MRQ Combat - 'By the book' or 'According to Mr. Sprange'

[Adept]

Wait, I'm wrong... you do have to roll and can miss. Therefore, you have to roll twice. My bad.

Hmm... roll the attack. If it succeeds, choose to react. Use the tables. Hmm, this is pretty much how we used to play RQ3, when I used to let my outnumbered players know who'd hit them before they decided who to parry. I still don't see what the arguments were about, unless everyone else had been as stupid as me...

I would hate that. Game mechanics should let you react to things and make decisions like you would in real life. You don't wait to judge if the axe wielding maniac is going to hit, before deciding to dodge. You see an attack coming, you do your best to defend yourself. The other way lies madness, and it definitely doesn't enhance the gaming experience.

Player
"Does he hit?"

GM
*roll* "yup"

Player
"Ok, I guess I'll dodge"

***

Really exiting

The fact that there is a reaction matrix where a good defence vs. bad attack can give an advantage to the defender makes it sound like you always roll a defense. That seems to be the only thing that makes sense.

 

[King Amenjar]

I would hate [only parrying or dodging a hit]. Game mechanics should let you react to things and make decisions like you would in real life. You don't wait to judge if the axe wielding maniac is going to hit, before deciding to dodge. You see an attack coming, you do your best to defend yourself. The other way lies madness, and it definitely doesn't enhance the gaming experience.

Player
"Does he hit?"

GM
*roll* "yup"

Player
"Ok, I guess I'll dodge"

***

Really exiting

The fact that there is a reaction matrix where a good defence vs. bad attack can give an advantage to the defender makes it sound like you always roll a defense. That seems to be the only thing that makes sense.

Only if you do view the initial roll in old RQ terms as a "hit" or a "miss" resulting from a swing of a weapon. If we view it instead as an opening, a potential blow rather than a weapon already in motion, it all looks different. The reason why we view an attack roll as a blow is buried deep in the early history of RPGs, but it doesn't have to be viewed that way in all systems.

 

[Alloppo]

I suspect everyone will play this differently. I think that the book works better than the 'official' explanation. I think in my campaign I will run with the book with this adjustment: When it comes to the opposed roll, if either, or both combatants is > 100%,whoever has the highest % chooses whether to half the skills or not. This spurious but sneaky fix makes it worthwhile building up combat > 100%.

 

[Enpeze]

Wait, I'm wrong... you do have to roll and can miss. Therefore, you have to roll twice. My bad.

Hmm... roll the attack. If it succeeds, choose to react. Use the tables. Hmm, this is pretty much how we used to play RQ3, when I used to let my outnumbered players know who'd hit them before they decided who to parry. I still don't see what the arguments were about, unless everyone else had been as stupid as me...

I would hate that. Game mechanics should let you react to things and make decisions like you would in real life. You don't wait to judge if the axe wielding maniac is going to hit, before deciding to dodge. You see an attack coming, you do your best to defend yourself. The other way lies madness, and it definitely doesn't enhance the gaming experience.

Player
"Does he hit?"

GM
*roll* "yup"

Player
"Ok, I guess I'll dodge"

***

Really exiting

The fact that there is a reaction matrix where a good defence vs. bad attack can give an advantage to the defender makes it sound like you always roll a defense. That seems to be the only thing that makes sense.

Maybe it comes down to the individual description. If you look at a combat as one action which comes very close after the other action, you can describe it as such.

So a reaction which is only made if the enemy scored a hit has actually the feeling of a real reaction and not as a simultaneous action. Additionally it enhances the survivability of a person which is attacked by multiple enemies.

But of course you can play this the other way round too. In some situations I would see it as quite interesting to do simultaneous reactions. Maybe I will try it in one of my next games.

 

[King Amenjar]

I suspect everyone will play this differently. I think that the book works better than the 'official' explanation. I think in my campaign I will run with the book with this adjustment: When it comes to the opposed roll, if either, or both combatants is > 100%,whoever has the highest % chooses whether to half the skills or not. This spurious but sneaky fix makes it worthwhile building up combat > 100%.

Surely, though, it never will be? If your skill is higher, then halving will impose on you a greater reduction than on your opponent.

 

[Archer]

Did anyone else notice that the sticky to clear up the combat confusion is gone?

 

[MongooseMatt]

Did anyone else notice that the sticky to clear up the combat confusion is gone?

To be replaced very soon with a swanky PDF that covers the points raised in the clarification, plus some other questions that have popped up here!

 

[burdock]

Archer wrote

Did anyone else notice that the sticky to clear up the combat confusion is gone?

Yea I saw that too....I'm wondering if some kind of official errata page is brewing...?

 

[Archer]

Did anyone else notice that the sticky to clear up the combat confusion is gone?

To be replaced very soon with a swanky PDF that covers the points raised in the clarification, plus some other questions that have popped up here!

Nice!
Thank you very much for that.

 

[AikiGhost]

Hi folks,

I just wanted to pose the question:

How do you intend to play out your combats in Mongoose's Runequest ?

Using the Stormbringer rules. The MRQ resisted attack vs defence looked up on a fucking chart is the dumbest thing in the whole book. Whoever came up with this mechanic out to be taken out back and put out of their misery.

Why spend time and effort removing the resistance table only to introduce another set of tables which will be used far more often? Streamlining my ass.

I also wont be using the over 100% skill halving mechanic either.

 

[andakitty]

Ditto here. I can't see running this as it is written. Some of it mixed with SB might work well. I'm afraid I can't help looking at MRQ as sort of a BRP sourcebook. I'm cringing at the combat charts and trying to understand how skills only are supposed to replace the statistic rolls in SB, particularly the resistance table. Maybe its just me, being inflexible.

 

[Halfbat]

Honestly, I'm not planning to run it all. I'll just go along with the GM's interpretation, if I'm lucky enough to find a game.

Anywhere near Stonehenge?

 

[andakitty]

An ocean and a continent away. Why?

 

[Halfbat]

An ocean and a continent away. Why?

Bang goes that offer of a game, then! :wink:

 

[Harshlax]

Hi, I have been following the discussions on MRQ combat and "think" I have worked out why there is an set of combat results for failed attack role when the defender is not required to respond to an attack faliure.

If you have weapon masters in combat and one fails his attack roll, the defending master may choose to roll a parry or dodge in an effort to get a riposte. Even if they merely get a success, a parrying defender has a good chance of stopping almost all the damage or even the total rolled damage with 2*Weapon AP plus armour.

This could lead to a very brief combat if a weapon master (skill 100+) is fighting an ordinary warrior with the master getting attacks in on some of his opponents actions as well as his own, pummelling him into the ground - very brutal!

What do people think or am I totally off base?

Psychman

 

[bluejay]

Psychman, I think that's a nice idea but the stats don't seem to back it up. Matt mentioned this was a reason that a defender might wish to parry a missed attack but the chance for a riposte are so tiny that the actual chance of being hurt far outweighs it.

You can put some figures into my calculator and compare the differences between when an attacker chooses to defend misses or not.

Anyway, the official line now (from the PDF) is that a defender cannot parry or dodge a miss.

 

[Harshlax]

I see what you mean, but the pdf does suggest they have something in mind to be going into the combat rules, possible to do with very high skill levels. Maybe in the Legendary Adventures book?

the other aspect of my thought was that with 2*AP coming off damage there may not be much damage, if any at all. For example, the war sword does 1d8 damage before strength bonus, and 2*AP would give a reduction of 8pts of damage, totally negating the damage roll! Of course, you would have to consider tactics if you're going up against a more powerful weapon, and taking on a great axe with a dagger may not be the wisest idea but...

We will have to see what further books have to say on the subject as they come out, I guess. Unless Matt can drop a few hints... :wink:

 

[MongooseMatt]

the other aspect of my thought was that with 2*AP coming off damage there may not be much damage, if any at all. For example, the war sword does 1d8 damage before strength bonus, and 2*AP would give a reduction of 8pts of damage, totally negating the damage roll!

If you think about it, this is not a problem - it means you have caught the blow on your blade, and you have successfully parried the blow. . .

 

[Alloppo]

Surely, though, it never will be? If your skill is higher, then halving will impose on you a greater reduction than on your opponent.

If I am attacking at 190% and my opponent is dodging at 100% I will half.

 

[King Amenjar]

the other aspect of my thought was that with 2*AP coming off damage there may not be much damage, if any at all. For example, the war sword does 1d8 damage before strength bonus, and 2*AP would give a reduction of 8pts of damage, totally negating the damage roll! Of course, you would have to consider tactics if you're going up against a more powerful weapon, and taking on a great axe with a dagger may not be the wisest idea but...

According to the equipment lists, a dagger has 4AP just like a sword does. It's parrying with a hafted weapon like an axe that is to be avoided.