Is this really how combat works?

[DigitalMage]

I am just reading the RuneQuest core rulebook and wanted to make sure that I am reading the rules right.

Everything in the rulebook in the combat chapter states that the following is the method of determining an attack:

Initial Attack Roll
Attacker rolls weapon skill, if it fails the process ends here (as Reactions are triggered by successful attacks).

Reaction
If the target has Reactions left they can choose to parry, dodge etc, if they haven't then move onto Damage.

The attacker once again rolls their weapon skill whilst the target rolls their Dodge or Weapon skill (the latter if parrying).

Compare both results to the table to determine the result.

Damage
If the target did not attempt to perform a Reaction, or the results of the opposed test indicate damage was inflicted then apply damage.

So is the above correct? That if the target parries or dodges the attacker rolls again? This seems to add an unnecessary dice roll, but then again the book reads that way.

And as the rules state "If a character rolls greater than his Weapon skill, he has missed his target." for the initial roll, then if there wasn't a second roll why is there an Attacker's Roll Failure row in the Dodge and Parry tables?

 

[Halfbat]

Hi Mage, welcome to the RQ boards :wink:
This question has been asked several times and amended. It's worth downloading the Player's Guide (at the RQ page http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/RQPlayersUpdate.pdf) which clarifies this.

Basically, what you described is the two-roll approach which some players use. Combat is supposed to be single-roll. Under the first Player's Guide release this was

a) Attacker rolls. if he misses, move onto next person in the SR sequence.
b) If Attacker hits, Defender can declare a Reaction. If he cannot, or declines to do so, compare the attacker's roll on the combat tables with a "miss"
c) If the Defender reacts, he declares his reaction and rolls the relevant skill
d) Result from (a) and (c) are cross-referenced on the tables.

This has been altered in the latest release (for an extensive discussion, see this thread. The process is

a) Attacker declares his target (and what he's doing, etc).
b) Defender states whether or not he is reacting, etc.
c) Attacker rolls and, if the defender is reacting, he rolls. These rolls are opposed.
d) If both have the same level of success, the loser in the opposed roll drops a level of success
e) The resultant levels of success (Critical, Success, fail, Fumble) are checked on the tables.

This is _really_ lethal and unpredictable for unbalanced skills AND ime really gobbles up Reactions. In the thread above, Rurik suggests a non-tabular, better (again, imho) route which uses opposed rolls for the defender's result only (so it ends up being a little more understandable by the players viewpoint) BUT gives better results for the Defender, thus balancing the expensive Reactions.

Hope this helps!

 

[Puck]

It might be benificial for someone to place some of these combat options in the wiki. There are a lot of great optional rules on these boards that get lost in endless threads.

 

[gamesmeister]

In the thread above, Rurik suggests a non-tabular, better (again, imho) route which uses opposed rolls for the defender's result only (so it ends up being a little more understandable by the players viewpoint)

Hey, that suggestion was mine :!:

Ah well, back to anonymity... :wink:

 

[gamesmeister]

It might be benificial for someone to place some of these combat options in the wiki. There are a lot of great optional rules on these boards that get lost in endless threads.

Just added the latest proposal here

 

[Halfbat]

In the thread above, Rurik suggests a non-tabular, better (again, imho) route which uses opposed rolls for the defender's result only (so it ends up being a little more understandable by the players viewpoint)

Hey, that suggestion was mine :!:

My apologies... I hadn't realised it was yours first (I'd jus tbeen looking at teh final version of Ruriks!) ::Grovel grovel::

 

[Halfbat]

It might be benificial for someone to place some of these combat options in the wiki. There are a lot of great optional rules on these boards that get lost in endless threads.

Just added the latest proposal here

And well done - thanks.

 

[gamesmeister]

In the thread above, Rurik suggests a non-tabular, better (again, imho) route which uses opposed rolls for the defender's result only (so it ends up being a little more understandable by the players viewpoint)

Hey, that suggestion was mine :!:

My apologies... I hadn't realised it was yours first (I'd jus tbeen looking at teh final version of Ruriks!) ::Grovel grovel::

Lol, to be fair it was a team effort

 

[DigitalMage]

Thanks for the replies! A few follow up questions...

Basically, what you described is the two-roll approach which some players use. Combat is supposed to be single-roll.

Having read the player's update I believe it is now the intention that combat be a single opposed roll, but were the original rules written to include the two attack rolls as I described.

I often like to play according to the RAW in the physical book (I know the players update is meant to be the new official way but this relies on people knowing about it) so I am trying to understand the original rules as written.

Under the first Player's Guide release this was
<snip>
This has been altered in the latest release

I don't wish to sound rude but this sounds a complete mess. Every game has errata, but this isn't errata it is simply the designers changing their minds and then changing them again.

To be honest this is really putting me off trying to get into this game as if I go to a convention and play (or worse GM a game) I will need to ask which version of the rules are we using?
Rules per the printed book?
Rules per the first Player's Update?
Rules per the second Player's Update?

1.0, 1.1 or 1.2?

Also the post for the Player's Update states:
"These are 'official' changes, and will be included in all future printings."
Does this mean that new printings of the core rulebook will incorporate the 1.2 combat? If so I feel I would be best putting off buying the hardcopy until that new printing - unfortunately as I don't have a laptop to take my PDFs to the game table, this also means me putting off running the game

If the changes are incorporated into future printings I hope that the PDFs will be updated and those who have already bought them allowed to download the latest versions free of charge.

 

[Halfbat]

Basically, what you described is the two-roll approach which some players use. Combat is supposed to be single-roll.

Having read the player's update I believe it is now the intention that combat be a single opposed roll, but were the original rules written to include the two attack rolls as I described.

::shrugs:: You're welcome to you're opinion, all we can do is report what we were originally told in the first update which was issued to clarify this (not the second, and I can probably send it you if you wish). The RAW wording was, in effect, possibly clumsy and the example was wrong - it should have been a single declaration, then an opponent's declared Reaction on a hit, and the results compared on the table.

I often like to play according to the RAW in the physical book so I am trying to understand the original rules as written.

The RAW methods are:
1 The "one-roll" system (Attacker rolls, ona hit defender declares and rolls; results are compared). This is "book" RAW and confirmed as "official" RAW in the first player's update, with the example criticised.
2) Others use the "two-roll" system as they see the RAW. This can be seen as "book" RAW, too, following the example.
3) Others use the latest Player's Update Opposed roll system. (Not "book" RAW, but latest thinking).
4) Others use something completely different. (Not RAW)

If you want to go with the RAW, choose (1) or (2).

 

[DigitalMage]

::shrugs:: You're welcome to you're opinion, all we can do is report what we were originally told in the first update

Sorry I didn't mean to come across as agressive or pushy. I am just curious what the original intention was as the rules as written in the book seem to all hang together perfectly including the example - the mechanic they describe is just a little clumsy IMHO.

If the original intention was to have only a single attack roll and a single reaction roll then the author managed to make an exquisitely perfect mistake so that it the rules do not say what he wanted but neither do they contradict one another.

The RAW methods are:
1 The "one-roll" system (Attacker rolls, ona hit defender declares and rolls; results are compared). This is "book" RAW and confirmed as "official" RAW in the first player's update, with the example criticised.
2) Others use the "two-roll" system as they see the RAW. This can be seen as "book" RAW, too, following the example.

Now I can see that 1 is a good alternative rule and maybe the original intention, but I cannot see that it is the rules as written as the rules are quite explicit that two rolls are required. This is the bit I find puzzling.

I just feel like waiting until there is an updated printing and hopefully a PDF refresh so we have a RAW that looks and reads like number 1, above.