New campaign new questions

Space Coyote

Mongoose
Hi all,

I'm about to start a campaign with MRQ and there are a few things that I'd like to understand better before we begin play. You know, so that I don't have to wing it before my players! : :)

1) According to the updated parry table, a critical parry vs. a successful attack is actually worse than a successful parry with a higher roll vs. the same successful attack. The former means that the attack succeeds but damage is reduced by 2xAP, whereas the latter means that the attack fails. Am I missing something?

2) In GoC2 spirit spells are said to require 1 point of temporary POW to memorize. Does this mean that the spiritist must actually pay 1 point of POW to learn the spell (making it more costly than the equivalent rune magic) or that he just can't have more spells in memory than his POW (like INT for sorcerers)?

3) Also in GoC2, to obtain a spirit ally a shaman must defeat a spirit without resorting to spells. A practitioner can have one spirit ally, but since he has no way of attacking a spirit without spells, how can he obtain it?

4) How monsters with multiple attacks fit with the combat actions structure of the round? Do they get all their attacks every CA, or do they just get one additional attack as per the 2 weapons rule?

I'm sorry if there have been answers already posted but I tried to search the forum and didn't find them.

Cheers, Alex.
 
Space Coyote said:
1) According to the updated parry table, a critical parry vs. a successful attack is actually worse than a successful parry with a higher roll vs. the same successful attack. The former means that the attack succeeds but damage is reduced by 2xAP, whereas the latter means that the attack fails. Am I missing something?
Don't think so. This has been discussed and, hopefully, it's something that Loz and MS and the other powers are looking at. The opposed roll was, apparently, an option that made it in as a permament item. There's several threads on the subject (some really good, coming up with non-tabular solutions summarised on the MRQ Wiki).

My recommendation: ignore opposed rolls for combat and just read the results "as is". ::shrugs:: Others may say different.
 
I can't answer your first question any better than Halfbat already did so I won't.

2) Yes, basically the Dedicated Pow rule for Divine Magic from the Companion applies to Shaman's as well. Unfortunately this also reduces their Magic Points, which they need to cast spells (unlike Divine Magicians). It is far easier to just do what you say and rule that they can't have more spells in memory than POW.

3) Long ago there was extensive errata being worked on for the cults books. There has been no word on it recently. There are other parts of Shamanic magic that don't make sense you will run into. I think technically he could combat the spirit with an enchanted weapon to defeat it, but that is the only way I can see to 'defeat' a spirit without spells.

Note that the author of the Cults books has admitted that much of the rules were originally written with the assumption that spirit combat and spellcasting were more similiar to the earlier versions of RQ than they ended up being and many editorial changes were made at the last minute to make the original manuscript rules 'fit' into the new system. The result has not been pretty. Hence the (hopefully still alive) errata.

4. There is no official rule on this, though there were extensive discussions a while back (I think even a poll). Personally I give one bonus CA per additional attack over the main attack (so a creature with 3 attacks would get 2 bonus CA's for attacks). Others just give 1 bonus CA regardless of number off attacks.

A related house rule to #4 I use is to base the Strike Rank for creatures with a fixed number INT on DEX alone rather than the average of DEX and INT. Wild animals, such as lions, are slower than even average humans as their DEX has to be averaged with thier low INT to determine Strike Rank.

I hope this all helps. Welcome to the board and good luck on your campaign.
 
Halfbat said:
My recommendation: ignore opposed rolls for combat and just read the results "as is". ::shrugs:: Others may say different.

But it seems to me that MRQ is moving away from the simple roll style of BRP and more into the opposed roll system. So it would be more consistent to do the opposite, even if opposed rolls using d00s are a bit awkward (better to use a d20, like in Pendragon -- now here's a thought).

Anyway, using the table as is does not make combat a little too much in favor of the attacker? On a "both succeed" the damage is either reduced by the (rather low) weapon's AP, or the damage is the minimum for the weapon, but with a giant's damage bonus minimum weapon damage is still a lot of damage.

I was thinking in doubling the weapons' AP anyway (up to their HP), and adding the RQ3 rule that a when damage exceeds the parrying weapon's AP it loses 1 HP.

While we are at it, another question: I suppose that when something in the main rulebook is said to modify the runecasting skill (i.e., armor, integration of magic rune) it also modifies other spellcasting skills introduced in the latter rulebooks?

Cheers, Alex.
 
Space Coyote said:
While we are at it, another question: I suppose that when something in the main rulebook is said to modify the runecasting skill (i.e., armor, integration of magic rune) it also modifies other spellcasting skills introduced in the latter rulebooks?
Mostly, yes. It says so in the descriptions, though it isn't clear. Look at the bottom of p11 and p24 in the Companion.
 
I usually minimize the DM on a successful dodge, too. And since weapon damages are rather low in MRQ, even a mere 4 pts will turn a crippling blow into a mere wound. You just have to avoid parrying a halberd with anything but a shield...

Going back to RQ3 for parry rules is not the best idea. That system had flaws, too, and making mixes is a common idea, but in the end it does not yeld great results. If you like RQ3 just play it as it is. I still do, for instance.

Most negative modifiers apply to other casting skills, too (obscured target, etc.). But not all.

Also, please post your contact information on nearbygamers.com. There are plenty of BRP players in Prax ...ehm, Italy, but each group does not know of each other, with detrimental effects on the fandom.
 
Halfbat's (well founded) reservations are based on the math behind opposed rolls. It does not take a big difference in skills to result in a big difference in odds with opposed rolls.

The following two examples have criticals removed from the calculation for simplicity's sake - they affect the odds in only a minor way.

Skill 60% vs Skill 40%:

60 Skill wins 52% of the time.
40 Skill wins 24% of the time.
Both Fail roll 24% of the time.

Skill 75% vs. Skill 50%:

75 Skill wins 62.5% of the time.
50 Skill wins 25% of the time.
Both Fail roll 12.5% of the time.

In both cases the higher skill as over twice as great a chance of winning even theough the skill is not that much more.

The above odds are for a Winner Take All contest (which is how the Combat Update works) - there is no difference between failing your roll outright or rolling under your skill but losing the opposed roll.

Using the option on the Wiki there is a distintion between between making your skill check but losing the opposed roll and missing your skill check outright, so the defender gets some benefit as long as he makes his roll.

Skill 60% vs Skill 40%:

60 Skill wins and 52% of the time.
...Wins outright: 36%
...Wins opposed: 16%
40 Skill wins 24% of the time.
...Wins outright: 16%
...Wins opposed: 8%
Both Fail roll 24% of the time.
 
Rurik said:
Halfbat's (well founded) reservations are based on the math behind opposed rolls. It does not take a big difference in skills to result in a big difference in odds with opposed rolls.

You have both almost convinced me, but I'm still a bit torn on this. Opposed rolls are the mechanic which differentiate the most this edition of RQ from the previous ones, and is a mechanic I usually like. But I see why it can be a little odd in practice (even though I don't think the number of dice thrown in a session is big enough to approach statistical significance).

The way it has been implemented in MRQ is a bit too clean-cut perhaps. So if I were to ditch it I would do something like this:

1) Skill over 100% (from RQ2): the amount a skill is over 100 is a penalty to the other skill. If both are over 100, the penalty to the lesser skill is given by the difference between the two.

2) Partial Success: if both succeeds then both have obtained a partial success. Example: a character hiding from a guard is not spotted, but the guard understands there's something in the shadows. If a clear cut result is needed, the one who succeeds with the highest margin is the winner.

3) Combat: use the parrying table as is, as for the dodge table crit vs. crit and success vs. success becomes "defender gives ground". IF the defender can't move his full move away, THEN attack causes minimum damage (because a) otherwise not being able to give ground entails nothing and b) I like the image of the cornered boxer).

Comments?

RosenMcStern said:
weapon damages are rather low in MRQ, even a mere 4 pts will turn a crippling blow into a mere wound.

True, I won't modify AP. As for why I will play MQR and not RQ3, well, I want to love this game! (Heard it before? ;) )

Cheers, Alex.
 
Space Coyote said:
You have both almost convinced me, but I'm still a bit torn on this. Opposed rolls are the mechanic which differentiate the most this edition of RQ from the previous ones, and is a mechanic I usually like.
As Rurik was saying, the combat opposed roll mechanic is different from the normal opposed roll mechanic, so we're still talking two different mechanics. Just be aware that, combat is a ...
Rurik said:
Winner Take All contest [...] - there is no difference between failing your roll outright or rolling under your skill but losing the opposed roll.
The math in such a contest is _really_ harsh, as Rurik said. Never mind the oddity you (and others) saw.

As for partial successes vs partial success vs full success, I get the feeling that's how many are playing it - the guard feels uncomfortable, perhaps in two minds as to whether or not to call his sergeant or issue a challenge in case it's nothing but a rabbit. It can lead to some interestign role-playing opportunities, such as how to calm the guard, for instance. I'm not so sure about downgrading both to a "partial success" as I'm not too sure what is meant - the "not spotted" sounds like a good success to me :D.

Have fun, though - with minor tweaks it's a good system.
 
The way I'm playing opposed rolls is that there are 5 results.
If you succeed at your test and you win the contest then you score either a critical or normal success. These are the two "winning" results.
If you succeed at your test but lose the contest then you score a "partial" success. This is a losing result.
If you fail or fumble the test then you cannot win the contest. These are losing results.

This means that you can have both testers fail in which case nothing much happens.

You can have both make their test in which case you have a winner with a critical or normal success vs a loser with a partial success. (The way I play it, even if the loser rolled a critical, it ends up as a partial success).

Or one can succeed and one can fail.

The advantage of this is that you don't need matrices or cross checks, all you need to know is the result of your test. You can also use it for all opposed tests. I find it quite intuitive and relatively easy to play.
 
Back
Top