Creature's resilience
- Thread starter gran_orco
- Start date
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
Monsters can cheat.
Deleriad
Mongoose
The RQ MOnsters book was published before the Players Update changed the resilience rule. I haven't seen RQ Deluxe book so maybe they changed the stats but I doubt it.
Depending on your preference you can either cap their resilience skill at CON*5 to match the errata or say that some creatures have a trait such as "really, really tough" which enables them to ignore the resilience cap.
The same goes for persistence except they generally forgot the persistence stat.
Depending on your preference you can either cap their resilience skill at CON*5 to match the errata or say that some creatures have a trait such as "really, really tough" which enables them to ignore the resilience cap.
The same goes for persistence except they generally forgot the persistence stat.
I'm starting to doubt that the resilience cap is really even necessary.
A serious wound to a vital requires one resilience roll immediately and one at the end of every round.
A Major wound to a limb requires one resilience roll as above, and a major wound to a vital area requires two rolls immediately and two at the end of every round.
A wounded character/creature can end up making quite a few rolls a round. even with a 95+ resilience, you are going to fail sooner or later. The odds say that if you are making two rolls a round, you are going to drop within 10 rounds (give or take), 4 rolls a round and you should be down in 5, 5 rolls a round and you will likely drop within 4 rounds. Also, every time one of these wounds is dealt, it is accompanied by the loss of 1d4 combat actions, so often once the first serious blow comes in others will follow.
Now if the average Resilience is capped at 50-55%, in the round a single roll is called for the odds are you will fail either the first or second roll and be down that round anyway.
On reading the rules, I too saw the way resilience worked as a problem, but having used them now I think that perhaps it was not so bad in practice, and a fix was not really needed.
That is just my impression so far. Any other opinions?
A serious wound to a vital requires one resilience roll immediately and one at the end of every round.
A Major wound to a limb requires one resilience roll as above, and a major wound to a vital area requires two rolls immediately and two at the end of every round.
A wounded character/creature can end up making quite a few rolls a round. even with a 95+ resilience, you are going to fail sooner or later. The odds say that if you are making two rolls a round, you are going to drop within 10 rounds (give or take), 4 rolls a round and you should be down in 5, 5 rolls a round and you will likely drop within 4 rounds. Also, every time one of these wounds is dealt, it is accompanied by the loss of 1d4 combat actions, so often once the first serious blow comes in others will follow.
Now if the average Resilience is capped at 50-55%, in the round a single roll is called for the odds are you will fail either the first or second roll and be down that round anyway.
On reading the rules, I too saw the way resilience worked as a problem, but having used them now I think that perhaps it was not so bad in practice, and a fix was not really needed.
That is just my impression so far. Any other opinions?
For a group that just wants to cut things down, Resiliance is a problem, as it can take forever to finish something off.
For a group with a bit more roleplaying in mind, it offers time to think about how screwed you are, and to contimplate surrender and ransom.
In older RQs I raRELY HAD A pc SURRENDER AS THEY EITHER COULD STILL FIGHT, OR WHERE DIEING. i GENERALY HAVE THE OPOSITION ACT ROUGHLY AS THE PARTY DOES SO FEW RANSOMS. (I hate caps lock)
For a group with a bit more roleplaying in mind, it offers time to think about how screwed you are, and to contimplate surrender and ransom.
In older RQs I raRELY HAD A pc SURRENDER AS THEY EITHER COULD STILL FIGHT, OR WHERE DIEING. i GENERALY HAVE THE OPOSITION ACT ROUGHLY AS THE PARTY DOES SO FEW RANSOMS. (I hate caps lock)
zozotroll said:
And it seems to hate you too. :wink:
I will say that there are some adjustements to tactics. When fighting something tough, like oh say, a bear for example, in MRQ if you think you have dealt a serious wound (perhaps a fearsome blow to the hindquarters that causes it to collapse), you likely can just back off and wait for it to collapse.
It is the lack of total HP that really makes the fights last longer in many cases. Even against a weaker foe (like perhaps a trollkin), in RQ2/3 two to three moderate blows to different locations would drop the little bugger due to total hp loss. In MRQ reducing three locations to 0 HP only causes three neast scars (and some lost CA's). You really need a serious wound to a vital or major wound to a limb to drop anything in MRQ.
I think I'm ok with that - though it certainly can make combats take longer.
Deleriad
Mongoose
I must admit that I find I've tended to fudge the resilience rolls because life is too short. I do keep wanting to put a version of General Hit Points back in because they're a more elegant way to track whether something is bleeding to death, suffocating, being poisoned and so on.
My current theory, though I have yet to test it, is to put Life Points back into the equation. I know others have tried or used variants. At the mo, LPs = CON. I may add a bonus of +1 for each 10 pts of SIZ or POW but I'm starting simple.
Taking a minor injury doesn't affect LPs but taking damage that reduces a location to negative HPs does (i.e. if an wound takes you to -3 then you lose 3 LPs. If that location then gets reduced to -5HPs you take another 2 LPs.)
Bleeding loses you 1 LP per round (severe) or minute (normal). Things like choking and so on do something similar. Basically the intent is to reduce the number of rolls in the game.
I have three negative things that can happen to characters:
"stunned" - All skills capped at Resilience. Recover from being stunned by spending a CA recovering. Can't do this on the same Combat Round you get stunned.
KO'd - does what you might expect.
Shock - lose LPs at a certain rate, all skills capped at base score.
Basically a character ends up in one of the three states after a serious injury. After a major injury a character ends up either in one of three states or dead. Additionally, after a serious or worse wound, a character starts to bleed.
Healing recovers LPs equal to the HPs healed. Bit buggy because you might have one location on +2 (lost 4 HPs) and another on -2 which has lost you 2 LPs. You heal the minor injury and get your LPs back as well.
It feels a little grimmer than basic MRQ and so far I haven't got round to actually inflicting in detail. It's just the more I try to play without some form of General HPs, the more I want them back.
My current theory, though I have yet to test it, is to put Life Points back into the equation. I know others have tried or used variants. At the mo, LPs = CON. I may add a bonus of +1 for each 10 pts of SIZ or POW but I'm starting simple.
Taking a minor injury doesn't affect LPs but taking damage that reduces a location to negative HPs does (i.e. if an wound takes you to -3 then you lose 3 LPs. If that location then gets reduced to -5HPs you take another 2 LPs.)
Bleeding loses you 1 LP per round (severe) or minute (normal). Things like choking and so on do something similar. Basically the intent is to reduce the number of rolls in the game.
I have three negative things that can happen to characters:
"stunned" - All skills capped at Resilience. Recover from being stunned by spending a CA recovering. Can't do this on the same Combat Round you get stunned.
KO'd - does what you might expect.
Shock - lose LPs at a certain rate, all skills capped at base score.
Basically a character ends up in one of the three states after a serious injury. After a major injury a character ends up either in one of three states or dead. Additionally, after a serious or worse wound, a character starts to bleed.
Healing recovers LPs equal to the HPs healed. Bit buggy because you might have one location on +2 (lost 4 HPs) and another on -2 which has lost you 2 LPs. You heal the minor injury and get your LPs back as well.
It feels a little grimmer than basic MRQ and so far I haven't got round to actually inflicting in detail. It's just the more I try to play without some form of General HPs, the more I want them back.
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
I do agree wih Rurik that the cap is not nescesary. If smeone has a resilience of 95%, they should be able to fight on for a while.
Mongoose Pete
Mongoose
You could try the following rules suggestions. Note that they use an opposed roll of Resilience against the weapon skill of the attacker, reflecting a more experienced warrior's ability to inflict increasingly deadly blows. However for those who hate opposed rolls, then you could simply allow an un-opposed test of Resilience, but this would slow things down again.
Also note that any Major wound will incapacitate the target, which prevents targets with a Resilience of 95%+ from never dropping!
Enjoy!
Serious Wounds
If a location is reduced to zero Hit Points or below the character receives a Serious Wound. The location is permanently scarred and the character loses his next 1D3 Combat Actions. (This does not affect his available Reactions.)
A character suffering a Serious Wound to a limb must immediately make an Opposed Test of Resilience versus the weapon skill of the attacker. Failure results in the limb being rendered useless, until the location is restored to positive hit points. If a leg, the character drops prone. If an arm, he drops whatever he is holding unless the object is strapped on (use common sense here). The test is not repeated except if the location is wounded again.
A character suffering a Serious Wound to the Abdomen, Chest or Head must immediately make an Opposed Test of their Resilience versus the weapon skill of the attacker. Failure results in unconsciousness. The test is not repeated unless the location is wounded again.
Major Wounds
If a location has been reduced to a negative score equal or greater than its starting Hit Points, the character receives a Major Wound. The location is permanently maimed and the character is incapacitated, unable to continue fighting.
A limb is considered to be severed, punctured, shattered or ripped off by a Major Wound. The character drops prone, and must immediately make an Opposed Test of Resilience versus the weapon skill of the attacker. Failure results in unconsciousness from the agony. The test is not repeated unless the location is wounded again. If a severed, punctured or ripped-off location is not treated within a number of minutes equal to the character's CON+POW, the character dies from blood loss and shock.
A character suffering a Major Wound to the Abdomen, Chest or Head drops unconscious, and must immediately make an Opposed Test of his Resilience versus the weapon skill of the attacker. Failure results in an instant and gratuitous death (decapitated, chopped in half, impaled through the heart, torn apart, etc). The test is not repeated unless the location is wounded again. If he survives and the location is not treated within a number of rounds equal to half the character's CON+POW, he still dies from blood loss and shock.
Also note that any Major wound will incapacitate the target, which prevents targets with a Resilience of 95%+ from never dropping!
Enjoy!
Serious Wounds
If a location is reduced to zero Hit Points or below the character receives a Serious Wound. The location is permanently scarred and the character loses his next 1D3 Combat Actions. (This does not affect his available Reactions.)
A character suffering a Serious Wound to a limb must immediately make an Opposed Test of Resilience versus the weapon skill of the attacker. Failure results in the limb being rendered useless, until the location is restored to positive hit points. If a leg, the character drops prone. If an arm, he drops whatever he is holding unless the object is strapped on (use common sense here). The test is not repeated except if the location is wounded again.
A character suffering a Serious Wound to the Abdomen, Chest or Head must immediately make an Opposed Test of their Resilience versus the weapon skill of the attacker. Failure results in unconsciousness. The test is not repeated unless the location is wounded again.
Major Wounds
If a location has been reduced to a negative score equal or greater than its starting Hit Points, the character receives a Major Wound. The location is permanently maimed and the character is incapacitated, unable to continue fighting.
A limb is considered to be severed, punctured, shattered or ripped off by a Major Wound. The character drops prone, and must immediately make an Opposed Test of Resilience versus the weapon skill of the attacker. Failure results in unconsciousness from the agony. The test is not repeated unless the location is wounded again. If a severed, punctured or ripped-off location is not treated within a number of minutes equal to the character's CON+POW, the character dies from blood loss and shock.
A character suffering a Major Wound to the Abdomen, Chest or Head drops unconscious, and must immediately make an Opposed Test of his Resilience versus the weapon skill of the attacker. Failure results in an instant and gratuitous death (decapitated, chopped in half, impaled through the heart, torn apart, etc). The test is not repeated unless the location is wounded again. If he survives and the location is not treated within a number of rounds equal to half the character's CON+POW, he still dies from blood loss and shock.
Deleriad
Mongoose
Pete Nash said:
This is quite similar to the final system I ended up using. If you don't like opposed rolls and don't want a resilience cap then you can say "make a resilience roll at -5% per point of damage you just took". For extra granularity, you can say that the modifier is -10% per point of damage for vital locations such as head/chest/abdom.
It's probably also worthwhile saying that any serious wound drops you a Fatigue Level and any major wound drops you two Fatigue Levels. (This also makes it harder to make the resilience roll.)
Essentially an opposed roll is just a way of creating a variable negative modifier and I think the combat system doesn't need another roll, therefore a fixed negative modifier is more to my preference. Setting the modifier equal to damage taken makes a really big single blow much harder to deal with than a series of small blows.
I must admit it was reading the RQ Spellbook and watching the author tie himself in knots trying to deal with "whole body" effects that finally convinced me to go back to General Hit Points.
Faelan Niall
Banded Mongoose
I have to say I was surprised by the new skill cap. The problem for me is the fact that both of these skills are used to resist spells, which don't have a skill cap. Can we say have fun being mind controlled silly warrior. Oh, wait we have no active countermagic, so enjoy being mind controlled if you don't go first. Also where is the problem in combat, I have yet to run into the situation which seems to have prompted the update.
For my part I stuck with the original skills as written, of course I do use a hard cap on all skills, not that I expect anyone to reach them.
For my part I stuck with the original skills as written, of course I do use a hard cap on all skills, not that I expect anyone to reach them.
Mongoose Pete
Mongoose
I'm not a fan of the skill cap to Persistence or Resilience either. If the skills and powers it is used to defend against can grow without restriction, then Persistence/Resilience should also be able to.
Then again, I use MRQ with Opposed Rolls as inerrant to all aspects of the game, from magic to combat to skill checks against active opponents. Works great for me.
Then again, I use MRQ with Opposed Rolls as inerrant to all aspects of the game, from magic to combat to skill checks against active opponents. Works great for me.
Faelan Niall
Banded Mongoose
Thats what I am using. Fully opposed rolls for everything, including combat, with no critical sacred cows roaming about. I'm not a huge believer in the lucky shot.
Opposed Tests
Opposed tests are made by both characters attempting the relevant skill test. Both characters make the tests as normal, rolling 1D100 and attempting to roll equal to or under their skill.
One Character Succeeds
If one character succeeds their test and the other fails, the successful character has won the opposed test.
Both Characters Succeed
Whoever rolled the lowest in their skill test compared to their modified skill wins the opposed test.
Both Characters Fail
Whoever failed by the lowest amount compared to their modified skill wins the opposed test.
For combat the loser downgrades their success level by one degree if both have the same degree of success. Admittedly it makes the critical vs. critical option disappear, and makes combat slightly more deadly, however I now have a much easier time writing adventures and coming up with suitable opposition since it is more predictable. Oh and yes I used subtraction, the whole roll higher but under thing was just never an instinctual thing. So the way I run it the lower the better always, and don't pee in the wrong guys cheerios, because you won't get lucky and live to talk about it. Of course YMMV.
Opposed Tests
Opposed tests are made by both characters attempting the relevant skill test. Both characters make the tests as normal, rolling 1D100 and attempting to roll equal to or under their skill.
One Character Succeeds
If one character succeeds their test and the other fails, the successful character has won the opposed test.
Both Characters Succeed
Whoever rolled the lowest in their skill test compared to their modified skill wins the opposed test.
Both Characters Fail
Whoever failed by the lowest amount compared to their modified skill wins the opposed test.
For combat the loser downgrades their success level by one degree if both have the same degree of success. Admittedly it makes the critical vs. critical option disappear, and makes combat slightly more deadly, however I now have a much easier time writing adventures and coming up with suitable opposition since it is more predictable. Oh and yes I used subtraction, the whole roll higher but under thing was just never an instinctual thing. So the way I run it the lower the better always, and don't pee in the wrong guys cheerios, because you won't get lucky and live to talk about it. Of course YMMV.
Deleriad
Mongoose
Pete Nash said:
That doesn't necessarily follow. For example, if your world view is that it is always possible to apply more force than resistance then, capping resistance makes sense. Similarly, if you live in a world where magic is, essentially, unfair then likewise you might want to have a resistance cap.
I do see a difference between Dodge compared to persistence/resilience because dodge is more getting out of the way while the other two are more like "parrying" a spell. Gamewise, dodge is a superior form of resistance but it does require a reaction while the other two don't require a reaction. Taking all that into account, there's a reasonable case for capping resilience and persistence.
I suspect that it makes sense on a world-by-world basis. Given the prevalence of magic in Glorantha, I could see that resilience and persistence aren't capped while, in somewhere like the Young Kingdoms, magic pretty much overwhelms resistance.
Like you, I use opposed rolls for all instances of skills where the skill is actively opposed somehow. After a short period acclimatisation, players seem to take to it quite well.
Faelan Niall
Banded Mongoose
Some interesting points. I would have to agree that your choices may very well be based on setting. Either way what it comes down to for me was as a base philosophy there should be no instant win when dealing with equals. Putting a lower cap on one and not the other brings a level of unfairness to the playing field, however seeing as how only needing two skills to throw a monkey wrench in the spellcasters repertoire I did implement a slower progression, but still no cap. So far this has worked fine for me.
havercake lad
Banded Mongoose
zozotroll said:
Velociraptors were indeed only turkey sized . That said ones prortrayed in the movies etc are based on a similar but bigger critter Dienonychus.
