Max-out skills at 100%?

[Banned Beetle]

Should Harrek, Jar-eel, and Argrath have their skills maxed at 100?

I don't play HeroQuest, and don't set my players against characters like that, so it's not really that relevant. Skills significantly above hundred (excepting weapon skills) have been absent from my campaigns. The few times they've gone heroquesting none of the bonuses was ekstra skill.

Also, I expect you will run into published stats in the future with skills over 100.

Yes, and I'll run into legendary abilities too. Deleting it isn't very hard.

Trif.

 

[atgxtg]

Fortunately I was using rules that work well for characters at over 100% skill. In the Elric rules you can start out with a skill over 100% and the game works very smoothly for skill levels approaching 200% without any extra dice rolling or complex mathematics.

Remind me again how Elric does it - I haven't played that in a very long time (and in fact only ever played the original Stormbringer rules)

Elric/Stormbringer (ironic choice, as Strombringer was the first Chaosium d100 game to cap skills at 100%), works well with skills over 100% for several reasons:

1) It offset penalties (as in MRQ)
2) Increased critical chances (not alway allpicable in MRQ)
3) Multiple Parries* Strombringer used to allow mutiple parries and ripostes, but with an increasing peanlty to the skill.
4) THe old Critical beats a non\crit rule.
5) Reduced chance to fumble as skill improved


THe problem with capping skills at 100% is that 100% does not represent perfection in RQ based games. In MRQ that is something like 1000% (no chance to fumble or fail). Many of the difficulties presneted are based on the expectations that skills will improve. For example, in real life there are guys who can shoot a bullet to get it to split and hit two balloons-consistently.

The 100% score also doesn't reflect the effect of a skill being opposed. So a 100% doesn't reflect a guarenteed success when opposed by any skill score. A guy with a 100% listen would certainyl hear a foe sneaking past at 50% skill if 100% were the best one could get with a skill.

An9other problem with capping is that it will make magic much, much more of a factor in the outcome of the battles. Basically, someone with the ability to go over 100% will have a big advantage against those who are limited at 100%. I thi9nk the end result would be that all your players would start learning more magic once they capped out the skill.

IF you decide to cap skills at 100%, I'd suggest that you reduce the skill penalties (Say half or one third) and reduce the experience that the various backgrounds and professions give by half, just ot keep people from "capping out" some skills after a month or two of play. I7d also suggest adjust the critical range, and possibly even reintroducing the Special success in order to help the higher skill scores maintain an advantage. You would also have to take another look at the various modfiers listed in the game, and probably reduce them to keep skill more important than circumstance.

You might want to look at games like an early edition of Stormbringer or Harn for some ideas. Both capped off skills (Strombringer at 100%, Harn at at little higher).

 

[Banesfinger]

Should Harrek, Jar-eel, and Argrath have their skills maxed at 100?

Using my suggestions (posted above), this would not be a problem:

For example, say Jar-eel has a sword skill of 182%, and he faces an opponent with only 76% weapons skill.

Jar-eel would still have 100% chance to hit (you can't do better than that), and he still has 18% chance to critical. Opposed rolls would be 100% vs. 76%.

Now if there were penalty modifiers (-40%), Jar-eel would still have 100% chance to hit, however, his opponent would now be down to 36% chance to hit.

However, if there were a bonus (+10%) instead, Jar-eel is maxed-out at 100% and his opponent goes up to 86%

I guess a BIG question, which could be a seperate post from this one, would be:

Should we base critical chance (10%) from skill alone (as the rules state) or base it on skill + modifiers?

Using a real-life example, do you think your chances of crit'ing an opponent with a bow would increase if he moved from 100-feet away, down to 5-feet away?

 

[Banned Beetle]

I wouldn't cap weapon skills, as I'll bring down the number of CA to RQ3 level, and will allow splitting the attack & parries.

For the other skills, 100% doesn't represent perfection, but then again, no players will be at 1000% following the rules. Not at 120% either, if you use the skill check system.

Trif.

 

[atgxtg]

Should Harrek, Jar-eel, and Argrath have their skills maxed at 100?

Using my suggestions (posted above), this would not be a problem:

For example, say Jar-eel has a sword skill of 182%, and he faces an opponent with only 76% weapons skill.

Jar-eel would still have 100% chance to hit (you can't do better than that), and he still has 18% chance to critical. Opposed rolls would be 100% vs. 76%.

Now if there were penalty modifiers (-40%), Jar-eel would still have 100% chance to hit, however, his opponent would now be down to 36% chance to hit.

However, if there were a bonus (+10%) instead, Jar-eel is maxed-out at 100% and his opponent goes up to 86%

As far as actual to hit chances in the game goes, this is sort of how MRQ works now, as far as combat goes. The problmes I have with it are*

1) Jar-ell is a she, not a he.
2) According to the setting, Jar-ell could eaay dispatch a vertan soldier (the 76%). Glorantha is a Heroic, Mythic setting, not a histoical one. Heroes routinely do incredible feats, and the rules need to allow for this to reflect the setting. Capping someone like Harrek off at 100% is going to raise the question as to why someone hasn't manage to kill the homicidal maniac yet. A decent weapon thane or Rune Lord would stand a fair chance. Heck, even a pair of 60% would stand a fair chance. It doesn't work that way in Glorantha.
3) If you cap the skill at 100%, are't you capping the critical chance too? THat would mean a max critical chance of 10%.SO I don't know where the 18% critical chance would come from. The 18% is how the game works now.

I guess a BIG question, which could be a seperate post from this one, would be:

Should we base critical chance (10%) from skill alone (as the rules state) or base it on skill + modifiers?

Using a real-life example, do you think your chances of crit'ing an opponent with a bow would increase if he moved from 100-feet away, down to 5-feet away?

In real life, certainly. Shooting somene through the eye is a lot tougher at 1100 feet then at 10 feet. RQ used to base the critc chance on success chance. I think MRQ bases it on skill alone just for faster math=the same reason why the special success are gone.

 

[Banesfinger]

Jar-ell is a she, not a he.

My bad. Sorry, not familiar with the Glorantha setting

According to the setting, Jar-ell could eaay dispatch a vertan soldier (the 76%). Heroes routinely do incredible feats, and the rules need to allow for this to reflect the setting. Capping someone like Harrek off at 100% is going to raise the question as to why someone hasn't manage to kill the homicidal maniac yet. A decent weapon thane or Rune Lord would stand a fair chance. Heck, even a pair of 60% would stand a fair chance.

Perhaps I miss understand the current rules? How is this (currently) possible?
If Jar-ell has 182% weapon skill vs. a pair of 60% opponents, doesn't she still only hit 100% of the time?
If I am correct (?), isn't the parry/dodge chart a success or failure result (unlike an opposed test where there must be a clear winner).
Thus, even if Jar-ell succeeds in her attack, her high skill has NO bearing on the chances of an opponent dodging her blow? (Unlike an opposed test where whomever got the better result wins...)

For example, if Jar-ell hits with her weapon, the opponent succeeds with his parry (nobody crits) - it is considerd "parried".
However, if you used "true" opposed rolls, both successes would be compared and only the higher die roll would succeed. Correct?

In real life, certainly. ...I think MRQ bases it on skill alone just for faster math.

OK, I'll buy that!

 

[atgxtg]

Perhaps I miss understand the current rules? How is this (currently) possible?
If Jar-ell has 182% weapon skill vs. a pair of 60% opponents, doesn't she still only hit 100% of the time?
If I am correct (?), isn't the parry/dodge chart a success or failure result (unlike an opposed test where there must be a clear winner).
Thus, even if Jar-ell succeeds in her attack, her high skill has NO bearing on the chances of an opponent dodging her blow? (Unlike an opposed test where whomever got the better result wins...)

For example, if Jar-ell hits with her weapon, the opponent succeeds with his parry (nobody crits) - it is considerd "parried".
However, if you used "true" opposed rolls, both successes would be compared and only the higher die roll would succeed. Correct?

Yes and no. There are a few things about a 182% skill that are significant, mostly in the critical hit and bypass armor stuff- especially since parries and dodges don't completely stop attack in MRQ.

First off, Jar-eel probably has an even higher skill than 182%. That mean't a lot more in RQ, but in MRQ terms, someone with 182% not only has a 18% critical chance, but could do a bypass armor attack (-75%) as practically a freebie.

Now, even if the 76% guy parries, that doesn't necessarily stop the attack, but just allows him to get AP protection from a parrying weapon or shield. Most weapons do more damage that are stopped with a parry, so the 182%er is going to whittle down the 76% foe. If the 182% character knows a damage enhaancing spell, even something moderate like, say, Bladesharp 3 (pretty much a given for such a high skill in a Gloranthan campaign), they will be getting a nice 4 points or so of extra damage through the armor.

With someone like Jar-eel or Harrek, it gets even worse, as such Heroic types have magical enhancements that mean that they will be inflicting a lot more damage that usual. Harrek's minimum damage is probably bad enough to waste an average adventurer who successfully dodges.

 

[Banesfinger]

There are a few things about a 182% skill that are significant, mostly in the critical hit and bypass armor stuff

I agree that crits affect hits. But as I suggested previously, crits are calculated on the full score, and not topped-out.

someone with 182% not only has a 18% critical chance, but could do a bypass armor attack (-75%) as practically a freebie.

I thought bypass armour was a precise attack at -40% ?

Now, even if the 76% guy parries, that doesn't necessarily stop the attack, but just allows him to get AP protection from a parrying weapon or shield. Most weapons do more damage that are stopped with a parry, so the 182%er is going to whittle down the 76% foe.

Only in the case of criticals, is damage relevant. Since damage is not tied to your attack/parry chance, it applies to both attacker and defender equally (and should not be considered in this argument).

If the character knows a damage enhaancing spell...

Magic, special weapons, cult abilities, and even legendary abilities are not directly tied to weapon/skill scores. Thus these optional enhancements cannot be determined with any amount of certanty - and should not be considered in the argument.

I think the higher skill (to remove penalties) as well as higher chance for criticals, gives those with over 100% skill scores a significant edge.

 

[atgxtg]

Oops, sorry about the -75%. I've been working with a different RPG recently and mixed my math.

The main benefits of high skill in MRQ are the increased critical chances, and ability to take more penalties. The critical would prove very telling in getting damage past successful defenses. Skill meant a bit more in RQ, with split attack and special sucesses.

I'm a bit confused though, if you intend to cap the skill at 100%, how would someone get a 18% critical chance? Wouldn't the skill stop at 100, so the crit stop at 10%?

 

[Banesfinger]

I'm a bit confused though, if you intend to cap the skill at 100%, how would someone get a 18% critical chance? Wouldn't the skill stop at 100, so the crit stop at 10%?

Well, all the great advice on this thread is slowly convincing me to go back to the original MRQ rules.

Initially, I thought to cap out the skills at 100%, to avoid problematic opposed rolls over 100.
Then, with all the modifieres that put that over 100, I realized that would not work anyway.

Then, as an alternative, I suggested using the current rules (allowing skills > 100, thus allowing crits over 10%), but limiting any opposed rolls to a maximum of 100 (after modifiers).

I'm not sure this second solution would really work?

It would avoid the current (or house) rules for opposed skills over 100%.
Only criticals would be the decisive factor if two or more people had opposed rolls over 100%.
For example arm wrestling with 120% vs. 190%. Both would have 100% (max-limit) chance of success. Using the Crit > Success > Fail > Fumble rules, the difference would be 12% crit vs. 19% crit.
Gee.....only a 7% difference for a whole 70% better skill does not seem fair....

I may just stay with some of the house rules introduced on the MRQ wiki.

 

[Banned Beetle]

I'm a bit confused though, if you intend to cap the skill at 100%, how would someone get a 18% critical chance? Wouldn't the skill stop at 100, so the crit stop at 10%?

Well, all the great advice on this thread is slowly convincing me to go back to the original MRQ rules.

Initially, I thought to cap out the skills at 100%, to avoid problematic opposed rolls over 100.
Then, with all the modifieres that put that over 100, I realized that would not work anyway.

Then, as an alternative, I suggested using the current rules (allowing skills > 100, thus allowing crits over 10%), but limiting any opposed rolls to a maximum of 100 (after modifiers).

I'm not sure this second solution would really work?

It would avoid the current (or house) rules for opposed skills over 100%.
Only criticals would be the decisive factor if two or more people had opposed rolls over 100%.
For example arm wrestling with 120% vs. 190%. Both would have 100% (max-limit) chance of success. Using the Crit > Success > Fail > Fumble rules, the difference would be 12% crit vs. 19% crit.
Gee.....only a 7% difference for a whole 70% better skill does not seem fair....

I may just stay with some of the house rules introduced on the MRQ wiki.

I still like the idea. It can't be used with weapon skills, but they are not used used in opposed rolls. If you exclude the weapon skills, not many other skills have modifiers bringing them over 100%. Capping it at 100% should give some benefit when you reach this stage though, giving some bonuses for having mastered the skill. With the skill check system, reaching 100% will be a very hard ordeal. Using the MRQ official experience system will make it a more common affair, and then this method would probably not be appropriate.

Trif.

 

[Adept]

What possible problems could I face if I made a set of house rules to max-out skills at 100%?

Make skill progression slow.

I play in a game like that (and I _like_ it), and one where the top is 100+stat modifier (absolute max 120).

In both those games (based on Hârnmaster) you get a skill check when you critical the skill (rollin a number divisable by five, and under your skill. 5, 10, 15...).

You then check with a d100. If you roll more than your skill (add modifier for the latter game with max at 120), your skill goes up 1%. At highest levels (say you have a sword skill of 111%, the GM should only grant you the check when you face another master and can actually learn something new).

This works great if the character creation comes up with competent characters, and skills don't start out at 19%, or something like that.

In Hârnmaster it goes something like this:

skill
30%+ absolute beginner
50%+ "average skill" soldier, worker...
60%+ skilled professional
70%+ elites, knights, master smith...
80%+ weapon trainer
90%+ famous/legendary skill


A good rule is to roll normally in a chrisis situation, and at +40 for everyday, run-of-the-mill type cituations that need a roll. That way a skill 60 guy will never mess up in the normal run of things, and will feel like a proper skilled professional.

 

[atgxtg]

Initially, I thought to cap out the skills at 100%, to avoid problematic opposed rolls over 100.
Then, with all the modifieres that put that over 100, I realized that would not work anyway.

Then, as an alternative, I suggested using the current rules (allowing skills > 100, thus allowing crits over 10%), but limiting any opposed rolls to a maximum of 100 (after modifiers).

I'm not sure this second solution would really work?

It would avoid the current (or house) rules for opposed skills over 100%.
Only criticals would be the decisive factor if two or more people had opposed rolls over 100%.
For example arm wrestling with 120% vs. 190%. Both would have 100% (max-limit) chance of success. Using the Crit > Success > Fail > Fumble rules, the difference would be 12% crit vs. 19% crit.
Gee.....only a 7% difference for a whole 70% better skill does not seem fair....

I may just stay with some of the house rules introduced on the MRQ wiki.

Offically, there are not criticals in opposed rolls. Not that critcs are't a good option.

Personally, I favor a degree of success system instead of an opposed resolution. I think it handles things better, but it does require a bit more math and some people don't like that.

A critical rule for opposed rolls, combined with something like a bump up for high skills (and Hero Points) ala HeroQuest might do the trick too.

You could also opt to handle things the way RQ2 or RQ3 did. Both systems did have special notes for handling skills over 100% if you are looking for an alternative to halving.

 

[simonh]

Personally, I favor a degree of success system instead of an opposed resolution. I think it handles things better, but it does require a bit more math and some people don't like that.

Not unnecessarily, see the suggested rules mod on my site.

 

[gamesmeister]

Then, as an alternative, I suggested using the current rules (allowing skills > 100, thus allowing crits over 10%), but limiting any opposed rolls to a maximum of 100 (after modifiers).

I'm not sure this second solution would really work?

It would avoid the current (or house) rules for opposed skills over 100%.
Only criticals would be the decisive factor if two or more people had opposed rolls over 100%.
For example arm wrestling with 120% vs. 190%. Both would have 100% (max-limit) chance of success. Using the Crit > Success > Fail > Fumble rules, the difference would be 12% crit vs. 19% crit.
Gee.....only a 7% difference for a whole 70% better skill does not seem fair....

I may just stay with some of the house rules introduced on the MRQ wiki.

No no no, don't lose sight of the positives.

There are two conflicting currents going on in this thread. The first is capping skills at 100% i.e. your skill can never go above 100% regardless of any modifiers. It was almost immediately established that a 100% cap didn't work, so continual posts referring back to it are just red herrings. Jar-Eel will still have her 183% sword skill (or whatever it actually is).

The suggestion remaining on the table is that after taking into account all modifiers, and calculating the critical range based on the final modified skill, any skill over 100% is considered to be 100% for the purposes of opposed rolls.

This is already the case with combat - if Jar-Eel (183%) attacks with a precise attack (-40%) in poor light (-20%), she has a modified total of 123%, and her critical range is therefore 12%. That's how the rules work right now. All we're doing here is extending this approach to opposed rolls.

You're arm wrestling example is not a great example, because there aren't very many bonus/penalties that can apply in that situation. It's also difficult to envisage how someone can be 190% in arm wrestling, which is generally a straightfoward test of brute strength. Is that person significantly stronger than the other person? Presumably not, as strength is represented by the STR characteristic, which is not part of this equation. However, you say that a 7% advantage is not fair for a 70% skill increase - I say it is. Progress above 100% should not be seen as a linear progression - each 1% gained adds less and less to your effective skill. After all, we are talking about true masters of a skill here, who spend hour after hour, day after day, honing their skills to receive the tiniest of benefits - this is as true in real life as it is in Glorantha.

The benefit of having a high skill comes not just from the greater crit range, but also from having the experience and knowledge to deal with unusual situations or times of adversity. Let's say I'm a master tight rope walker, with Acrobatics of 100%. Under normal conditions I can walk across a tight rope as though it were solid ground. However, I want to be able to do this even in windy conditions (-20%), so I practice day after day and eventually get my skill up to 120%, which allows me to offset the wind penalty. Am I any better under normal conditions? No, I'll still succeed 19 times out of 20, I'm just better prepared for poor conditions. Expanding on your earlier example, two tight rope walkers, one at 120% and one at 190%, will usually both succeed in walking across the rope under normal conditions. If it's a contest to see who does it 'best', the more skilled one is more likely to win (7% more likely), but all that experience he has walking across slippery tightropes in the middle of the night during a hurricane count for nothing under normal conditions.

 

[Banesfinger]

This is already the case with combat - if Jar-Eel (183%) attacks with a precise attack (-40%) in poor light (-20%), she has a modified total of 123%, and her critical range is therefore 12%. That's how the rules work right now.

Can you point that out in the rules?
I can only find this quote (from the SRD, bolding is mine): "A critical score is the Weapon skill’s score, divided by ten, rounded down."

I would assume (in your example, above), from the stated rules, that she would have an 18% chance to crit, regardless of modifiers.

However, I agree that crits should be based on Skill + Mod.
I also agree with your post, gamesmeister.

 

[Rurik]

This is already the case with combat - if Jar-Eel (183%) attacks with a precise attack (-40%) in poor light (-20%), she has a modified total of 123%, and her critical range is therefore 12%. That's how the rules work right now.

Can you point that out in the rules?
I can only find this quote (from the SRD, bolding is mine): "A critical score is the Weapon skill’s score, divided by ten, rounded down."

I would assume (in your example, above), from the stated rules, that she would have an 18% chance to crit, regardless of modifiers.

However, I agree that crits should be based on Skill + Mod.
I also agree with your post, gamesmeister.

It does not directly say that crits are based on the modified skill but there are two (that I can think of) supporting pieces of 'evidence' that can be found.

First is that modifiers are made to the Skill Score, not the roll. +20 is +20 to your skill for purposes of rolling, so it would follow that it modifies your crit chance.

Second, Magic of Glorantha states that your chance of rolling a critical when using Draconic Mysticism is based on your unmodified skill, rather than your modified skill like other tests.

 

[atgxtg]

Quick rule claification-

Combat rooles are not opposed, so the examples with 183% skill and what not don't apply. In those cases you just cross index the result of the unopposed rolls (Critical, Success, Failure, Fumble) on the combat matrix.

Opposed rolls would be things like sneaking past a guard or a singing contest.

THis is something that Matt had to address a while back in the FAQ. And yeah, the book indicates otherwise. But the "two roll combat issue" is a whole different topic.


You know something, if we swiped a little from HeroQuest, we could modify the combat matrix to apply to all contests. Just give each character a turn to "attack" and "defend" and count the results towards a victory total. We could even use this for extended contests based on skill, or maybe just set a goal in points and allow players to bid on thier skill scores for the contest. It would work fairly easily, and higher skilled characters would benefit from both a higher critical chance, and more skill points to risk.

 

[atgxtg]

Personally, I favor a degree of success system instead of an opposed resolution. I think it handles things better, but it does require a bit more math and some people don't like that.

Not unnecessarily, see the suggested rules mod on my site.

Yeah, I've seen you rules. The whole "too much math" thing is all subjective. Some people seem to dislike some things that I find very easy to incorporate (like a half or less rule). Me, I like some sort of degree of success rule, and there are several ways to get one (half/quarter skill, or amount rolls below sucess chance, or reading the tens digit, etc).. Others want a quick succeed-fail roll.

 

[Banesfinger]

...we could modify the combat matrix to apply to all contests. Just give each character a turn to "attack" and "defend" and count the results towards a victory total. We could even use this for extended contests based on skill, or maybe just set a goal in points and allow players to bid on thier skill scores for the contest.

Wow
Best idea I have seen on these boards!