Evading Question.

[danskmacabre]

So If Character A is running along, gets shot at from range with a bow.
The Attacker hits.

If I succeed in the opposed test evade, I totally evade all damage, I understand that.

But if I say have an evade skill of 60, roll 55.
The attacker has a bow skill of 60 rolls 56.
So he hits, in fact he gets a combat manoeuvre over me.

Does this mean when you evade, you can only totally avoid all damage or lose and your attacker gets at least one Combat manoeuvre?

 

[Dan True]

No, evade is not an opposed roll. So if you succeed, you avoid all damage unless the attacker crit.

- Dan

 

[danskmacabre]

But page 90 of the MRQ2 rules say the following for evade:

Evasion attempts are always treated as opposed tests, pitting the relevant attack skill against the evade skill of the defender.
If the attack wins, then inflict damage as normal.
If the defender wins, then then damage is completely avoided.

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 that says to Opposed to me.

Which brings me back to my original question.
Is it a case of Defender wins, no damage or if Attacker wins (via a normal opposed win, not crit), then attacker gets a combat manoeuvre?

 

[Dan True]

But page 90 of the MRQ2 rules say the following for evade:

Evasion attempts are always treated as opposed tests, pitting the relevant attack skill against the evade skill of the defender.
If the attack wins, then inflict damage as normal.
If the defender wins, then then damage is completely avoided.

If the winner of the opposed test achieves one of more levels of success over his opponent, the result of the roll may be modified by applicable combat manoeuvres as per normal combat.

So that says to Opposed to me.

Which brings me back to my original question.
Is it a case of Defender wins, no damage or if Attacker wins (via a normal opposed win, not crit), then attacker gets a combat manoeuvre?

Hmm, I'm talking cracy then.

I guess that's the case then.

 

[danskmacabre]

But that doesn't make sense to me.
As if you're attacking you either miss completely or get a Combat manoeuvre if you win.
In fact theoretically, since it's an opposed test, if the defenders WINS the opposed test, then he should get a combat manoeuvre as well.

I'm tempted to houserule that in the case where the Defender gets a normal Evade success, the shot misses, but that it, no Combat manoeuvre for the defender, that is unless the attacker fumbles.
Also if the Attacker wins the opposed test normally, it's also no Extra combat manoeuvre for the attacker unless the defender fumbles.

Of course if say the defender crits and the Attacker just fails, then that would mean a Combat Manoeuvre for the Defender and vice versa.

Am I missing something here?

 

[Old timer]

Possible the key word here is 'applicable'. I dont have the rules in front of me at the moment, but if the defender was to win the opposed roll i dont think there are very many manoeuvres (if any) that would apply because you just avoided a ranged attacked.

 

[Grimolde]

Evading is an opposed test.

You either Evade and avoid all damage, or you do not Evade, and you are in a world of hurt. Because, as you rightly pointed out, the attacker gets a CM.

In fact, the text reads:

What this means is that, unless an opponent can take evasive action or parry, an Attacker using a ranged weapon has an immediate advantage because attacks that are undefended automatically gain the Attacker an appropriate Combat Manoeuvre

And just to clarify:

This is a deliberate design mechanic highlighting the potential lethality of ranged weapons in the hands of a competent warrior.

I think it's brilliant - you should be wary of archers.

In D&D ranged attacks suck dirty pondwater, and do next to no damage as you increase in level. It makes them almost pointless and obsolete as weapons, but in MRQ2, you have to respect them at all times.

Duck!

 

[danskmacabre]

Grimolde: Ah ok, thanks for pointing that out , I'll leave it as it is then.
In play this makes ranged combat lethal but at the same time at best it's firing every other CA anyway due to reloading, so it's not really OTT.


OldTimer: Yes you're right there's pretty much nothing a defender can do as far as Combat manoeuvres against a ranged anyway, so that's fine.
I was thinking about it earlier anyway and was going to rule that only realistic defensive combat manoeuvres would be allowed.

It's nice to be able to talk out the rules here, thanks for the input.

 

[Flambeau]

We use this rule: if the attacker wins and the defender rolls a success but loses the opossed roll, the atack hits but the attacker gets no CM. If the atacker wins and the defender fails his Evade roll, the atack hits and the atacker gets 1 CM (or more if it was a critical, fumble,...)

 

[Grimolde]

It's nice to be able to talk out the rules here, thanks for the input.

This is a cool forum for a cool game with cool players.

I have to admit, the idea of an archer gaining a CM every time he succeeds, doesn't exactly sit well with me. After all, it means him choosing the location every single time he hits. Now I'm no combat historian, but I'm pretty sure most shots were random. In most other rpgs, being able to choose your location is a big bonus, something like a called shot with a hefty penalty to your attack roll.

Maybe they need a critical? If they merely succeed, they just roll for damage as normal. Which is bad enough in MRQ2

 

[danskmacabre]

Yeah in game it means that if it hits, the player will defo go for choose location every time, and choosing head, chest or Abdomen.
I'm not so comfortable with that either.

I think I might change that to requiring a crit as as suggested.
Will try it out today like that and see how it turns out.
I'm still playtesting this atm anyway.

 

[Old timer]

I don't think that the above points are a problem. In a mass battle, say like Agincourt, archers don't have time to aim for a location, they just fire arrow after arrow into the attackers, usually in volleys. In a RPG situation, your archer or crossbow man has time to aim, so if he hits, the arrow goes where he wants it, much like a modern day marksman, and that seems to be the intent of the combat manoeuvre chose location. He could also chose impale, which can be more hindering, as your target now has an arrow/bolt stuck in them, and that gives a penalty to skill rolls until removed (and could inflict more damage upon being pulled out). I feel that if you removed the option of a combat manoeuvre, you may end up nerfing missile using PCs.

 

[Loz]

I have to admit, the idea of an archer gaining a CM every time he succeeds, doesn't exactly sit well with me. After all, it means him choosing the location every single time he hits. Now I'm no combat historian, but I'm pretty sure most shots were random. In most other rpgs, being able to choose your location is a big bonus, something like a called shot with a hefty penalty to your attack roll.

I think you need to look at the combat situation. If you have an archer sniping into a melee, then its perfectly acceptable to have Choose Location. Any archer, given opportunity and the advantage range affords, will choose his target and location carefully. Anyone remember in 'The Two Towers' at the battle of Helm's Deep, Legolas advising the elven archers that orc armour is weak 'beneath the arms and at the neck'?

However, remember also, in that battle, the archers behind the walls who fired volleys over it. They can't choose location because they can't see the foe, but are firing into massed ranks. Those arrows impale their targets. So, there's a good case for limiting the type of CMs available according to what the archer can or cannot see.

As ever, its applying some common sense to the circumstances.

 

[danskmacabre]

Been playing this out for the last hour or so.

Depending on the enemy you're fighting, you might not want to necessarily have choose location anyway. Impale is better in an all armored target or bypass armor (Unless they're already damaged in a location).


So I think I'll let the official rule stand for now.
And just note Loz's comments about cover, firining into ranks etc..

Again, thanks for people's thoughts on this.

Playtesting the game before running a campaign is great for clarifying how combat works and my son now officially has MRQ2 as his favourite RPG over PF as he really likes the hit locations, major wounding etc... heh.

 

[Grimolde]

Good points Loz and danskmacabre

I've been playtesting the game for a few weeks now, and I'm very impressed with it. It's possibly my favourite system. There aren't many roleplaying games where you can have fun just rolling for combat.

 

[danskmacabre]

There aren't many roleplaying games where you can have fun just rolling for combat.

This is one of the things that turn me off DnD/PF , damage resolution is for the most part roll damage, and that's it.
I love the hit locations, and various effects of RQ.

 

[PhilHibbs]

We use this rule: if the attacker wins and the defender rolls a success but loses the opossed roll, the atack hits but the attacker gets no CM. If the atacker wins and the defender fails his Evade roll, the atack hits and the atacker gets 1 CM (or more if it was a critical, fumble,...)

That's what the quoted rule says - a level of success is a hit vs fail, or a crit vs success.

 

[danskmacabre]

We use this rule: if the attacker wins and the defender rolls a success but loses the opossed roll, the atack hits but the attacker gets no CM. If the atacker wins and the defender fails his Evade roll, the atack hits and the atacker gets 1 CM (or more if it was a critical, fumble,...)

That's what the quoted rule says - a level of success is a hit vs fail, or a crit vs success.

OK, so in an opposed test, if you fail the opposed test, for the purposes of determining CMs, it doesn't count as +1 CM for opposed tests in general?

 

[Grimolde]

We use this rule: if the attacker wins and the defender rolls a success but loses the opossed roll, the atack hits but the attacker gets no CM. If the atacker wins and the defender fails his Evade roll, the atack hits and the atacker gets 1 CM (or more if it was a critical, fumble,...)

That's what the quoted rule says - a level of success is a hit vs fail, or a crit vs success.

OK, so in an opposed test, if you fail the opposed test, for the purposes of determining CMs, it doesn't count as +1 CM for opposed tests in general?

No, you still get the CM.

Attacker 65, rolls 60
Defender 65, rolls 59

Both succeed, but the Attacker gets 1 CM. Or, if using the above house rule, because the defender also succeeded, this minimises the attacker's result, and so the attacker gets no CM, just damage.

 

[danskmacabre]

ok fine, that's what I've been doing anyway (the core rule, not the houesrule), I just misread your previous post.
I'll be sticking with the core rule.