Ignoring "Triggers" for Dodge and Parry

[Melkor]

All this talk about the Dodge/Parry tables brought up the question:

What about ignoring the listed 'Triggers' of "Succesful Attack" for Dodge and Parry, and just asking the target of an incoming attack whether they would Dodge or Parry the attack before the attack was resolved ?

That would allow for full use of the Dodge and Parry tables as listed.

Unfortunately, that would always mean that a "Fail/Fail" result on either table would ALWAYS turn what would have otherwise been a missed attack into a succesful attack.

I can see dodging the wrong way (and into the path of an oncoming attack) as happening on occasion, as well as putting yourself in a bad position on a missed parry - but not ALL of the time as the table would indicate.

That would tend to always make Dodging and Parrying HIGHLY dangerous....

Fail to Parry/Dodge a SUCCESFUL attack, you are hit.

Fail to Parry/Dodge an UNSUCCESFUL attack, you are hit too.

Seems a bit to harsh - what do you folks think ?

 

[iamtim]

That was my original idea straight up when I read the rules. But, as I stated in the other thread, an experienced fencer made a convincing argument in favor of the triggers, so I'm keeping them around for a while (with some modified tables also posted in the other thread.)

It's not a bad idea, and something tells me I'll probably wind up there. But then again, I like the idea of a failed dodge becoming a successful attack: "The trollkin swings and it looks like he's a little off, but in your attempt to avoid the swing you accidentally step right into it!"

 

[Melkor]

But then again, I like the idea of a failed dodge becoming a successful attack: "The trollkin swings and it looks like he's a little off, but in your attempt to avoid the swing you accidentally step right into it!"

I like it as something that could occasionally happen, and see that as a definite possibility. It's just that when it is the 'default' that always happens that it seems a bit out of hand.

 

[Gnarsh]

Well. In earlier versions of RQ, they had a "fumble" result. It was essentially a "reverse critical" (but of course, crits were 5%, not 10%, so that's a bit different). In the process of simplifying the game, fumbles in combat have effectively been removed (they're left in at a base 00 roll, but not addressed anywhere in the combat section that I can see).

Simple method is to stretch the table so as to allow for a fumble collumn. That's where you put the "attacker fails, defender fumbles, results in a success for attacker" result.

The objective is that you should never decrease your odds of survival by attempting to use a defensive action during combat. Right now, if both players have "medium" level skills, the defender can quite easily make things worse by attempting to dodge or parry. Add a fumble collumn to the table and you can allow a "fail/fail" result to be a wash (defender failed to dodge/parry, but the attacker missed anyway. Lucky him!), while still allowing for the odd "Oops!" move on the part of the defender (although now only with a 1% chance no matter how miserable the skill, but that's workable IMO).

I'm also strongly in favor of requiring the defender to state an intention to use a defensive reaction before seeing what the attacker rolled. I believe if you allow otherwise, then defense becomes overpowered in the game, since you can always wait to see if dodging or parrying is the best choice based on the roll (normal hit, make a dodge since he's unlikely to get damage through, critical hit, make a parry (dependant on worn armor to parrying armor of course). This gets absolutely brutal once your game progresses to the point where the combatants have skills over 100% (which isn't going to take long based on the starting values).

If I can ensure a regular success on defense 95% of the time, and I get to wait to see how well the attacker did, I'm going to be at a huge advantage. Sure. Both parties have that benefit, but it takes a lot of the guesswork out of the game IMO. The objective as far as I recall was to prevent combat from being a "keep rolling until someone misses" system, but this would seem to negate that. If characters are forced to announce defensive actions before the roll, then they can't min/max their defensive choices based on result, and they're likely to blow reactions against missed attacks during multi-character fights, which can make a difference. So putting two medicre warriors against a skilled player actually means something if he's unlucky and parries the wrong attacks. With the system as written, it doesn't matter how many opponents you face. As long as you have enough reactions to equal the total number of hits, you're golden...

 

[Eisho]

I'm still going through a process of absorbing the rules and don't have anything formally recorded about them as yet, but what I'm thinking about is declarations of intent PRIOR to the attack made for characters with a lower skill level and allowing characters with a higher skill level to declare intent AFTER the attack.

Where the cut off point is, I haven't yet decided.

This reflects the reality that someone with less skill is more likely to already have a plan in mind when facing a particular weapon (i.e. against a great sword most people would be inclined to dodge) whereas those with higher skill and more confidence are able to 'read' the attack and react accordingly.

I think there needs to be some kind of penalty though (in terms of damage inflicted by the attacker, or maybe convert it to some kind of non-lethal damage) in the case of a failed dodge/parry against a failed attack which according to the tables would be attack succeeds as normal. I would also say as well that it is at this point that I would expect supplementary rules to enter combat if desired. As I've stated on another thread I'm very interested in writing up some rules that develop unarmed martial arts. At the point where someone fails to deliver a successful attack and his opponent fails to dodge/parry in a manner advanageous to him would be where a clash of bodies is most likely to occur and combat would become close-quarters.

I also personally believe that a character with a high enough skill should be able to take advantage of a fluffed attack (i.e. declaration of intent after a failed attack rather than simply ending that combat attack there and then) but this would require even more tables.

Cheers,

Eisho

 

[atgxtg]

Well. In earlier versions of RQ, they had a "fumble" result. It was essentially a "reverse critical" (but of course, crits were 5%, not 10%, so that's a bit different). In the process of simplifying the game, fumbles in combat have effectively been removed (they're left in at a base 00 roll, but not addressed anywhere in the combat section that I can see).

Simple method is to stretch the table so as to allow for a fumble collumn. That's where you put the "attacker fails, defender fumbles, results in a success for attacker" result.

The objective is that you should never decrease your odds of survival by attempting to use a defensive action during combat.

I like this idea. It makes sense, is easy to do, and matches up with something that has happened in a practice fight I was in. I had done a down strooke from right to left, aimed just to the left of my opponent't right shoulder. That is, it was either going to hit him in the right arm, or miss. Truth is, I was expecting him to strep to his left while parrying, and I was planning on using the "rebound" off of his weapon as a springboard for one of those suicidal spin maneuvers. Having him step into me would have placed him right over "home plate".

Unfortunately for both of us, he opted to stan still and do a circular parry, but...instead of parrying clockwise, and moving the blade off to his right for a clean miss (and getting inside my guard!), he did a counter-clockwise parry and insted moved my blade to his left side, striking him right on his neck and collar bone. OUCH!. We had to stop practice after that one.

So, a fumble can certainly turn a miss into a solid hit.

 

[Melkor]

What would be a workable way to make a fumble range based on your total skill % just like the critical range is based on total skill % ?

 

[Gnarsh]

What would be a workable way to make a fumble range based on your total skill % just like the critical range is based on total skill % ?

Well. You could just take 00 as a fumble for any skill level. That's a bit flat, but workable. If you want a scaling fumble, it's going to take a bit of math. You could just take (10-crit%) as the fumble chance (with 00 always fumbling). That's going to create a largish fumble range at low skill levels though, which may or may not be a good thing (but then, there's no fumble table, so maybe it's not as bad as it sounds).

If you want it more like RQ1/2/3, just cut that number in half ((10-crit%)/2). That'll give effectively a reverse 5% fumble rate. It's quite a bit more math though, so it may not be preferred.

 

[Richard]

So a fumbled parry/dodge can turn into a hit. Sounds like a rare and memorable occassion though. You can walk into a missing blow. Similar occurence in terms of detail, memorabilty and possibility. This doesn't merit it being the default of a game mechanism. Generally if someone's taking a swing you react first. Defenders should have to state before the hit outcome is known. As mentioned the Action Point system is messed up otherwise. The designer/publisher/printer/editor/game gremlins (To whom all power for putting RQ back out there in some form) dropped the ball on this one. To include these results what you need one of them ol' fashioned fumble tables.

 

[Rurik]

Fumbles are in the rules (page 19), and occur on a 00 (until your skill reaches 500, at which point you can no longer fumble).

There is supposedly a fumble chart in the Companion.

I personally don't mind fumbles on a 00 only, they were a little too common in earlier RQ's I thought. If you would rather have lower skilled characters fumble more often, just use the RQ2/3 chances.

 

[Mugen]

I think that even if it sounds logical, it would not be fair in terms of Gameplay.

Imagine you're facing 10 low-skilled opponents. You can't predict which one will eventually hit you, hence forcing you to parry the 3 or 4 first opponents, and thus making your defense less predictable.

 

[zanshin]

quote]I think that even if it sounds logical, it would not be fair in terms of Gameplay.

Imagine you're facing 10 low-skilled opponents. You can't predict which one will eventually hit you, hence forcing you to parry the 3 or 4 first opponents, and thus making your defense less predictable.[/quote]

Ever seen the scene in Yojimbo where Toshiro Mifune cuts his way through a room of opponents?
Or the scene in Unforgiven at the end when William Munny shoots down a room of opponents knowing who is a threat and when they are?

I am quite happy to have a game that models heroic combat to the extent of allowing the outnumbered opponent to choose the correct blows to parry/dodge. Remember that your dodge skill is reduced by -20% per additional opponent as well.

There is evidence that a supremely focussed/skilled warrior can move through combat and take out the ones who are a threat to him ,and maneuver others into a position where they cannot. Allowing people to block only the blows hitting them is a fair way of reflecting this.

 

[Gnarsh]

Ever seen the scene in Yojimbo where Toshiro Mifune cuts his way through a room of opponents?
Or the scene in Unforgiven at the end when William Munny shoots down a room of opponents knowing who is a threat and when they are?

I am quite happy to have a game that models heroic combat to the extent of allowing the outnumbered opponent to choose the correct blows to parry/dodge. Remember that your dodge skill is reduced by -20% per additional opponent as well.

Yeah. But that should be "heroic" combat. Not "anyone with a high enough dex can do this" combat. Munny was able to do that because of decades of practice (and a bit of natural ability/luck). The problem with allowing triggers for dodge/parry to be *after* the attack is rolled and is successful is that every character will be able to do that. Any PC with a decent skill (which wont take long given the starting skill levels), will effectively be able to defend against a relatively large number of opponents easily (as long as the opponents aren't as skilled as he is).

To put this in relative perspective with earlier editions of the game. A 100% skilled character facing two 50% skilled NPCs was reduced to an "even chance" of winning/losing the fight. He could split his parry into two 50% parries, and basically have the same odds as his opponents against each one (and could split his attacks as well). Effectively, he fought exactly the same as the two opponents, except he's only got one set of hps, and they have two.

In MRQ, that same exact situation gives the 100% fighter almost a guaranteed win. Assuming equal CAs, he's going to be able to block the average number of hits from his opponentts with a 95% chance on every defensive action. Statistically, he's in no great danger at all. Meanwhile, he's going to get half of his attacks through each round unopposed (cause his opponents have only a 50% chance to parry/dodge, right?).

This is a *huge* difference. This could very well be intentional. Perhaps in MRQ you're supposed to take on "hordes" of peon level bad guys when fighting. I don't know. It's a balance issue, and can certainly be dealt with by the GM when balancing a fight, but it is a pretty radical departure.

Also, note that it's a -20% *total* if one is facing a large number of opponents. Not -20% for each extra one.

There is evidence that a supremely focussed/skilled warrior can move through combat and take out the ones who are a threat to him ,and maneuver others into a position where they cannot. Allowing people to block only the blows hitting them is a fair way of reflecting this.

Yeah. But I'd rather that be tied the the character's actual skill with his weapons. Older varients allowed you to split your skills among multiple opponents. Now, it doesn't matter if your character has an 80% skill, or a 180% skill. You still can make the same number of attacks and parries/dodges. I have nothing against allowing "heroic" level characters to perform heroically (chewing through numbers of bad guys), but I do find it strange that in MRQ, this ability is flattened signfificantly. Effectively, once you've got a 120% skill with parry/dodge, you can effectively defend yourself from a maximal number of possible attackers. There's simply no "better" then that. Given a system in which most combat focused characters are going to be starting around 80%, this seems like a very short range of effective growth for your character. Had they stuck with some form of skill based determinant for number of attacks/parries/dodges, then the game system would scale upwards with that skill, allowing more skilled "heroic" characters to perform more impressive feats in combat.


It's a scaling problem IMO. Something you might not notice at first glance, but I can guaratee you that players *will* notice that their characters really stop being more effective in combat once they reach a relatively easily obtained degree of skill. The game system as written simply does not award charactes adequately for obtaining high skill levels. RQ2/3 had this problem as well, but at least you got increased crit/special *and* increased ability to split skills as your skills increased over 100%. In MRQ, all you have is the increased chance to crit. This is a step in the wrong direction IMO.

 

[Eisho]

If you want realistic combat then personally I'd say that even halving an individual's skill when facing two opponents is being generous.

There is evidence that a supremely focussed/skilled warrior can move through combat and take out the ones who are a threat to him ,and maneuver others into a position where they cannot. Allowing people to block only the blows hitting them is a fair way of reflecting this.

Out of (genuine) interest, what is this evidence?

Cheers,

Eisho