Damage modifiers

[Trifletraxor]

Trif:

Dodge was almost never used in RQ3 because of its uneffectiveness vs. criticals, so reverting to this would be worse than the MRQ RAW. I think the only modification needed is just dropping the paragraph about not minimizing the Damage Modifier. Many already play this way.

Okay, that's not a bad suggestion. But I'm still not totally happy with that you take damage upon a successfull dodge. I liked Rurik suggestions too, but it makes combat a bit more complicated. Back to doing some more thinking...

Regarding CONx5, take our giant as an example. Typical Resilience would be 195% (plus he has 24! rounds to fight before dropping from blood loss and shock). Easy to kill?

So there should be a limit to how high the resilience skill can go obviously. Maybe Resilience set at CON x5, with a maximum of 100%? I'm going to bring back total hit points, to be calculated the normal way - (SIZ+CON)/2. With published scenarios, total HP for opponents can easily be calculated as chest location HP x2. I always felt taking away total hit points was a bad move.

SGL.

 

[gamesmeister]

I'll again plug my solution to using the full combat tables with one roll - after many trial combats of many rules I really like this one.

If the attacker hits the defender rolls. If the defender rolls better than the attacker's roll use the Attacker Fails row of the combat table (dodge avoids all damage, weapons block 2xAP).

If the defender succeeds but rolls worse than the attacker, use the Attack Succeeds row of the table (dodge takes min damage, parry blocks AP).

This way dodges sometimes avoid all damage and sometimes take min, making them worthwhile but not overly powerful, and parrying with a weapon may actually be worthwhile in some cases.

Seconded.

I use this and it works really well.

 

[Rurik]

So there should be a limit to how high the resilience skill can go obviously. Maybe Resilience set at CON x5, with a maximum of 100%? I'm going to bring back total hit points, to be calculated the normal way - (SIZ+CON)/2. With published scenarios, total HP for opponents can easily be calculated as chest location HP x2. I always felt taking away total hit points was a bad move.

Well, there is not a whole lot of difference between a 100% Resilience and a 195% Resilience (unless you use negative modifiers as I mentioned above - though I'm not sure if I am keeping them as I want to avoid making combat too fiddly). Races with a high CON would become extremely tough to kill.

Skill based Resilience puts a lot of control in the GM's hands (yes GM, not DM :wink: ). As I said before, a Giant with a 90 Resilience is going to be much tougher than a Giant with a 40. By controlling the Resilience levels in your game you control how tough opponents really are.

What remains to be seen is whether GM's can control crafty players resilience levels...

Regarding Total HP, they do solve a lot of issues and are easy to add back in. I for one am going to give MRQ a fair shake and play without them for a while before making a final decision.

 

[badside bill]

Well, i do agree too that the recillience skill do have maybe the major factors for a monster to really be dangerous or not. but i guess this is also required to be tested further out i think. i do suspect that monsters like this giant here, is somewhat wournable to adventurers though, but that has a connection to the fact that it has not that many attack options and lacks some sort of an ace, which can be pulled out of of the sleves so to speak. but that of course can easily be added by the GM.
the thing i reacts upon is more the chance of a giant doing a 4 damage with a club is actually existing.

Going a bit in the other end of the damage modifier table here. It was also mentioned earlier something about the negative damagemodifiers. I thought a bit about why not change the damage modifier table and remove negative damage modifiers. i am not sure if those are really good for anything either. if you do have a weapon, strikes a person and hits him or her, the weapon itself do damage weither you are weak or not. i think an unmodified damage instead of having damage roll of -2, -4 etc. sounds alot better.
f. eks. a elves usually have a minus damage modifier of -1d2 right? now say this one elf argued with another one, pulled out his shortsword in anger and stabbed the other elf for -1 one in damage. none of them weares any armor in this case, but still the elf seems is not to be able to penetrate soft humaniod, elven skin.
why not either remove the negative damage modifiers or say that it at does a minimum of one point any way.

 

[Trifletraxor]

Skill based Resilience puts a lot of control in the GM's hands (yes GM, not DM :wink: ). As I said before, a Giant with a 90 Resilience is going to be much tougher than a Giant with a 40. By controlling the Resilience levels in your game you control how tough opponents really are.

I really dislike the resilience skill the way it is now. Another step towards AD&D-ification. The older a character gets, the more beating is he supposed to be able withstand. I find the whole conscept very strange, that you can "train" yourself to become more resilient against f.ex.getting stabbed in the abdomen.

Take the giant we've all been discussing, and his twin brother. They have the exactely same stats, but one has a low while the other has a high resilience skill. Physically they're the same, but one of them can take a lot more damage before he dies because of a skill. I think its stoopid! :?

SGL.

 

[badside bill]

I really dislike the resilience skill the way it is now. Another step towards AD&D-ification. The older a character gets, the more beating is he supposed to be able withstand. I find the whole conscept very strange, that you can "train" yourself to become more resilient against f.ex.getting stabbed in the abdomen.

i think also this sounds very strange. ok..so you get tougher the more getting beaten up, but to that extent that it becomes a skill.... so, i guess what i will invest my money in as a character, would be spells and resillence training i guess

 

[RosenMcStern]

Take the giant we've all been discussing, and his twin brother. They have the exactely same stats, but one has a low while the other has a high resilience skill. Physically they're the same, but one of them can take a lot more damage before he dies because of a skill. I think its stoopid!

Well, let's just say that Resilience has the same function that CON had before, and Persistence has the same function as POW had before. A CON 100 character could stay up when his guts were spread all over the floor - the only problem was reaching CON 100 in RQ3 :roll:

I think that training Resilience or Persistence is not a bad thing. It is letting Resilience stop unconsciousnes in any case that is stoopid (Uz word for stupid?). The CON x5 limit will do nothing - a CON 19 guy is still impossible to knock out.

One possible amendment would be: Major wound: Roll Resilence to avoid death: on a critical success you can also continue fighting for one round. Training is still a good idea (better than rolling up a new character), but once you get that arrow impaled near your heart you better have a friend with Healing nearby.

 

[Trifletraxor]

A guy with CON 100 has the physique to stay up while his guts are on the floor. A CON 1 guy with a Resilience skill of 100% does not, he's just "skilled" enuff... :roll:

SGL.

 

[badside bill]

i don`t know why it is a skill at all...
it so much up to your own physical ability to stay alive in grave situations that putting it as a skill seems odd to me..
might as well decide the hit points you have through the resilience skill then...

 

[duncan_disorderly]

WHile it is really a matter of preference I tend to like using less big dice than more smaller dice. More smaller dice clumps the odds greatly at the middle range of results while less bigger dice gives a more even spread.

As has been pointed out, 2d12 is more likely to resilt in a 2, but also more likely to result in a 24.

Well rolling 2d12 as opposed to 4d6 is bound to result in a 2 more often, as you can't get a 2 on 4d6... - You have just over 4% chance of rolling 4 or less on 2d12, compared with .077% of getting a 4 on 4d6 (you are nearly ten times as likely to get a 2 on 2d12 as a 4 on 4d6) Rolling less dice brings the average score down (the median and modal scores of 2d12 is 13 rather than 14). 25% of 2d12 rolls will be 9 or less, compared with 12 or less for 4d6. However 25% of the rolls on 2d6 will be 16 or more, compared with 15 or more for 4d6.

My gut feeling is that you want damage to tend to "clump" around the median, so you can "guesstimate" how you are likely to fare, rather than being entirely at the mercy of the fates...

 

[badside bill]

Well rolling 2d12 as opposed to 4d6 is bound to result in a 2 more often, as you can't get a 2 on 4d6... - You have just over 4% chance of rolling 4 or less on 2d12, compared with .077% of getting a 4 on 4d6 (you are nearly ten times as likely to get a 2 on 2d12 as a 4 on 4d6) Rolling less dice brings the average score down (the median and modal scores of 2d12 is 13 rather than 14). 25% of 2d12 rolls will be 9 or less, compared with 12 or less for 4d6. However 25% of the rolls on 2d6 will be 16 or more, compared with 15 or more for 4d6.

and if you are a good dodger you will only recieve at least minimum weapon damage too. why not try to bring that giant down.
further on, say if you suddenly have a nice spell called "hand of death" you could actually very well have a chance of making this giant fall by using nothing but your own hand. that is almost worth trying i think

 

[simonh]

i don`t know why it is a skill at all...
it so much up to your own physical ability to stay alive in grave situations that putting it as a skill seems odd to me..
might as well decide the hit points you have through the resilience skill then...

I suppose the justification is that people can and do significantly modify their physical build through training - If Arnold or Sylvester had been meek, desk-bound accountants I think their physical builds would have been quite a lot different.

Previous editions of RQ have only marginally allowed for this, straining stats was extremely difficult and gave much lower returns than training skills so most characters didn't bother. In general the approach was that you'd either use some method of allocating stats from the get-go, or develop the character around them. I can see that the MRQ approach is reasonable, but I'm uncertain about how balanced the implementation is.

 

[Halfbat]

I suppose the justification is that people can and do significantly modify their physical build through training - If Arnold or Sylvester had been meek, desk-bound accountants I think their physical builds would have been quite a lot different.

Absolutely - and it comes off fast if not maintained. For example, when AS first arrived in the US and checked into the gym claiming he was Mr Universe (or Mr World, can't remember) apparently the gym owner laughed at him he was in such a poor state. It can also be seen on ex-heavy-sportsmen - some maintain their shape or reduce gradually whilst others struggle to not let the muscle turn to fat.

 

[badside bill]

suppose the justification is that people can and do significantly modify their physical build through training - If Arnold or Sylvester had been meek, desk-bound accountants I think their physical builds would have been quite a lot different.

Previous editions of RQ have only marginally allowed for this, straining stats was extremely difficult and gave much lower returns than training skills so most characters didn't bother. In general the approach was that you'd either use some method of allocating stats from the get-go, or develop the character around them. I can see that the MRQ approach is reasonable, but I'm uncertain about how balanced the implementation is.

well, i agree that training stat was difficult and didn`t pay off that well. But generally speaking, i think skill training vs. stat training always is like this. no matter how Arnold you are, if you don`t manage hit anything, it doesn`t really matter right? even a small duck with a master skill in greatsword becomes a dangerous foe because of his skills.

a little dilemma which i can clearly see is when players try to train themselves in skills like Resilience. since it is a skill the players probably have a good chance of advancing pretty fast in it too. and then we have a real weapon race going on between the gm and the players, and that without even mentioning magic items etc.

 

[simonh]

My main beef with Resilience is that if you're training yourself up physically to make yourself tougher, surely this should be reflected in you're stats?

That could be said for Athletics/Brute Force as well. After all what is Strength if it's not the ability to exert brute force? In fact the stat description explicitly states that this is what it is.

 

[weasel_fierce]

I've been thinking of just replacing resilience and persistence with the CONx5 and POWx5 respectively.

Alternatively, keep them as skills (I kidna like having a persistence skill) but cap them at 75%.

Or impose penalties based equal to HP lost

 

[badside bill]

yep, Con x 5 seems fine to me too

also going to houserule this damage modifier table, negative damage doesn`t seem right to me. sounds like tickeling or something.

 

[Faelan Niall]

Ultimately capping it or making a statx5 only hurts the players. The giant used in the example is still going to be a bad ass because the average Con is 39. It is not a problem with the skill, but with the way damage is applied. The way it is currently set up per the RAW is that there is no clear stated problem with having a serious wound to the abdomen, chest, or head.

The limbs upon receiving a serious wound are considered to be useless. The first step to fixing this is by making sure that a serious wound to the head, chest, or abdomen renders the opponent combat ineffective. Essentially the opponent is prone, and can only really attempt to roll away from future attacks or try to use a shield. The opponent losses 1d4 combat actions and reactions every round until healed to 1 hit point or more. Additionally apply the conditions for two useless arms to serious torso hits, and two useless legs for abdomen hits. Resilience tests for head wounds are always modified by -(total damage inflicted x 10)

When dealing with major wounds the rate of bleed out is appropriate, but once again the Resilience roll may be too easy. My fix is to carry over the conditions from serious wounds listed above, and additionally the character loses all reactions. Any actions including the Resilience roll are modified by - (total hit points below 0 x 10). This increases the chance of immediate expiration of the subject.

Additionally I allow for a killing blow to be automatically inflicted on a helpless foe for the cost of one combat action (i.e. major wound to the chest, abdomen, or head/tied up).

Limb severings, cutting bodies in half, decapitations occur if a major wound is inflicted in one blow. Additionally a major wound in one blow results in near immediate death.

Thats my fix for the problem, I personally find Resilience and Persistence too useful for myself as a GM to toss out the window, it was much easier to modify how they affect combat. Now Resilience does make an individual tougher, but you can always overcome this by inflicting more damage.

 

[darshan]

Hullo!

And greetings! As an regualr lurker since autumn I decidet that maybe it would be my turn to make some commentlines with others here as well.

As I have taken a longer playtest with the MRQ rules with me players I personally kind a liked the resiliance, yet found it all too powerfully and at least imho its a pretty stupid idea that fellow, who reaches the magical 100% in resiliance is quite unbeatable.

Just to fix out that and the before mentioned punchbag symdrome I decidet to start giving fatiguelevels from wounds players get. So, basicly I penalty players for one fatiguelevel from serious wound to limb and one fatiguelevel from minor wound to torso plus one fatiguelevel. And as the modifications from fatigue hit the resiliance skill as well...well, one has to be pretty hard case to take all too many wounds across the body and survive all to resiliancerolls as the negative penalties start to cumulate.

I also limited that player can autocheck +1 from experience to his resilience up to Con x 5, after that he have beat the skill just to get his experience (in our game with 96-00 one gets always the experience.)

All this was done just to reflect, that only a natural born badass who has some miles behind may take a huge amount of punishment. I can tell that me players don´t actually always love this, but at least it balances some issues I have had with the system. It also makes dragons with 120% in resilience and such ubermonsters a bit less immortal... (haven´t needet such things in me game yet though... )

 

[Rurik]

Hullo!

And greetings! As an regualr lurker since autumn I decidet that maybe it would be my turn to make some commentlines with others here as well.

As I have taken a longer playtest with the MRQ rules with me players I personally kind a liked the resiliance, yet found it all too powerfully and at least imho its a pretty stupid idea that fellow, who reaches the magical 100% in resiliance is quite unbeatable.

Just to fix out that and the before mentioned punchbag symdrome I decidet to start giving fatiguelevels from wounds players get. So, basicly I penalty players for one fatiguelevel from serious wound to limb and one fatiguelevel from minor wound to torso plus one fatiguelevel. And as the modifications from fatigue hit the resiliance skill as well...well, one has to be pretty hard case to take all too many wounds across the body and survive all to resiliancerolls as the negative penalties start to cumulate.

I also limited that player can autocheck +1 from experience to his resilience up to Con x 5, after that he have beat the skill just to get his experience (in our game with 96-00 one gets always the experience.)

All this was done just to reflect, that only a natural born badass who has some miles behind may take a huge amount of punishment. I can tell that me players don´t actually always love this, but at least it balances some issues I have had with the system. It also makes dragons with 120% in resilience and such ubermonsters a bit less immortal... (haven´t needet such things in me game yet though... )

Welcome to the board. We will try to go easy on you for the first few posts at least :wink:

Those are actually some pretty solid ideas, I like the idea of increasing fatigue with wounds.

Earlier in this thread I posted negative modifers for resilience tests based on wound level and location. While a like that head wounds become inhrently more dangerous than other ones using this system it might be a bit too fiddly. So I have come up with a simpler alternative:

Major Wounds Resilience checks are at half skill.

I am going to try that out for a while. A simple blanket rule that makes running around for a over a minute like a chicken with your head cut off (literally) much less likely.

Which brings me to another point: Chickens must have a huge base Resilience skill.

Regarding CONx5: It doesn't really solve the problem, just moves from combatants with high resilience skills to combatants with high CON stats. I'm not saying it is a bad Idea, but I would still use it with some rule like penalties for major wounds or fatigue levels (or even Total HP) so CON 19+ characters can still be defeated.