High level combat

[gamesmeister]

During our session last night I ran a pair of high level combats. Two of the four combatants had a skill of over 90%, with magic taking them to between 110% and 120%, the third had a skill pushing 140%, while the fourth had an enhanced skill of around 95%.

Not surprisingly, almost every blow was a precise attack, which in theory I had no problem with. However, almost every one attempted was the avoid armour attack, which turned out to be (not surprisingly) utterly lethal. And this was without using opposed rolls in combat!

A successful dodge against such an attack generally resulted in 6-7 points of damage going straight through all armour, including magical protection - this invariably led to at least a minor wound, which in turn led to a loss of one or more combat actions. The 6-7 damage comes from minimum weapon damage (say 1), plus Bladesharp damage (usually 4), plus a damage bonus of at least 1D2.

A successful parry with at least a target shield was better, but parrying with a weapon was not good, as any damage over and above the 2-4 APs of the weapon were then applied directly to the hit location.

The upshot of all this was that the combatant who got the first hit in usually won, because the moment he started whittling down his opponent's combat actions, his opponent was helpless and never got another attack in.

I'm therefore going to try a couple of small tweaks to my game, as follows

1) Precise attacks do not ignore magical protection. I remember thinking this should be the case when I first got the MRQ rulebook over a year ago, but I've been trying to use the RAW as much as possible. However, it doesn't make sense to find a gap in magical armour (which is not tied to individual pieces of armour), and therefore it can't be bypassed.

2) This came from one of my players. When a combatant loses 1D4 combat actions, we're going to try counting reactions within that total and removing those instead. For example, if a player rolls a 2, he will lose 1 combat action and 1 reaction. At least that way he may get the chance to use another combat action during the round, perhaps to heal himself or, in the case of last nights game, switch his shield from his wounded left hand to his right hand.

Conclusion: without a shield at high level, your a dead man. :shock:

 

[Rurik]

I'd come to the same conclusion a while back - a big shield was a must under the original rules.

I think it is a matter of record that I'm not a huge fan of the new players update combat table, but it does address the precise attack very well. If you are both a similiar skill, say 150, and you make a precise attack you need to beat your opponents roll by 40 points to do any damage at all (excepting criticals), a much tougher proposition (and therfore choice). It only becomes practical when your skill is significantly greater than your oponnent's skill (which I am quite comfortable with).

Using the Simplified Opposed Combat from the Wiki has the same effect, but not as drastically as using the all or nothing approach of the Official Update.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Ooooh, a real life example of high-level combat, at last! Thank you for sharing, Gamesmeister.

Your report confirms the initial thought that everyone had about precise attacks one year ago: high level characters tend to abuse this tactics. This is also a bit unrealistic, because if your blow was partially blocked/deflected by a parry so as to lose part of its impact, how the hell could you manage to have it land in that narrow little area between your enemy's armor pieces?

The key to your problem is simple: you were not using opposed rolls. Let's examine what would happen by using opposed rolls.

First of all, if you use opposed rolls, precise attacks will not be used only against unopposed blows, as it should be. A -40 to the opposed roll means that the defender has a much higher chance of winning the contest, so that your fantastic cut-through-armour attack will simply miss.

You still want to use a precise attack? Ok, apply a -40 penalty to both the to-hit roll and the contest. You still won? Then you have largely outskilled your opponent and his parrying weapon was totally out of the way: your blow hits a weak spot and combat is over. Definitely more realistic.

As for precise attacks not being able to bypass magical protection, it was suggested decades ago that magical armour in RuneQuest is not a sort of "force field" like it is in That Other Game. It is rather a magical thickening of the recipient's armor or skin, so you can still find a weak spot. Think of Sigfried or Achilles: their invulnerability was not total, it was just a matter of finding the vulnerable area.

As for the first blow that got in deciding the combat, well, wasn't it this way in previous editions of RuneQuest? A sword slash that connected usually incapacitated the target or had him fall to the ground, losing his own attack. What you see in MRQ is a more detailed description of what happens during a RQ2/3 Melee Round, which equals 4-6 combat actions in MRQ. Combatant A hits and causes a major wound. Combatant B must spend several combat actions (the equivalent of a RQ3 round) to recover from the tactical disadvantage of having been wounded. Either he has friends nearby, or the worse for him, as in RQ3. The difference here is that his friends must not use the painful "change intent" option of RQ3 to come to his aid. Fine for me. (OMG, I am starting to like combat actions :shock: )

Finally: switching a shield from the left hand to the right hand? Is it realistic?

 

[Halfbat]

..if you use opposed rolls, precise attacks will not be used only against unopposed blows, as it should be. A -40 to the opposed roll means that the defender has a much higher chance of winning the contest, so that your fantastic cut-through-armour attack will simply miss.

I can't see where this comes from as it's got nothing to do, afaik, with opposed rolls. The SRD just states that -

All precise attacks are very difficult; the character’s Weapons Skill suffers a –40% penalty.

In other words, it's just the skill that suffers a penalty, not the opposed roll. In fact, using opposed with character skills of 140+ may make the situation worse....

If one of the combatants has a weapon skill in excess of 100%, and the skill is a standard success, the skill’s value in excess of 100 is added to the result of the dice roll, increasing the chances of victory in the Opposed contest.

and

If the dice roll was a normal success, participants with skills exceeding 100% may now add the difference between 100 and their skill value.

----------------------------
All of this, though, is a bit of a Red Herring, I think and is a result of a Precise Attack trying to get too detailed in normal combat (whether or not Opposed/Non-opposed is used). Apart from the fact that plate becomes useless, for example (as pointed out before: -42% to your own parry/dodge skill AND it's readily bypassed by less of a penalty by your opponent).

Pete N's suggestions of allowing a range of options from a critical in opposed combat is probably a better option. He also recommends (as many have already done) only halving the skill penalties, too. His standard (that is, non-optional) rules suggested in his
http://mrqwiki.com/wiki/index.php/Opposed_Roll_Combat sheet are _really_ worth looking at (especially the standard combat table) and might well fix the issues you're experiencing.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Halfbat, you are assuming that penalties do not apply to opposed rolls. But when skills exceed 100% in fact they do! Assume your character is 140% in his skill. He usually gets a +40 to his actual roll to see who wins the opposed roll. But if his skill goes down to 100% because he made a precise attack, he does not get his usual bonus, so in fact he gets a penalty of -40!

If you use the opposed roll rule, in a 140% vs. 100% skill combat like the one described by Gamesmeister, the higher skill fighter has some 80-90% chance of totally bypassing his opponent's defense by winning the contest (please remind us the odds, Rurik). He would be mad to use a precise attack, which would bring his chance of being parried back to 50% (100% vs 100%, no bonuses to the contest). This is the idea between the opposed roll in combat: higher skill kills, so do not use fancy tactics unless your skill is really, really higher than your opponent's.

 

[Rurik]

All precise attacks are very difficult; the character’s Weapons Skill suffers a –40% penalty.

In other words, it's just the skill that suffers a penalty, not the opposed roll. In fact, using opposed with character skills of 140+ may make the situation worse....

If one of the combatants has a weapon skill in excess of 100%, and the skill is a standard success, the skill’s value in excess of 100 is added to the result of the dice roll, increasing the chances of victory in the Opposed contest.

and

If the dice roll was a normal success, participants with skills exceeding 100% may now add the difference between 100 and their skill value.

If you look at the above, take two characters with 140% skills. One precise attacks and the other parrys. The attacker suffers 40% to his skill for the test, reducing it to 100. He rolls a 90, an excellent roll. Because his skill for the attack is 100, he does not get to add anything to the roll. His target rolls a 55, a pretty average roll, but gets to add 40 to his roll for the purpose of the determining the winner of the opposed roll - a 95. The attack misses completely, where it would have hit unopposed had the attacker not made the precise attack.

Also worth mentioning are the Item Crafting rules, as they are part of the rules as a whole. You can bet anyone who can afford Bastion Armor (-80 to precise attacks) will.

 

[Fishy]

I'm still learning this system and haven't actually run it yet (first attempt will be on wednesday), but it seems to me that the following points should make sense...

1. Some types of armour are easier to bypass than others, so modifiers to the roll for armour type worn ought to be applied.

2. The Parry rules really represent a block (parrying won't be invented for another few hundred years if Glorantha follows an Earthly model). As such the old RQ system (IIRC) of the damage being delivered to the weapon (and thus it's APs protecting it from being shattered) would have worked fine. You can even keep the doubled AP rule because a well made block would angle the attack to minimise impact while still preventing all damage to the character.

Sorry if I'm reading something wrong or reiterating someone else's point but, as I said, I'm new here.

One more point. I can't see anything that says says you lose Reactions when you lose Combat Actions due to wounds. Do we have an official answer as to whether you do?
It seems to me that only losing the Actions, not the Reactions, is far easier on the wounded character.

 

[RosenMcStern]

1. All this stuff about armour, penalties and bypassing is oversimplified. The authors wanted to keep it simple. In your game, you may complicate it as you wish.

2. Parrying not invented? Do you have any evidence? In the thread "What's new in Deluxe" Pete Nash quoted several examples of renaissance manuals about fencing, which are the oldest examples known. But there is no evidence of ancient fighters being less skilled, it is just that the martial training used in the ancient era has not been recorded.

Block has already been discussed here, in fact. The opposed roll rule represents parrying, while the rules that use APs represent block, rather. But all this is a houserule at most.

As for reactions, you are right. In the RAW you only lose actions when you are wounded.

 

[gamesmeister]

Ooooh, a real life example of high-level combat, at last! Thank you for sharing, Gamesmeister.

No problem...it was quite an eye-opener

The key to your problem is simple: you were not using opposed rolls. Let's examine what would happen by using opposed rolls.

If only things were that simple Paulo... :wink:

First of all, if you use opposed rolls, precise attacks will not be used only against unopposed blows, as it should be. A -40 to the opposed roll means that the defender has a much higher chance of winning the contest, so that your fantastic cut-through-armour attack will simply miss.

Yes, this I can see. Precise attacks would have been less feasible using opposed rolls, although the 140% character could have probably have given it a go with a decent chance of success.

What opposed rolls do is shift the emphasis of combat onto high armour...going into combat with little or no armour is almost suicidal, because as soon as you lose the opposed roll, you're likely to suffer from at least a minor wound, and quite possibly a serious wound.

Perhaps this is ok, but I'm reminded of the battle between the Dread Pirate Roberts and Inigo Montoya at the top of the Cliffs of Insanity...a fencing match like that between two masters would never work using opposed rolls.

My characters are currently crossing Prax, each wearing a chainmail hauberk and heavy leather elsewhere. This is probably the maximum armour they could realistically expect to wear in desert conditions. If I start using opposed rolls, I very much doubt that's enough to keep them alive against the type of foes they can expect to meet e.g. broos, scorpion men, dark trolls etc, all of whom have a decent damage bonus. Opposed rolls might fix the problem with precise attacks, but they create a whole new set of problems of their own (the redundancy of shields has already been highlighted, but there are clearly others).

As for the first blow that got in deciding the combat, well, wasn't it this way in previous editions of RuneQuest? A sword slash that connected usually incapacitated the target or had him fall to the ground, losing his own attack.

Yes, but the effectiveness of that strike becomes much greater when opposed rolls are used. Also, MRQ accentuates this because you can lose up to 4 attacks, as opposed to only one.

Finally: switching a shield from the left hand to the right hand? Is it realistic?

Possibly not, but then neither is it realistic to be able to parry greatswords with a cream pie, which opposed rolls allow.

 

[gamesmeister]

One more point. I can't see anything that says says you lose Reactions when you lose Combat Actions due to wounds. Do we have an official answer as to whether you do?

No, nothing official, the general consensus on this forum being that you don't lose Reactions

It seems to me that only losing the Actions, not the Reactions, is far easier on the wounded character.

Yep, that's what I thought too until the other night.

What happened was that on the first attack, the defender was hit in the left arm with a precise attack through armour, causing a serious wound to that arm and losing 2-3 combat actions (I don't remember the exact number). Without any combat actions, he couldn't heal, he couldn't attack his foe, he couldn't switch his shield to his other arm, he had no options at all except defend with this sword. As every new blow against him was a precise attack, and he could only parry 4 points of damage with his sword, he kept taking more and more minor/serious wounds, thus losing x number of combat actions, and was essentially helpless from the moment the first blow hit.

Maybe as Rosen says that's a bi-product of me not using opposed rolls. Maybe it's realistic, in which case great! But it was brutal to watch this rune level character get carved up, and there being absolutely nothing he could do about it.

 

[RosenMcStern]

As for parrying greatswords with small arms, the matter has been discussed elsewhere. It is difficult, very difficult, but not impossible. It is up to the GM to assess a suitable penalty when you attempt such a task.

Dread Pirate Roberts vs. Inigo Montoya does not work well with any edition of RuneQuest. Such a cinematic combat is only played out well with HeroQuest and Advantage Points.

My proposal for these problems is always the same: if you want more realism and playability, just split block and parry. Use the tables as they are if the defender declares he is blocking, and an opposed roll if he declares he is parrying. Let's see what happens when your party of adventurers faces powerful foes and they are unarmored.

Garrath Sharpsword and Average Joe meet a band of big, nasty scorpion men. Both have only leather armor or woad as their protection, for no more than 2 AP. Garrath is 165% with 2H sword. Joe is 85% with both 1H sword and shield. The Scorpion Men are all 70% with their attacks.

Garrath parries the scorpion men with his sword. If the scorpion man hits, Garrath parries and, since he gets +65 to his roll, he always wins the opposed roll unless the SM rolls a critical. When the Scorpion Man lands his blow, Garrath is simply not there, because his sword deflected the blow .

Joe, on the other hand, is forced to block the scorpion man with his shield. If he attempts the same elegant manoeuver that works so well for Garrath, the scorpion man has a high chance of hitting. So he just places his shield between him and his foe, relying on its armour points. The scorpion man's weapon bashes upon Joe's shield, possibly damaging it, but the damage is probably not enough to go through. If Joe had used a sword to block, he would be dead, because his 4pt. parry plus 2pt. armor are not enough to stop the scorpion man's mighty club.

You might ask: what about a character with 100% or less and no shield skill? Well, maybe scorpion men are too much for him.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Maybe as Rosen says that's a bi-product of me not using opposed rolls. Maybe it's realistic, in which case great! But it was brutal to watch this rune level character get carved up, and there being absolutely nothing he could do about it.

Hero Points? That's another area where I think MRQ beats RQ3.

In any case, parried blows still being able to bypass armour is both unrealistic and unbalancing. The effects of blocking should thus be:

- negate the opposed roll: use the tables as they are
- negate the effect of precise attacks
- all damage that exceeeds the blocking weapon AP go to both the defender and the weapon

 

[Itto]

If your players are of a “heroic” grade, going up against NPCs of similar stature, remember that in the Companion there is Bulwarked Armour. Which causes precise attacks to be at -80%. Take the example of an city soldier, kitted out well in plate armour, his leader (a Lord) is also in plate armour. Now the Lord will most likely have much better plate armour than the soldier, Bulwarked. So they both have armour that’s 6 point, but to bypass the soldier it’s a -40% and the Lord is -80%.

After a game last week were we went up against a wyrm and precise attacks were used. Now I’d also give some creatures natural armour Bulwarked status too.

 

[gamesmeister]

My proposal for these problems is always the same: if you want more realism and playability, just split block and parry. Use the tables as they are if the defender declares he is blocking, and an opposed roll if he declares he is parrying. Let's see what happens when your party of adventurers faces powerful foes and they are unarmored.

I know you've said this on several occasions, but I've only just 'got it'. So you get to decide how to defend...I can see that working.

With that in place, I can see opposed rolls working...OMG, what am I saying?!! :shock:

Joe, on the other hand, is forced to block the scorpion man with his shield. If he attempts the same elegant manoeuver that works so well for Garrath, the scorpion man has a high chance of hitting. So he just places his shield between him and his foe, relying on its armour points. The scorpion man's weapon bashes upon Joe's shield, possibly damaging it, but the damage is probably not enough to go through. If Joe had used a sword to block, he would be dead, because his 4pt. parry plus 2pt. armor are not enough to stop the scorpion man's mighty club.

Makes sense.

It would good if Dodge had a similar alternative action

i.e. if faced with a large foe with a high damage bonus, use Dodge and an opposed roll to try and make him miss completely, whereas against a normal foe you could choose an Evade action which just uses the table, but you'll still suffer minimum damage even with a success.

 

[RosenMcStern]

After a game last week were we went up against a wyrm and precise attacks were used. Now I’d also give some creatures natural armour Bulwarked status too.

Actually, it is Bastion armour that provides this effect, not Bulwark. The point is that bypass-armour precise attacks should be used mainly against such creatures.

It would be good if Dodge had a similar alternative action.

Well, in fact, it can be devised. The new tables do not require a successful dodger to Give Ground. An optional manoeuver like Dodge and retreat or Surrender Ground could be introduced (copyright notice: the term Surrender Ground is by HalfBat), which forces the defender to Give Ground but allows him to take minimum instead of full damage if the attacker wins the opposed roll. It adds more options to combat.[/quote]

 

[gamesmeister]

Just edited my post with a possible alternative, just as you posted this one

 

[blitz]

I don't use the -40% on precise attacks, instead I multiply their weapon skill by .4. So someone with a skill of 20% has an 8% chance on a precise attack instead of a -20%. While someone with a weapon skill of 150% has a precise attack of 60%. I find this to be a better balance, and I don't use opposed rolls for combat, fyi.