless the defender criticals.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Adding one layer of quality of success could be nice. I'll try to dig my Alternity stuff to give you the ratio used between "amazing", "good", "normal", "failure" and "fumble".

Well, I like having specials and I think that critical at 1/10th is too high, personally. I'd use the RQ3 values but the RQ2 specials. But, I'm a dinosaur.

Considering that a MRQ critical is less dangerous than a RQ2/3 impale, having it happen 10% of the time instead of 5% is not too high, it is too low a percentile.

Steve Perrin suggested a DoS (degree of success) system for MRQ at playtest start, but the Mongoose staff did not want it. I think they know better than us what the average 21st century player likes or dislikes, but this does not make us dinosaurs!

 

[Rurik]

Hum. I don't really like the fact that you spend your "reaction" before knowing the attack is hiting you. After all, it's the only way to survive against multiple opponents (hoping they don't all hit).

You don't have to declare your reaction until after the hit is determined.

What the Players Guide PDF is trying to clear up is that you could use a reaction to parry/dodge a failed attack if you wanted to in an attempt to get a riposte or attacker overextended result - though this is only likely to work if your skill is very high.

Looking at the attack fails/defense is simple success result will show why this is not generally a good idea.

And I though that the rule over 100% had a math problem.

As one of the louder detractors of halving around here I will say this in it's defense: It was a conscious choice on Mongooses part to go with a simple mechanic over a mechanic that would give a better odds curve. I've never considered it broken - just a design choice that I don't agree with (and I'm not alone it seems). I'm all for simplicity assuming it works reasonably well.

If your skill is 100 your odds of winning an opposed roll against a lower skilled opponent go down when your skill improves. If the other skill is close to your own the distortion is small, but if it is a lot lower, say 40, your odds go down a lot when you cross the 101 threshold.

I use subtract the amount over 100 of the higher skill from both skills, so 120 vs 80 becomes 100 vs 60 and 150 vs 125 becomes 100 vs 75. A little more math, odds never decrease, no re-rolls.

In Legendary Heroes Mongoose offers the alternative solution of re-rolling results where both sides fail (only when halving). This cuts the bump a lot, but can lead to re-rolls.

Many other house rules are on this board and the wiki.

No matter what halving system you use, changing all opposed rolls to highest roll wins if both succeed or both fail (instead of low roll wins if both fail) favors the higher skill all around, and gives better results IMHO.

Hope this helps!

Hard math available upon request.

 

[warzen]

I'm sorry, my reply was not that clear to say the least...

Hum. I don't really like the fact that you spend your "reaction" before knowing the attack is hiting you. After all, it's the only way to survive against multiple opponents (hoping they don't all hit).

This was aimed at the rule on the wiki.

And I though that the rule over 100% had a math problem.

And this was about using the "over 100%" rule.
Rosen, I need to check your rule in more detail.

And Rurik, no, I'm not that depressed to ask for the hard math ! :lol:

And I still think the combat table is a try to implement DoS. :wink:

W.

 

[RosenMcStern]

And I still think the combat table is a try to implement DoS. :wink:

I wish you were right...

 

[weasel_fierce]

We use it that the defender can elect to still defend, if the attacker blows it. Lets us use the chart, as written, with no problem at all.