Dreaded combat example

[The General]

I am still a little confused about combat and parry/dodge reactions. This is mainly because of the players guide statement "like an apposed test".

Which of the two results in this example is officially true?

Two warriors are squaring off against each other. Aldan has a 1H sword skill of 50% and Benfal has a Shield skill of 50%. Aldan's player attacks rolling a 30%. As this is a hit, and as Benfal's player has reactions remaining he attempts a parry, rolling 40%. The result is:

a) The rolled scores are not compared to each other if they both succeed (unlike an opposed test). The results are both successes and this is compared on the parry table - attack succeeds and the AP of the shield is reduced from the damage.

b) The scores are compared to each other if they both succeed (as in an opposed test). Both succeeded, but the parry was the higher roll resulting in the parry being the success and the attack the failure. This is compared on the parry table (parry success, attack failure) - attack succeeds and 2xAP of the shield is reduced from the damage.

Cheers.

 

[Cleombrotus]

I am still a little confused about combat and parry/dodge reactions.

Join the club :? . I'm going with (a), because opposed rolls always produce a winner and a loser, and in combat you can achieve an equivalent result e.g. success/success as reflected in the tables.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Option b) is also called Rurik's house rule, as it was Rurik who suggested it. In fact it is the best option, assuming that in case the parry is the lowest roll but succeeds it is considered a success and not a failure. This allows the success/success result.

 

[Cleombrotus]

I'm up for any suggestion which makes combat an opposed roll rather than an exception to that rule. Can you remember where Rurik first started this idea? I'd like to read it.

Have to admit I can't wrap my head around it from what you've written, but then it's sunday and I've been thinking far too hard all morning...

 

[RosenMcStern]

Must be some dozen threads down the list. However, I have printed it as an optional rule (and credits for Rurik ) in my supplement, which will be available at the end of may as both print and PDF. Just wait a bit. </advertisement>

 

[Itto]

Here is the example that I posted a while back for using Ruriks house rule, which I use and find works very well. Its not that far from the intended rules, but just tidys up everything up in a nice simple way.


It works thus

Burly Bob with 78% faces Meek Micheal 35%

Bob gets 45, a hit.
Micheal get 25, a parry.
Micheal parrys for normal AP of weapon.

Micheal get 30, a hit.
Bob gets 60, a parry.
Bob parrys for * 2 AP of weapon


For dodging

Burly Bob with 78% faces Meek Micheal 35%

Bob gets 45, a hit.
Micheal get 25, a dodge.
Micheal gets hit for minamal damage.

Micheal get 30, a hit.
Bob gets 60, a dodge.
Bob dodges for no damage.

It works very well, its cool having the verious permiations that the table offers, but on the one roll. And keeps in sync with opposed roll too.

 

[vitalis6969]

Officially true, as far as I understand it, is Item A....

The rest is just making it more complex than it needs to be because of past editions...

-V

 

[Rurik]

In the official rules, the attacker rolls.

If he hits the defender then decides whether or not to use a reaction in defense (the dodge or parry does NOT need to be declared or decided on before the attack is rolled).

The defender rolls and compares his success level to the attackers in the attacker succeeds row of the combat table.

End of story.

The attacker fails row of the table is normally never used.

I posted the following over on the Second Printing thread, and as most of it applies here as well I'll just post as is:

According to Mongoose you declare a defense in response to a succesful attack. The defender normally would only use a reaction against a successful attack, so the Attacker Fails row of the combat table normally never comes into play.

This makes parrying with weapons (as opposed to shields) and dodging of limited effectiveness, as weapon AP are low and a sucessful dodge takes minumum damage.

Which is why changing the combat table in the second printing makes little sense - the row they changed never comes into play in the RAW. :?

The 1st printing table was left over from the two roll system used through much of the playtesting but dropped before release - it still made into the book in the form of the combat table and is also in one of the combat examples in the core rulebook.

In the two roll system if the attacker hits and the defender reacts, the attacker makes a second roll that is indexed with the reaction roll on the combat table. That is why the attackfer fails/defender fails results in "attack succeeds as normal" - it was written for a system where the attacker already scored an initial hit.

With the two roll system dodges avoiding all damage and weapons blocking 2xAP become not only possible, but fairly common results, making both dodging and parrying with weapons more effective.

Mongoose says the attacker fails row was included so that if players wanted to houserule allowing a parry or dodge of a successful attack in hopes of a critical - but the risk of converting a miss into a hit is pretty high unless the defenders skill is 90+%. It seems the second printing changes are designed to soften the penalty for optionally defending against a failed attack should the players so choose to houserule that as an option.

I hope that clarifies things at least a little.

 

[vitalis6969]

In the official rules, the attacker rolls.

If he hits the defender then decides whether or not to use a reaction in defense (the dodge or parry does NOT need to be declared or decided on before the attack is rolled).

In order to make that column useful, I have been playing it the exact opposite, the defender must decide whether or not he is going to use an action before the attacker rolls to hit.

This assumes two things are taking place; 1. The defender knows the attack is coming (fairly obvious as it is not a back stab) and, 2. Is actively defending himself, aka, not a "surprise" situation. So, in what would be considered "normal" fighting, I leave it to the defender to pick and choose what he wants to do.

It is also in my experience of actual armored combat the more realistic of the two. When my opponent throws a shot, I don't "know" if it is going to hit or not before it actually lands (for the most part, there are rare exceptions where it is otherwise.) Also, it realistically illustrates the abilities of a great swordsman vs. a poor defender, i.e. the great swordsman throws a shot at the poor defenders leg (leg is an example, I'm not talking about targeting), the defender drops his shield/weapon low to guard the leg, the attacker turns this into a rising shot and cranks the defender across the head. A fairly common and easy fake.

To give the defender the option after he already know if the attackers attack succeeds or not give the defender a level of precognition that is unrealistic in my opinion.

-V

 

[Cleombrotus]

I buy into the notion that you spend your reactions before the attacker rolls. They are reactions after all, not considered responses.

As it is, I'm assuming that at lower skill levels, characters seldom run out of reactions unless heavily outnumbered because of the higher proportion of missed attack rolls.

Having said this, I do also see the argument that as you get used to always having reactions available, the impact upon a game of a fast, high skilled character beating down your defences with successful attack after successful attack would be realistically terrifying...I understand that it was the designers intention to make certain facets of the game apparent only at higher levels. I guess we'll have to take that on trust, but it's certainly one of the things that makes me believe that this system is potentially the best thing out there...even if I do seem to gripe about it...

 

[Rurik]

I won't disagree that declaring a reaction after knowing the result of the attack seems odd to say the least - but strictly by the rules that is how it works. I didn't like it at first at all but after using it a while it doesn't really bother me anymore. Declaring reactions after attack is rolled makes it easier to survive when outnumbered. RQ has always been brutal when outnumbered, using reactions after attack is rolled makes it less so, but it is still a pretty big disadvantage.

I can even see playing declare reactions first for a grittier game, while playing declaring reactions after the attack for a more 'heroic' game, ala RQ pirates for that swashbuckling feel.

I have always disagreed that the combat tables as printed 'work' if you just declare reactions before the attack is rolled. A failed parry should not 'convert' an attack to a hit, nor should a successful parry convert a failed attack to a hit but block 2xAP. In both cases you were better off not parrying even though you succeeded and the attacker failed. Those results hardly make sense at all.

I play it this way:

Attacker rolls.

If the attacker hits the defender may react, if he does, he rolls.

If the defender succeeds and rolls better than the attackers roll use the Attacker Fails row of the combat table.

If the defender succeeds but rolls worse than the attackers roll use the Attack Succeeds row of the combat table.

This assumes the combat table as in the original printing and SRD. It works equally well with declaring reactions before the attack roll as after the attack roll.

 

[juhanfg]

Hi,

I'm going to add my two cents to the discussion. And two say how I'm planning on playing the combat. I haven't tried it yet so I'm not too sure how it will work out.

First I think (like the previous posts) that you should declare your reaction before you know whether the attack hits or not. This is what makes sense to me since you would decide to put your sword/shield in the way or try to dodge when the attack starts and not when it is certain that is going to hit you.

Second, the table seems wrong to me. The attack/fail parry/fail would mean to me that the attack fails. I mean if the attacker fails to hit you, that is not going to change because you fail to block his weapon. If you fumbled the parry then I would consider the attack to be successful, but as I said only in the case of a fumble for the parry or dodge.

....

I've tried to copy here my version of the tables but the format is lost, I'll try later. The idea anyway is that when an attack fails, it fails and you do not get hit unless you fumble your parry/dodge.

The problem that rises as it has been said elsewhere is that the AP of weapons are quite low and parrying would almost always lead to damage, making 2 handed weapons a suicidal combination as you would almost always get some damage. A duel using great swords would see blod in almost every hit no matter if it was parried or not.

To fix this I would add 4AP to all weapons/shields as discussed in the Wiki. This would get the table to something similar to RQ4 and it sort of makes sense to me.

I'll try to get the tables as images and upload them later.

---

EDIT: I've being checking the weapon tables once again and I have just realised something. A great sword has the same AP as a dagger. Does this makes sense to anyone?

The combat system is looking more and more as something not very well thought. I thought I had it sorted out but I'm not quite sure how to play it anymore.

EDIT 2: here is the table for attack/parry:

                           Defender
Attacker    Fumble              Failure             Success                  Critical
Fumble      attack fails        attack fails        attack fails/            attack fails/
                                                    defender may riposte     defender may riposte
Failure     attack success      attack fails        attack fails             attack fails/
                                                                             defender may riposte
Success     attack becomes      attack success      attack success but AP    attack success but 2*AP                     
            critical                                of parrying weapon is    of parrying weapon is
                                                    deducted from damage     deducted from damage
Critical    attack is critical  attack is critical  attack critical but AP/2 attack success but AP
                                                    of parrying weapon is    of parrying weapon is
                                                    deducted from damage     deducted from damage

On reviewing the table, I see there are some weak point as to why the critical attack/successful parry only removes halve of the APs but the attack is is still a critical. Maybe it would be better to downgrade it to normal attack or remove the full AP of the parrying weapon. Any ideas?

EDIT 3:

Dodge Table:

                           Defender
Attacker    Fumble              Failure             Success                 Critical
Fumble      attack fails        attack fails        attack fails/           attack fails/
                                                    attacker overextended   attacker overextended
Failure     attack success      attack fails        attack fails            attack fails/
                                                                            attacker overextended
Success     attack becomes      attack success      attack success but      attack fails
            critical                                inflicts minimum damage/
                                                    defender force to give
                                                    ground
Critical    attack is critical  attack is critical  attack success          attack success but
                                                                            inflicts minimum damage/
                                                                            defender force to give
                                                                            ground

This Table also has problems. You will always take damage dodging unless you are 1 degree of success over the attacker. It is minimum damage for the equal level of success i.e. both success/both critical but it would mean that dodging is always at a disadvantage with respect to attacking. Any ideas on this as well?

 

[Rurik]

To format a table use a fixed width text editor (such as notepad) and always use spaces, never tabs, to line stuff up.

Then use the

 tags around your table when you post it.

 

[juhanfg]

To format a table use a fixed width text editor (such as notepad) and always use spaces, never tabs, to line stuff up.

Then use the

 tags around your table when you post it.[/quote]

Thanks. I edited the previous post and added the table

 

[Cleombrotus]

This is where my brain fries...correct me if I've got fluid coming out of my ears, but the attack fail vs. parry fail = attack succeeds makes absolutely perfect sense in the two-roll system since the attacker has already succeeded. However, the moment you make it one roll, it breaks, which is what spins my head. It seems that the switch to one-roll is what's screwed the system up and that the changes in the 'player's guide' don't actually work...

I do only want to have one roll, but this is just intuitive, not rational. I see it slowing down combat and annoying players, but maybe I'm wrong...

 

[vitalis6969]

Hi,


EDIT: I've being checking the weapon tables once again and I have just realised something. A great sword has the same AP as a dagger. Does this makes sense to anyone?

Actually yeah, it can make sense. A great sword is around 5 to 6 feet long and very heavy. Meaning it can be SLOW to do anything.

Daggers on the other hand were commonly and often used as secondary/blocking weapons and are fast, agile, and around 15" long.

This is my best guess as to why they would be equal.

Oh, and nice tables, you should get them up on the Wiki...

-V

 

[juhanfg]

Well, I agree with your. Canging to a one roll system is what seems to have created all these problems.

The tables I wrote are for a 1 roll system.

That It seems more logical to me. But to be honest maybe I'll play with a 2 roll system and just forget about the problems.

 

[juhanfg]

Hi,
Actually yeah, it can make sense. A great sword is around 5 to 6 feet long and very heavy. Meaning it can be SLOW to do anything.

Daggers on the other hand were commonly and often used as secondary/blocking weapons and are fast, agile, and around 15" long.

This is my best guess as to why they would be equal.

-V

I thought that AP related to how tough an item is (as in the armour). It seems to me that a great sword is going to be able to block more damage than a dagger.

All previous runequest editions agree with me (at least the ones I have managed to check). Have they change the meaning of AP for weapons in this edition?

 

[juhanfg]

Oh, and nice tables, you should get them up on the Wiki...

-V

I just did. They are in the attack rolls page in the combat section.

I put them after what was there already.

J

 

[Cleombrotus]

so the Attacker Fails row of the combat table normally never comes into play.

Thanks for this Rurik. With one little line that simply never occurred to me, a beam of light shone down through the clouds and left a burning swath of enlightenment in its path...

If I had to blame my inability to even think of this, I would come up with something like 'RQ2/3 mental residue', but maybe I'm just a numpty...

Suddenly the stuff in the 'player's guide' seems like reason and not last minute backtracking...

Suddenly the key issue becomes not the combat tables themselves but the different rules for very high skills in combat...which simply needed to be made explicit, and of course are...

Holy $h!t, it all makes sense after all...

Surely not...What am I missing?

Now I just have to await the verdict on the second printing. Again I ask, has anyone else seen this alternative version of the combat tables?