Combat Table Flaws - What am I missing ?

[Melkor]

So I just read through the Combat section of the MRQ SRD and also read through the "Player's Guide" PDF, and I finally caught on to the fact (which most of you seem to have known about for a while now) that the Combat Tables for Dodge/Parry make no sense.

In the MRQ Rulebook, the Player's Guide, and the SRD, it appears that the only time you can parry or dodge as a reaction is in the event of a SUCCESFUL attack.

That being the case, a "Failure" in the Attack column shouldn't even be listed on the tables as it is impossible to trigger a Parry or Dodge with an UNSUCCESFUL attack.

That being the case, an "Attacker Overextended" result seems to be impossible to obtain when Dodging, and a straight "Attack Fails, Defender may Riposte" result also seems impossible.

I know that Matt Sprange said in his 'clarification' post that you could choose to Parry/Dodge a failed attack in the hopes of obtaining an Overextended or Riposte result - but that contradicted the requirements in the rulebook to "trigger" a Parry or Dodge.

Now that the 'Player's Guide' PDF has been released to 'answer all of our questions', it doesn't seem to address the fact that an Overextended or straight Riposte is impossible now.

What am I missing ?

 

[atgxtg]

Offically, nothing.

Unofficiallly, there is an option that I came up with @ http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=20873

 

[Melkor]

So all of the hullaballoo over the Player's Guide PDF answering all of our questions was completely innaccurate, and it just creates an additional problem ?

Sigh. This is getting tiresome.

Mongoose hasn't addressed this at all, and still nothing official in regards to the 'halving' issue ?

 

[Greg Smith]

and still nothing official in regards to the 'halving' issue ?

It has been said on these boards that the halving rule was written as is for speed and simplicity of play. There will be an alternate option in the Legendary heroes book.

[/quote]

 

[atgxtg]

So all of the hullaballoo over the Player's Guide PDF answering all of our questions was completely innaccurate, and it just creates an additional problem ?

Sigh. This is getting tiresome.

Mongoose hasn't addressed this at all, and still nothing official in regards to the 'halving' issue ?

Not quite. To be fair to Matt & and the other Mongooses, the chart that in in the book, wasn't supposed to be used, but the error wasn't spotted until afdter the book had been printed.

It looks like at one time, Mongoose was thinking of a "two attack roll" system, discarded it, but the wrong charts got used in the book, along with the wrong examples. Matt's PDF was really a fix to explain how to play the game, as the book still had "two attack rolls" written all through it.

Yeah, the fix means that there are some results that just won't pop up. THat was why I did that alternate set of charts.

 

[Melkor]

Thanks for the replies.

So what is wrong with using a two roll system if it fixes the problem ?

If there is something wrong with using a two roll system, when are corrected attack tables supposed to be released ?

 

[atgxtg]

Thanks for the replies.

So what is wrong with using a two roll system if it fixes the problem ?

If there is something wrong with using a two roll system, when are corrected attack tables supposed to be released ?

You CAN use a two roll system. It will work. I just don't think it will work well. By that I mean it is a bigger problem that skill halving.

The problem with a two roll system is that it turns a simple roll into a sqaure result. Whenever you square a number that is less that 1, it gets progessively lower and lower. THrow in the defender's roll and you are now cubing the reswults, making things even tougerh for the attacker.

For example, let's say you have two "carbon copy" PCs with all stat's 10 and a 50% skill. If order for one to get a successful attack past the other's defenses rerquires two succesful rolls of 50% or less (25% chance) and then the defender has to fail the defense roll (roll over 50%) for a final chance of success of 12.5%.

 

[Melkor]

atgxtg -

I'm not quite following (but I'm not that good at math).

According to the tables a failed roll by the attacker on the parry, and the defender on the parry - still equates to a succesful attack.

That means that the attacker only has to succeed on his initial roll in order to succesfully hit his opponent. If the defender fails his parry, and the attacker fails his second roll - a hit is still the result. Right ?

Also, doesn't the fact that the table results apply to all parties involved in the combat kind of even things out in the end ?

I'm sure there is something I am missing here...but that's just how my brain seems to be rationalizing a two roll system as not being a bad thing.

 

[iamtim]

and still nothing official in regards to the 'halving' issue ?

I don't think you will see anything "official" on that issue. That was a design decision that knowingly sacrificed mathematical accuracy for simplicity. Besides, if you take the skill halving rule and twist it around, you can see a mathematical justification for it; if one character is 60% better than another character before halving, that character is going to be 60% better than the other character after halving as well.

As someone already mentioned, however, Mongoose has stated that there will be alternate options in a later book.

On the other hand, it would have been nice to have corrected combat tables in the Player's Guide, or instead of different weapon damage tables in Signs & Portents.

 

[atgxtg]

On the other hand, it would have been nice to have corrected combat tables in the Player's Guide, or instead of different weapon damage tables in Signs & Portents.

Maybe we will see that in the next issue?

One thing about a "modular" system is that any sort of chance is viewed as less radical than in other typesof games (two all new damage charts would have caused an uproar with D&D as oppsed to a ripple here).

 

[iamtim]

(two all new damage charts would have caused an uproar with D&D as oppsed to a ripple here).

Yeah, definitely a plus. We'll be able to "drag-n-drop" new damage charts right in with no ill effects.

 

[atgxtg]

(two all new damage charts would have caused an uproar with D&D as oppsed to a ripple here).

Yeah, definitely a plus. We'll be able to "drag-n-drop" new damage charts right in with no ill effects.

Not quite. Since everything is sort of interreleated, changing one aspect of the game will have ramifications. For instance changing the damage of the weapons without adjust APs affects the effetiveness of parrying and armor.

I think one reason for the subdued response to the damage tables was that they just multiplied or reduced the damage. THe overall relationship between the weapona did not change that much.

I've ben toying with "pluggin in" RQ3 or OGL ANCIENTS or TIMELORDS damage tables . RQ3 AP values were certainly make me happier with the new parry rules. Greatswoird will be able to parry Greatswords (like they actually did) again.

 

[HyrumOWC]

Matt has also said that the Failure option was put in for the sake of completeness and that in future books you may see the need for it.

Hyrum.

 

[atgxtg]

Matt has also said that the Failure option was put in for the sake of completeness and that in future books you may see the need for it.

Hyrum.

Furture books as in RQ Companion or Futre books as is the unseen future?

Like maybe we got an advanced combat table with the basic rules?

 

[atgxtg]

atgxtg -

I'm not quite following (but I'm not that good at math).

According to the tables a failed roll by the attacker on the parry, and the defender on the parry - still equates to a succesful attack.

That means that the attacker only has to succeed on his initial roll in order to succesfully hit his opponent. If the defender fails his parry, and the attacker fails his second roll - a hit is still the result. Right ?

Also, doesn't the fact that the table results apply to all parties involved in the combat kind of even things out in the end ?

I'm sure there is something I am missing here...but that's just how my brain seems to be rationalizing a two roll system as not being a bad thing.

Your thinking is good. Here are the things you "missed":

*Attacker : Succeeds, then Fails. Defender Succeeds= Attack Fails (dodge) or Attack parried for 2xAP (Parry). In many cases this will translate into the attacker needing two success vs. 1 success for the defender. With the one roll system the attacker would have gotten somewhat better results.

*Reducing the number of criticals by the attacker (Cricticals on the first roll get dropped to successes, so the attacker really needs to critical the second roll)
*Increasing the number of fubmbles by thre attacker (if you roll a 00 on the first roll or second, you still fumbled)

*The added results on the chart, like attacker overextended or 2xAP, or Riposte are all bad for the attacker and in favor of the defender.

So you wind up with tfour changes, and all hurt the attacker.


Yes this does balance out of the flip side when the "defender" becomes an attacker, but is is going to reduce the number of successful attacks. Is it worth it? To me, it makes hanging back and using a missile weapon very tempting.

 

[AKAramis]

The other way to use those tables is that the table is invoked at declaration of a defense, which is done at declaration of an attack rather than at determining the attach succeeded. (Call this the Pendragon Option... as it's mechanically nigh identical to CHaosium/GreenKnight/WWG's Pendragon Mechanics.

AS to the modularity: Several systems are equally as modular in writing: MegaTraveller, GURPS, B/X/C/M D&D...

Let's take MT as an example: I once posted an article on "Adjusting the Task System for various Play Styles" to the Traveller Mailing List. Y'see, in the official rules, Attributes contribute 1/5th, rounded down, their value on tasks. This provides a fairly gritty level of tasks. By adjusting the task system's attribute divisor, however, one can radically alter the tone and value of attributes. I use 1/3rd, as I like the fact that it gives a wide range of competence based upon attribute alone, and allows maximum human attribute to exceed the unskilled penalty. At 1/4th, it shifts the break points for humans, but doesn't up the limit, but it does affect several alien races. It also drastically affects combat, making hits far more likely. It affects the whole feel of the game. One little change.

A small change can have drastic effects. Atgxtg and I both know this from years of tinkering with systems: what might be a minor flaw as is can cause several other areas to suddenly not be so hot when the so-called minor flaw is fixed... For example, swapping what was rolled versus what was added in LUG-Trek Tasks... it alters highly the nature of characters, and changes the overall competency of characters. Drastically so. I know I often forget that not everyone's been tinkering with rules-systems since 1979

So modularity is not "plug and play" in the same sense that changing from an Intel to an Athelon processor is not plug and play... yes, you can do the same things with them, but the choice of processor determines mother-board, and even system update versions.

Heck, just ask a die-hard about the differences between Basic, Basic With Expert, Basic through companion, and basic through master. The modularity resulted in 4 very different styles of play, or more, due to layered rules additions...

 

[iamtim]

I know I often forget that not everyone's been tinkering with rules-systems since 1979.

Yeah, some of us have only been tinkering with RPGs since 1981. We're nowhere near your level of expertise. :roll:

Obviously, being a newbie, I have no way of gauging the affects a "dropped in" set of replacement combat tables would have.

...

Sarcasic response to pretentiousness aside, my experience tells me that dropping in a different set of combat tables will not drastically alter the RuneQuest system, will only marginally affect play, and will increase overall response by clearing up a number of uncertainties.

 

[Gavatar]

What's wrong with keeping it simple, for instance:

If Attack Succeeds:

Parry Fails = Attack Succeeds as Normal
Parry Succeeds = Attack Fails
Parry is Critical = Attack Fails, Defender gets a Free Riposte

If the Attack is a Critical Success:
Parry Fails = Full Weapon Damage
Parry Succeeds = Attack Succeeds at Normal, but subtract Parry Weapon AP from Damage
Parry is a Critical = Attack Fails

This is actually how I've been playing TFT & GURPS for quite some time, and it works great for them except for the part about "weapon AP"). Do you see any problems with this for MRQ?

Gav

 

[atgxtg]

What's wrong with keeping it simple, for instance:

If Attack Succeeds:

Parry Fails = Attack Succeeds as Normal
Parry Succeeds = Attack Fails
Parry is Critical = Attack Fails, Defender gets a Free Riposte

If the Attack is a Critical Success:
Parry Fails = Full Weapon Damage
Parry Succeeds = Attack Succeeds at Normal, but subtract Parry Weapon AP from Damage
Parry is a Critical = Attack Fails

This is actually how I've been playing TFT & GURPS for quite some time, and it works great for them except for the part about "weapon AP"). Do you see any problems with this for MRQ?

Gav

Not much. In fact it is fairly close to the old method used in most BRP games that didn't track weapon AP or HP. It just isn't the way MRQ does it.

 

[atgxtg]

I know I often forget that not everyone's been tinkering with rules-systems since 1979.

Yeah, some of us have only been tinkering with RPGs since 1981. We're nowhere near your level of expertise. :roll:

Obviously, being a newbie, I have no way of gauging the affects a "dropped in" set of replacement combat tables would have.

...

Sarcasic response to pretentiousness aside, my experience tells me that dropping in a different set of combat tables will not drastically alter the RuneQuest system, will only marginally affect play, and will increase overall response by clearing up a number of uncertainties.

Sorry TIm, I have to agree with Aramis here. A good example is the change brought about just by changing the combat tables from the ones used in RQ3 to MRQ.
In RQ3 a man armed with a greatsword actually can parry another greatsword and take little or no damage, THe 12 AP of the sword will block most, if not all of the 2d8 damage (most likely 2d8+1d4 by the time db is factored in).
Now go to MRQ with the difference being a change in the combat tables and the weapon AP's. Now the Greatsword is smashing through the 6 AP of the parry 85% of the time, higher after factoring in db.

That is a significant shift if effect, and I can think of a couple of my old characters who'd switch to a 1H sword & kite shield in MRQ.

I'm not making a quality judement here as to what way is better or worse, but it is a difference, and a significant one. It can decide if a game is sutiable or not for a partciular genre/setting.

I would not want to use MRQ for, say, a swashbuckling campaign. "Errol Flynn" would get carved up because his rapier is only stopping 4 AP. It might, however, bee suitable for a "high fantasy" setting.