Doubts about rules

[simonh]

I have a few problems with systems whereby you subtract an amount form you're own skill to inflict the same penalty on you're opponent.

The version whereby anyone can do this any time is open to massive abuse. Even for modest differences in skill, the more skilled character can 'bury' their opponent. E.g. if I have 75% skill and my opponent has 50%, I just take a 45% penalty. I'm now rolling against 30% versus his 5%. Game essentialy over. A limitation of some kind, such as half skill, might ameliorate this but it would still introduce odd effects in combination with other mechanics in the system.

Subtract skill over 100% makes a bit more sense, but it means very highly skilled characters (say 180%) will walk all over any opponent under 100%. Well ok, maybe that's no big deal, but it does mean they will just walk streight through them without breakign step. Right now combat skills over 100% are badly treated. The only effect it has is to increase critical chance (whoopee do, +50% skill yields +5% crit chance), or provide free points for precise attacks. It's prettly clear Mongoose are saving the 'real' combat system for experienced characters for yet another supplement.

 

[weasel_fierce]

Stormbringer handles high level skills very simply. Just change criticals to 20% of skill rather than 10%, and rule that a crit beats a regular success.

 

[simonh]

Stormbringer handles high level skills very simply. Just change criticals to 20% of skill rather than 10%, and rule that a crit beats a regular success.

That switches to a 1% increase in crit every 5% instead of every 10 which is better, but not ideal IMHO. Elric/Stormbringer fixed this IMHO by allowing essentialy unlimited multiple attacks for highly skilled characters (minumum 50% for each attack) and multiple parries/dodges to match. However as MRQ already allows everyone to have many attacks and parries, escalating from 1 attack/parry to multiples for highly skilled characters isn't really an option as you get that free anyway.

 

[Gnarsh]

The version whereby anyone can do this any time is open to massive abuse. Even for modest differences in skill, the more skilled character can 'bury' their opponent. E.g. if I have 75% skill and my opponent has 50%, I just take a 45% penalty. I'm now rolling against 30% versus his 5%. Game essentialy over. A limitation of some kind, such as half skill, might ameliorate this but it would still introduce odd effects in combination with other mechanics in the system.

This is exactly why you limit this only to skills over 100%. The idea being that skill over 100% does not have the same value as skill under 100% unless you allow for this type of subtraction. I also allow this *only* for combat skills, and then only at the option of the character(s) involved. You don't have to subtract your skill over 100% if you don't want to (for a better crit chance for example). However, you're almost always better off for doing so.

If you notice, my proposed system for opposed rolls does not care whether you're over 100%, but also does not involve subtracting from the other guy's skill, so much as applying a negative modifier to it. In RQ3, opposed rolls (which were limited to the 3 pairs of scan/hide, search/conceal, and listen/sneak) were a bit more brutal IMO. If you made your stealth skill you subtracted your entire skill from the opponent's opposed skill. My system is a moderated version in which you're effectively subtracting only the amount you made it by from the other guy. That's a lot more reasonable and realistic, and it scales really really well.

Subtract skill over 100% makes a bit more sense, but it means very highly skilled characters (say 180%) will walk all over any opponent under 100%. Well ok, maybe that's no big deal, but it does mean they will just walk streight through them without breakign step. Right now combat skills over 100% are badly treated. The only effect it has is to increase critical chance (whoopee do, +50% skill yields +5% crit chance), or provide free points for precise attacks. It's prettly clear Mongoose are saving the 'real' combat system for experienced characters for yet another supplement.

I wouldn't bet on that. RQ3 provided no benefit for combat skills over 100% other then increased special and crit chances, and they never changed it either. I imagine Mongoose will add extra combat options (like precise strike) and ancilliary skills in future suppliments, but I'd be surprised (and somewhat annoyed) to see them add something as major as that sort of change to the combat system itself. That's a core rules issue. It should be in the core rules, not in a suppliment.

 

[Trifletraxor]

I wouldn't bet on that. RQ3 provided no benefit for combat skills over 100% other then increased special and crit chances, and they never changed it either.

What are you talking about? Remember split attacks?

SGL.

 

[Gnarsh]

I wouldn't bet on that. RQ3 provided no benefit for combat skills over 100% other then increased special and crit chances, and they never changed it either.

What are you talking about? Remember split attacks?

Certainly. But I was talking about what to do when the actual skill you have is over 100%. When splitting, you're lowering your skill in return for getting an extra attack. The attack(s) themselves are no longer over 100% though.

In MRQ, we already have multiple CAs and the ability to attack as often as we want with any weapons we want to use. So splitting is somewhat irrelevant. All that's left is what I already talked about: Adding extra combat abilities that one can blow skills for (just like precise strike).

Remember that splitting in RQ3 required that one have multiple targets and wait an extra 3 strike ranks. What if you're just figihing one person and have a 150% skill? You gain *nothing* except additional critical and special chances. What if you don't have enough SR left to split? My point is that RQ3 did not provide any rule mechanic to allow characters to "blow skill points" on a single attack to make those skill points over 100% useful. You could split into multiple attacks, but not gain anything with the attack you are making.

 

[simonh]

... but I'd be surprised (and somewhat annoyed) to see them add something as major as that sort of change to the combat system itself. That's a core rules issue. It should be in the core rules, not in a suppliment.

I'd prepare to be surprised and annoyed, if I were you. In the player's guide PDF, when explaining the impossible to reach results in the attack/parry and attack/dodge tables, the explanation given is that these results are 'placeholders' for future revisions to the combat system.

 

[weasel_fierce]

Honestly, I dont see why you cant use the combat charts as written. If the idea is that defenses are declared after the attack roll, the defender with a very high skill may well want to risk putting himself in harms way, to get the overextended / riposte results.

 

[Trifletraxor]

In MRQ, we already have multiple CAs and the ability to attack as often as we want with any weapons we want to use. So splitting is somewhat irrelevant. All that's left is what I already talked about: Adding extra combat abilities that one can blow skills for (just like precise strike).

Remember that splitting in RQ3 required that one have multiple targets and wait an extra 3 strike ranks. What if you're just figihing one person and have a 150% skill? You gain *nothing* except additional critical and special chances. What if you don't have enough SR left to split? My point is that RQ3 did not provide any rule mechanic to allow characters to "blow skill points" on a single attack to make those skill points over 100% useful. You could split into multiple attacks, but not gain anything with the attack you are making.

Splitting never required multipløe targets the way I played it. A houserule that make sense I think. If you did not have the SR left to split, you were just too damn slow to be able to do it.

This works well for me, as I'm gonna houserule the MRQ CA-rule.

SGL.

 

[simonh]

Splitting never required multipløe targets the way I played it. A houserule that make sense I think. If you did not have the SR left to split, you were just too damn slow to be able to do it.

And we're essentialy back to the Elric/SB apraoch which works very well - with characters over 100% skill moving up to split attacks as a natural escalation in ability. Also adding in a bit more room in the initiative system for the extra attacks is just a minor tweak that keeps things moving smoothly.

 

[Gnarsh]

Splitting never required multipløe targets the way I played it. A houserule that make sense I think. If you did not have the SR left to split, you were just too damn slow to be able to do it..

Lol. Um... You chose to houserule that. The RQ3 rules themselves specifically disallowed it. Which was the point I was getting at.


My point was that assuming that all the broken things in MRQ are really just things left open that Mongoose intends to fill in later is silly. You didn't wait for AH to make changes to the "official" RQ3 rules to make those skills over 100% useful, right? You went ahead and houseruled in a manner that you preferred.

I was originally arguing the same thing with regards to MRQ. I was making suggestions of changes to make so that those skills are useful right out of the box, rather then waiting for some future expansion which may or may not make rule changes that meet your needs. It's just amusing how the discussion came full circle here. I was arguing for making houserules to fill in the gaps left in MRQ, was told that Mongoose might just fill those on their own, responded that RQ3 didn't fill them either, then you countered that RQ3 worked just fine with a bit of houserulling...

 

[Gnarsh]

... but I'd be surprised (and somewhat annoyed) to see them add something as major as that sort of change to the combat system itself. That's a core rules issue. It should be in the core rules, not in a suppliment.

I'd prepare to be surprised and annoyed, if I were you. In the player's guide PDF, when explaining the impossible to reach results in the attack/parry and attack/dodge tables, the explanation given is that these results are 'placeholders' for future revisions to the combat system.

Lol. You actually believe that explanation?

I think it's pretty abundantly obvious to most of us that they originally intended to either require defensive reactions to be declared prior to the attackers roll, or to use a two roll system. Somewhere along the line during playtesting, they changed the rules for when/how rolls are made, but forgot to change their tables. The unchanged tables went into the finished product, but not wanting to admit they made a mistake, we were fed a line about it being intended for "future combat system changes"...

I didn't buy it on day one, and I still don't buy it today. They may very well at some point actually make changes to include them, but I don't see how. It would require major retweaking of the entire combat system to do. Something that *shouldn't* be in an expansion to a game system. You add things in expansions, you don't re-write whole sections of core rules.

Maybe in the 1.5 version of the game. But then, that's a different game isn't it?