Downgrading Opposed Rolls
- Thread starter Melkor
- Start date
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
to be honest, I never thought armour point made sense as a measure of parrying ability. A wooden shield is easier to damage than a steel sword, but its still far more efficient at blocking a blow. A dagger isnt less efficient as a parrying weapon because its less likely to break than a stick, but because its far shorter.
I'd rather see a "parry modifier", but as it is, I like the downgrading rule. It makes combat faster and more dynamic, and it keeps armour points for situations where weapons are targeted.
Shields are still usefull, both because they are (generally) harder t destroy but als because they permit missile parries.
For what its worth, I certainly dont play games in the 100+ range. Most f our games have charaters with fairly weak combat skills.
I'd rather see a "parry modifier", but as it is, I like the downgrading rule. It makes combat faster and more dynamic, and it keeps armour points for situations where weapons are targeted.
Shields are still usefull, both because they are (generally) harder t destroy but als because they permit missile parries.
For what its worth, I certainly dont play games in the 100+ range. Most f our games have charaters with fairly weak combat skills.
DigitalMage
Mongoose
A bit of both really. For me getting wound up about a game is really something I shouldn't let happen (it is only a game after all). For the game itself, well my rants may be symptomatic of problems more people have with the system. I also had envisioned running games at conventions etc (I official demo Shadowrun) but TBH I am not sure I would want to as I really don't like anyone using houserules in con games - so unfortunately 1 less person to help promote the game (nothing of import to Mongoose probably but nonetheless a lost opportunity).RosenMcStern said:For you or for the game?
DigitalMage
Mongoose
I guess I got miffed by this downgrading business more than most because the first character I made to test out the CharGen rules was a large muscle bound but quite simple minded carpenter - the sort of character who the local kids made fun of etc. He had a minor 1h Hammer skill but had quite a decent Shield skill as he didn't like to take the offensive but would rather pick up a table to use as a shield.weasel_fierce said:
Unfortunately the new rules made that character skill choice completely invalid as parry APs are effectively never taken into account.
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
Im still not seeing the "completely invalid" thing.
A warhammer has 3 AP and 8 HP, meaning that its destroyed in 2 precise attacks, leaving you with nothing. A kite shield has 10 AP and 18 HP, meaning its unlikely to be destroyed and it even doubles as a weak weapon.
If thats not convincing enough, have your guy start 80 yards away from a skilled archer with a longbow and see how he fares without a shield
A warhammer has 3 AP and 8 HP, meaning that its destroyed in 2 precise attacks, leaving you with nothing. A kite shield has 10 AP and 18 HP, meaning its unlikely to be destroyed and it even doubles as a weak weapon.
If thats not convincing enough, have your guy start 80 yards away from a skilled archer with a longbow and see how he fares without a shield
DigitalMage
Mongoose
If your opponent is targetting your weapon or shield, then I guess yes a shield will hold together longer, however if your opponent is actually targetting you then whether you parry with a weapon or with a shield there is really little difference as APs are so rarely taken into account (either you and your opponent both have to roll crits, or you both have to roll successes and the dice rolls are exactly the same).weasel_fierce said:
The benefit of parrying with a weapon is that you can use the same skill to attack - whereas having a shield skill gives no real extra benefit but is a separate skill and thus requires splitting improvement rolls and freepoints at char gen.
Basically, without downgrading a character with the following scores was worthwhile:
Townsman / Craftsman w/ 1h Hammer 36% Shield 56%
With downgrading, you're better off mechanically changing the choices of the Townsman from +10% 1h Hammer and +10% Shield to +10% 1h Hammer and +10% Dagger, and spending the 20 Free points spent on Shield to spend on 1h Hammer instead, ending up with:
Townsman / Craftsman w/ 1h Hammer 56% Dagger 36%
You pretty much have the same chances to parry with the 1h Hammer as the shield but you now have a higher primary weapon skill and also a backup weapon skill.
Fair point, this is the one area that shields are useful still (though not Bucklers!), but for melee they are now significantly worse to the point of being about equal to parrying with a weapon.weasel_fierce said:If thats not convincing enough, have your guy start 80 yards away from a skilled archer with a longbow and see how he fares without a shield
Besides if I was being shot at I think I would prefer to rely on getting cover than using a shield (assuming we are talking small adventuring bands rather than seige armies doing the turtle formation) and hoping that a covered Hit Location was rolled or that the opponent would use a Precise Attack and take a -40% penalty to hit.
I see a way to use opposed rolls without downgrading.
Consider a base damage reduction equal to AP if you scored a success to your parry roll.
If you scored a critical success, add AP to the total.
If your roll beats the attacker's, add AP to the total again.
So, if you score a crit and your opponent gets a normal success, you will block (AP*3) dmg.
If both of you scored a normal hit but his roll was higher, you substract AP.
Consider a base damage reduction equal to AP if you scored a success to your parry roll.
If you scored a critical success, add AP to the total.
If your roll beats the attacker's, add AP to the total again.
So, if you score a crit and your opponent gets a normal success, you will block (AP*3) dmg.
If both of you scored a normal hit but his roll was higher, you substract AP.
DigitalMage
Mongoose
That is fairly elegant, but what would be the dodge equivalent?Mugen said:
DigitalMage said:
Maybe reducing the attacker's "degree of success" by one where parry soaks (AP) damage.
Maximum damage -> rolled damage -> minimum damage -> no damage (-> Riposte ?)
Example 1 :
Your attacker rolls a crit.
You roll a normal success.
Your attacker rolls damage (maximum dmg changed once to rolled dmg).
Example 2 :
Your attacker rolls a normal success.
You roll a success and beats him.
He does no damage (rolled dmg changed twice to no dmg)
Yes, this is much more similar to downgrading than my parry rule...
Mugen, what you post makes sense and is very similiar to what I have used for most of my MRQ gaming, and works well. It is similiar to the Non Tabular Combat on Mr Qwiki here:
http://mrqwiki.com/wiki/index.php/Non_Tabular_Combat
Which pretty much models the results of using two rolls with the old combat tables as originally published, only with using one opposed roll.
I actually prefer the original two roll system over either update, though since the publication of Deluxe and Elric the latest update is pretty much written in stone.
However the fact that combat in MRQ has always been contoversial, even after two updates to the original printing, is very unfortunate and the system as a whole suffers from it. The fact that this keeps coming up shows there are issues, and I can state from experience that people new to the system frequently mis-interpret or don't grasp the downgrading rule upon first reading it.
http://mrqwiki.com/wiki/index.php/Non_Tabular_Combat
Which pretty much models the results of using two rolls with the old combat tables as originally published, only with using one opposed roll.
I actually prefer the original two roll system over either update, though since the publication of Deluxe and Elric the latest update is pretty much written in stone.
However the fact that combat in MRQ has always been contoversial, even after two updates to the original printing, is very unfortunate and the system as a whole suffers from it. The fact that this keeps coming up shows there are issues, and I can state from experience that people new to the system frequently mis-interpret or don't grasp the downgrading rule upon first reading it.
You could have a special rule for shields: if your roll to parry with a weapon or dodge is lower than or equal to your shield skill, regardless of whether the parry or dodge itself was a success, you get to use the shield's AP against any damage inflicted. That would make shields very worthwhile. It might make them too good, though. I haven't tested this rule - I only came up with it about two minutes ago. 
I have been using the non-tabular combat system as well and it has been working fantastic. 
It has added a really neat dimension to combat. It is a pity this did not get adopted as a final rule set. I have been also been fiddling with adding some elements of the Pete Nash stuff, like the bonus options for critical hits. Those really sound interesting.
It has added a really neat dimension to combat. It is a pity this did not get adopted as a final rule set. I have been also been fiddling with adding some elements of the Pete Nash stuff, like the bonus options for critical hits. Those really sound interesting.weasel_fierce
Mongoose
or do it like pendragon, if the attacker wins, but the defenders roll was still successfull, you get hit, but get to deduct some of the damage.
Rurik said:
This reminds me that I posted another combat method that I proposed on MRQ Wiki a long time ago :
http://mrqwiki.com/wiki/index.php/New_combat_rules
This was actually the rules I useed for my HomeBrew version of BRP.
In my opinion, the combat tables from the latest Playtest version of MRQ (the one that was e-mailed in february 2006) were superior to the ones in the printed version.
The most important differences were :
*No trace of a 2-roll resolution.
*Defense had to declared before attack roll. Therefore, "Attack fails / Parry succeed" results made sense.
*"Success vs Success" and "Critical vs Critical" were resolved depending on who got the highest roll.
*Attack Failure vs Parry Failure was treated as an Attack failure.
DigitalMage
Mongoose
I like this alot and no table!Mugen said:
RosenMcStern said:
RosenMcStern said:
It's been awhile since I've had a chance to visit the forums, but better to respond late, than never.
Page 50 of DRQ states: "If the participants achieve the same level of success with the same score on the die, then no downgrading takes place".
That is what I was referring to when I stated: "...it seems kind of ridiculous to bother with tables that have results that are only applicable in the very rare event that the opposed dice rolls result in the exact same number."
Similar threads
