How Combat was Clear to me on my First Read

[MattyHelms]

One fact struck me heading into reading the combat rules:

Combat is not opposed tests.

To me that means:

No very high skill halving in combat - only opposed tests cause very high skill halving.

Reactions (parry, dodge, etc.) only occur in reaction to an attack and only by choice. They are only rolled for if used. Even though you get the same amount of reactions as you do attacks, you may be saving one of your reaction attempts for a later attack in the round.

So why parry or dodge against a failed attack as shown on the tables? For the chance, on a critical success, to cause an attacker to overextend. Is it worth the risk of causing a failed attack to succeed by failing your parry roll? Depends, but I'd say that it is if you have a high enough skill score.

Keeping in mind that combat is not opposed skill tests made that whole section clear to me.

Man, I can't wait to run this game and try out all its neat little pieces.

-Matt

*Grappling, however, is opposed tests, but that's handled in the rules. I'm talking standard close and ranged combat here.

 

[atgxtg]

According to a post forom Mongoose, there is a misprint on the tables. In afew days they are going to relase a PDF that will, hopefully, clear everything up.

 

[iamtim]

According to a post forom Mongoose, there is a misprint on the tables. In afew days they are going to relase a PDF that will, hopefully, clear everything up.

I gotta tell you, I can't jive with the delay in reaction until after the hit roll is made. I'll be running it with declarations made at the same time:

"The broo is attacking you. Whadda ya do?"
"Oh, hell, I'm gonna dodge that sh*t, I don't wanna touch one o' dem if I don't have to!"
"Ok, roll!"

That said, I think I kinda like the whole failed attack + failed dodge = successful attack thing, even if it is a misprint. If you can dodge a failed attack to try and overextend the attacker or get a riposte, it only makes sense that the defender could overextend as well and accidentally wind up right in the path of the attacker's weapon.

I dunno, that just seems kinda keen to me.

 

[atgxtg]

I gotta tell you, I can't jive with the delay in reaction until after the hit roll is made. I'll be running it with declarations made at the same time:

I'm wish you here. If you think about the only time you know that a roll is going to hit is when it is too late to stop it.

I could see where something where if someone missed by a mile you got your reaction back, but if he has a 67 skill and rolls a 68, you can't tell.

 

[iamtim]

If you think about the only time you know that a roll is going to hit is when it is too late to stop it.

Right. It really makes you consider your options. "Can I stand here and take a hit from this guy? Will my armor hold up to his assault? Or should I try a dodge or parry and put him in a weaker position hopefully without putting myself in a weaker position? Maybe I'll just run away..."

 

[MattyHelms]

I gotta tell you, I can't jive with the delay in reaction until after the hit roll is made. I'll be running it with declarations made at the same time:

"The broo is attacking you. Whadda ya do?"
"Oh, hell, I'm gonna dodge that sh*t, I don't wanna touch one o' dem if I don't have to!"
"Ok, roll!"

You can decalre dodge as a combat action for a +20% on all Dodge skill tests or parrying Weapon skill tests until your next combat action - it's on page 46.

That said, I think I kinda like the whole failed attack + failed dodge = successful attack thing, even if it is a misprint. If you can dodge a failed attack to try and overextend the attacker or get a riposte, it only makes sense that the defender could overextend as well and accidentally wind up right in the path of the attacker's weapon.

I dunno, that just seems kinda keen to me.

Me too. And you can have it both ways - you can decalre an active dodge and still have the chance of failure! This game rocks.

 

[MattyHelms]

According to a post forom Mongoose, there is a misprint on the tables. In afew days they are going to relase a PDF that will, hopefully, clear everything up.

Really? I like the tables the way they are!

 

[atgxtg]

According to a post forom Mongoose, there is a misprint on the tables. In afew days they are going to relase a PDF that will, hopefully, clear everything up.

Really? I like the tables the way they are!

Well according to Matt the table is worng. A failed attack roll does not require a defense. THere is actually a good reason for the change. I don't want to go into why, but i will say run a couple of mock combats with the chart and give one guy a greatsword and see for yourself what happens.

 

[Malakor]

I just sat here and read over the combat section of my book and cannot find anywhere that it says a failed attack roll REQUIRES a defensive reaction.

Would you mind listing what page you are finding that on, so that if my players see it I'll not be lost?

 

[bluejay]

Sorry Mr Helms but I just can't get with that. Check out my probability calculator and put some sample values into it.

If you are dodging a missed roll to get an overextension, your chance of actually getting this is minuscule. Your chance of getting hit increases however.

Parrying a miss is almost insane. Your chance of being missed goes down significantly and your chance of getting a riposte is still tiny.

You would have to be mad to parry or dodge a missed attack...

 

[Vadrus]

You would have to be mad to parry or dodge a missed attack...

Of course in reality in melee combat there is rarely such a thing as a missed attack if the defender does nothing.

Humans are very good at hand-eye co-ordination in such circumstances, unless using an unweildy or very long weapon you will hit a human sized target almost 100% of the time even with next to no training. We only miss if the target actively moves, dodges, parries, etc.

Plus it takes a lot to stand still and take a blow you know is coming, as even through armour it is still going to hurt even if it does no long term damage.


Vadrus

 

[atgxtg]

You would have to be mad to parry or dodge a missed attack...

Or Harrak the beserk. Oh wait, he covered all bets just to be sure.

Seriously, I think parrying a failed attack might make sense if you got a 500% skill or some such.

Buty for those us us who don't call HeroQuesting thier "moring constitutional", parrying a miss leads to early retirement.

 

[bluejay]

Well it now appears that it is 'officially' incorrect to parry or dodge a missed attack.

You're right about hitting all of the time. It's what I love about my boxing training, you literally are just grinding your dodge skill! You actually spend time training on ducking and weaving. You actually tie a rope across a ring and practise weaving underneath it. However of course this applies to real life and not rulesets...

 

[Vadrus]

Well it now appears that it is 'officially' incorrect to parry or dodge a missed attack.

You're right about hitting all of the time. It's what I love about my boxing training, you literally are just grinding your dodge skill! You actually spend time training on ducking and weaving. You actually tie a rope across a ring and practise weaving underneath it. However of course this applies to real life and not rulesets...

True, combat training is mostly just learning how to counter the defenders moves not how to hit him in the first place. Shame so few rule sets actually get this right.


Vadrus

 

[bluejay]

...and most blocking maneuvers that don't involve shields also involve some kind of dodge or sidestep at the same time.

 

[Vadrus]

...and most blocking maneuvers that don't involve shields also involve some kind of dodge or sidestep at the same time.

Should it be a requirement that all combat system designers have actually done some sparing (boxing, martials arts, fencing, etc) before they write these things? Might get a very different perspective than the standard 'I hit you - you hit me' routine


Vadrus

Of course this is going to make being qualified to write a magic system difficult :shock:

 

[bluejay]

Well famously the original RuneQuest combat rules were heavily influenced by the authors' experiences in the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronism) which I believe involves mock fighting.

Unfortunately I think that RPG designers have an exceptionally difficult task as they can never please everyone. Most people have little to no experience of fighting (and even sparring is removed from actual streetfighing or fighting for your life). In fact most people want to be able to recreate stuff from movies rather than real life and many fights in movies are insanely far-fetched.

Still one thing I really like about this game is that you can pin characters in corners to prevent them dodging. That really happens a lot in real fights and is a very common tactic.

 

[burdock]

bluejay wrote

Well it now appears that it is 'officially' incorrect to parry or dodge a missed attack

but a possibility nevertheless

and that makes the combat table correct

It is as I always thought. The example of play is the source of error (but I was not really confused by it - guessing it was in error). I'm suprised other - probably more experienced - gamers did not easily see what I saw and interpret the rules correctly.

 

[bluejay]

To be honest Burdock I think most players felt it was unclear in the rules and came on these boards to discover that two rolls had been used in the official demos given.

The examples in the book back up this explanation and so were considered to be correct.

Were you asking for an explanation here or just patting yourself on the back? :wink:

 

[bluejay]

I also still find it odd that a specific condition (attacker overextended) can only be achieved if the defender dodges a miss - which they are not allowed to do.