danskmacabre
Mongoose
I assume when evading in melee vs a melee weapon (you might do this if you have no weapon) the same rules apply?
Evading Question.
- Thread starter danskmacabre
- Start date
Deleriad
Mongoose
Grimolde said:
I'm having problems following who said what in this thread but RQII RAW for opposed rolls is the following.
You only get a CM if you get at least one degree of success. If both parties succeed then although there is a winner there is no degree of success.
In an opposed roll (like attack vs evade) if both attacker and defender succeed normally then the high roller wins but DOES NOT get a CM.
On the other hand if one person gets a critical success and one gets a normal success then the critical wins and gets 1 CM as usual.
danskmacabre
Mongoose
This is core rules:
Meaning that even though the defender in this example made his roll, he failed the opposed test, so the attacker gets the 1 CM.
The house rule suggested is that in this specific instance, the attacker WOULDN'T get 1 CM. The Attacker would have to Crit to get the 1 CM.
Meaning that even though the defender in this example made his roll, he failed the opposed test, so the attacker gets the 1 CM.
The house rule suggested is that in this specific instance, the attacker WOULDN'T get 1 CM. The Attacker would have to Crit to get the 1 CM.
Deleriad
Mongoose
danskmacabre said:
No. You are misreading the core rules. If you succeed at a skill but lose the opposed roll it does not turn your success into a failure. A success is still a success. You *might* be getting confused by the MRQ1 players update where a success downgraded an opponent.
For example, from the RQII description of opposed rolls:
This at no point says that the loser is considered to have failed their roll simply tells you how to resolve the situation when there is a 'tie' for level of success.
danskmacabre
Mongoose
OK I said "failed" but only as opposed to the the opponent's roll if he succeeds his attack roll and you MAKE your evade roll (Which what the above example was describing). I appreciate he actually made the roll.
The net result of losing an opposed roll where both actually roll within their skill is the person who rolled higher (and within his skill) will get a +1 CM.
And generally with Ranged attacks, only the attacker is going to be able to actually use the CM1.
So really in the case of an evade which uses Opposed rolls, the defender in the example above effectively failed, and the arrow will hit him plus the attacker will get his 1 CM.
To expand this further, I think if the defender actually failed his roll, IE has an evade skill of 65, rolls 66. Then the attacker still only gets CM 1.
So they amount to the same thing.
The net result of losing an opposed roll where both actually roll within their skill is the person who rolled higher (and within his skill) will get a +1 CM.
And generally with Ranged attacks, only the attacker is going to be able to actually use the CM1.
So really in the case of an evade which uses Opposed rolls, the defender in the example above effectively failed, and the arrow will hit him plus the attacker will get his 1 CM.
To expand this further, I think if the defender actually failed his roll, IE has an evade skill of 65, rolls 66. Then the attacker still only gets CM 1.
So they amount to the same thing.
You are correct Deleriad.
Page 90:
If the winner of the Opposed Test achieves one or more levels of success over his opponent, the result of the roll may be modified by applicable Combat Manoeuvres as per normal combat.
So
Attacker 65, roll 61
Defender 65, roll 60
Does not mean a CM for the attacker. Whereas
Attacker 65, roll 61
Defender 65, roll 66
Does.
Page 90:
If the winner of the Opposed Test achieves one or more levels of success over his opponent, the result of the roll may be modified by applicable Combat Manoeuvres as per normal combat.
So
Attacker 65, roll 61
Defender 65, roll 60
Does not mean a CM for the attacker. Whereas
Attacker 65, roll 61
Defender 65, roll 66
Does.
danskmacabre
Mongoose
Grimolde, now I'm confused:
Earlier you said the following (Ignore the houserule bit for now):
Which says both made the roll, but the attacker gets a CM 1.
Now you're saying:
Which as far as I can see contradicts your earlier statement.
Which one is right? Help!, my brain hurts!
Earlier you said the following (Ignore the houserule bit for now):
Which says both made the roll, but the attacker gets a CM 1.
Now you're saying:
Which as far as I can see contradicts your earlier statement.
Which one is right? Help!, my brain hurts!
Deleriad
Mongoose
danskmacabre said:
Honestly danske, you are misreading the rules as written.
If both parties make a normal success in an opposed roll then no one gets a CM. That is the rule as written.
E.g.
Attack skill 70%: rolls 55. normal success.
Evade skill 65%: rolls 49. normal success.
Attacker rolls higher therefore wins opposed roll so attacker hits evader for full damage but attacker does NOT get a CM as both parties have same level of success.
danskmacabre
Mongoose
Sorry guys, I just got confused as the examples above contradict.
But actually re-reading the evade rules again as pointed out, I can see now yeah, if both succeed, it's just a hit for the attacker, no CM for the attacker if he rolls higher.
But actually re-reading the evade rules again as pointed out, I can see now yeah, if both succeed, it's just a hit for the attacker, no CM for the attacker if he rolls higher.
I apologise, my first example was wrong. Forget it. This is right:danskmacabre said:Which one is right? Help!, my brain hurts!
Attacker 65, roll 61 <---- a successful roll
Defender 65, roll 60 <---- a successful roll
No CMs as there are no differences in success levels (i.e. both get a success level)
Attacker 65, roll 61 <---- a successful roll
Defender 65, roll 66 <---- a failed roll
A CM as the attacker succeeds but the defender fails.
danskmacabre
Mongoose
No worries, I'm just glad it's resolved 
Similar threads
