Opposed Combat Rolls...

[iamtim]

Here's an idea I've been tossing about lately. But first, let me digress.

I don't use the much-debated halving rule. When making opposed checks, I just have everyone make d100 rolls against their full skill amount with crits>successes>failures>fumbles. If both succeed, the character who has the greatest margin between their roll and their skill level wins.

So in the interest of a unified mechanic, what about making combat run the same way? Instead of rolling an attack, rolling a defense, and looking it up on the combat chart, just make it an opposed check? It would create interesting results where it came down to whoever rolled the lowest under their skill if both attack and defense were successful.

Hmm. Workable?

 

[Rurik]

I have been doing something similar to use the 2 roll results on the combat table with one roll.

Attacker rolls. If he hits defender rolls. If the defender succeeds but does not 'beat' the attackers roll, use the Attacker Succeeds row of the combat table. If the defender rolls better than the attacker, use the Attacker Fails row of the table.

One roll - kinda opposed, but all results on the table are possible.

It works no matter what beating the opposed roll means to any given house rule (roll higher, roll lower, or succeeds by most).

It also works equally well if you play defense is declared before the attack is rolled or after.

Give it a spin. I find it works quite well.

 

[Rurik]

Actually, I am toying with also using this for spell resistence.

Rather than basically having the appropriate resist skill be a straight 'saving throw' the resist roll must beat the spellcasters roll. It works very well with the succeeds by most mechanic.

That way, if your Persistence skill is 98%, you are not immune to all Persistence based spells, you still have to roll better than the caster - and if his skill is say 160% your chance is far from certain.

 

[Itto]

I to have used Ruriks method.

It works thus

Burly Bob with 78% faces Meek Micheal 35%

Bob gets 45, a hit.
Micheal get 25, a parry.
Micheal parrys for normal AP of weapon.

Micheal get 30, a hit.
Bob gets 60, a parry.
Bob parrys for * 2 AP of weapon


For dodging

Burly Bob with 78% faces Meek Micheal 35%

Bob gets 45, a hit.
Micheal get 25, a dodge.
Micheal gets hit for minamal damage.

Micheal get 30, a hit.
Bob gets 60, a dodge.
Bob dodges for no damage.

It works very well, its cool having the verious permiations that the table offers, but on the one roll. And keeps in sync with opposed roll too.

 

[iamtim]

Ok, thanks for the feedback on the method Rurik uses, and Rurik, thanks for posting it.

But what do you think of my ideas on opposed combat rolls using the same mechanic I use for opposed rolls elsewhere?

 

[simonh]

These methods work, but they yield a very low difference in chances of success for large differences in skill, if both characters are over a hundred.

For example the chance of a character with 160% skill beating one with 110% skill is only a few percent away from 50/50. I did the calculations a while back and IIRC it's only about 52%.

If that's ok for you, then fine, but I prefer a system that gives a bigger difference in the odds in a situation like that. I think most players would expect a 50 point improvement in their skill to yield a bigger improvement in their chances.

 

[Rurik]

Ok, thanks for the feedback on the method Rurik uses, and Rurik, thanks for posting it.

But what do you think of my ideas on opposed combat rolls using the same mechanic I use for opposed rolls elsewhere?

I think it would work very well.

The reason I brought up my system is very nearly the same thing you are talking about. The defender is trying to beat the attackers roll as well as roll under his skill.

What do you do for a sucessful parry or dodge (for example, does a sucessful parry block AP or 2xAP, and does a dodge block all damage or result in minimum damage as per the rules as written?).

 

[iamtim]

What do you do for a sucessful parry or dodge

I haven't gotten that far yet...

This much I know: I don't really like the combat charts. When I run combat right now... if you successfully dodge, you dodge. Unless the attack was a crit. Same with a parry.

So I'm fairly certain that if you're dodging, and you win an opposed combat roll, you dodge. Plain and simple.

Parrying is a little different. I *might* say that if you win an opposed combat test and you are parrying, you block the weapon AP. If you crit, it blocks double.

Maybe.

Like I said, the jury is still out on that one.

 

[Rurik]

These methods work, but they yield a very low difference in chances of success for large differences in skill, if both characters are over a hundred.

For example the chance of a character with 160% skill beating one with 110% skill is only a few percent away from 50/50. I did the calculations a while back and IIRC it's only about 52%.

If that's ok for you, then fine, but I prefer a system that gives a bigger difference in the odds in a situation like that. I think most players would expect a 50 point improvement in their skill to yield a bigger improvement in their chances.

How did you do those calculations? Because that doesn't seem right to me.

In the above example, using the method Tim describes, the character with the 110 skill has to roll 50 points better than whatever the higher skilled character rolls to win. So right off the bat, if the higher skilled character rolls a under a 50, he automatically wins. Likewise, if the character with the lower skill rolls over a 50, he automagically loses. The only way for the lower skill to win is the higher skill has to roll above 51 and he has to beat his roll by 50 points. My quick logic says that the higher skill will win about 87% of the time.

 

[Rurik]

For example the chance of a character with 160% skill beating one with 110% skill is only a few percent away from 50/50. I did the calculations a while back and IIRC it's only about 52%.

I think the numbers you quote are based soley on using degree of success as determing winner and loser.

It is the fact that in both the methods iamtim and I are using whoever makes their roll by more becomes the winner that pushes the odds so much in favor of the higher skill.

I somehow suspect the OP doesn't want this thread to turn into an argument on calculating probability in gaming though. :wink:

 

[Rurik]

What do you do for a sucessful parry or dodge

I haven't gotten that far yet...

This much I know: I don't really like the combat charts. When I run combat right now... if you successfully dodge, you dodge. Unless the attack was a crit. Same with a parry.

So I'm fairly certain that if you're dodging, and you win an opposed combat roll, you dodge. Plain and simple.

Parrying is a little different. I *might* say that if you win an opposed combat test and you are parrying, you block the weapon AP. If you crit, it blocks double.

Maybe.

Like I said, the jury is still out on that one.

In the RAEBTPG (Rules As Explained By The Players Guide) a dodge takes min damage unless it is a critical dodge. And Weapons have pitifully few AP's.

The dodge avoiding all damage is on that same mythical row that no one will ever use as weapons blocking 2xAP.

If you decide to have a simple success dodge block ALL damage you may want to consider allowing a parry to block 2xAP. Otherwise Dodge becomes way better than parrying.

Just my two cents worth.

EDIT: Changed "dodge blocking all damage" to "dodge avoiding all damage".

 

[iamtim]

That's a good point. I could say that a character who is dodging and wins the opposed combat roll takes minimum damage, unless the dodge was a crit in which case it's all damage.

With parries, then, it could be a regular parry reduces damage by the AP of the weapon, and a crit reduces it by 2xAP.

I'm thinking I like this.

 

[Rurik]

That's a good point. I could say that a character who is dodging and wins the opposed combat roll takes minimum damage, unless the dodge was a crit in which case it's all damage.

With parries, then, it could be a regular parry reduces damage by the AP of the weapon, and a crit reduces it by 2xAP.

I'm thinking I like this.

Or you could try my method, in which all results on the table are possible...

I know you hate referenceing the table, but it really is simple enough you don't end up needing it after a little bit of play.

Besides, if you don't, I'll start arguing odds with you. :twisted:

 

[iamtim]

Besides, if you don't, I'll start arguing odds with you. :twisted:

*puts his hands up*

*waves a white flag*

I surrender!

No odds please...

*whimper*

 

[bluejay]

I somehow suspect the OP doesn't want this thread to turn into an argument on calculating probability in gaming though. :wink:

Right, but who would even consider doing such a thing... :wink:

 

[iamtim]

I ran a few mock combats last night with a buddy of mine (canology here on the boards) using my take on opposed rolls as the main combat mechanic (roll low, with equal success levels he who rolled lowest under his skill wins). I added these "special cases" (thanks, Rurik):

* If a dodge wins the opposed combat roll with a regular success, all but minimum damage is dodged; if the dodge wins with a crit, all damage is dodged.

* If a parry wins the opposed combat roll with a regular success, the weapon's AP in damage is blocked; if the parry wins with a crit, two times the weapon's AP in damage is blocked.

It seemed to work pretty cool; both canology and I liked it although I'll let him add his own feedback. The only time you have to figure out who won by the greatest margin is when both the attack and the defense achieved regular successes (or crits, but that didn't happen to us.)

With the way I run opposed tests, this means that the game has a consistent mechanic across opposed tests and combat, which is something I like.

I'm contemplating "special cases" for fumbles, but I don't know what or how yet. Maybe this is where the overextended and similar results from the rulebook come in. I'm willing to entertain thoughts on that at this point (heh... pretensiousness rules).

Thanks!

 

[canology]

I agree, it seemed to work pretty smoothly.

It also makes combat a bit more lethal in some ways, because the dodges now usually lead to minimum damage rather than no damage at all. I am OK with that, however, and it makes parrying a more useful choice unless you are wearing heavy armor (which makes sense).

 

[iamtim]

Well, if you go by the standard MRQ combat charts, a successful hit and a successful dodge results in a minimum damage hit. So, there's really no difference there.

(For everyone else benefits, we've been playing that a successful dodge was just that -- a successful dodge.)

 

[litrevan]

I developed this using RQ3 style rules but it should suffice for MRQ as well.

Instead of dividing by two, divide by 100/[skill] (remembering to round). The higher number will always ONE person above 100%, lower the others.

If BOTH people are above 100% use the lower person's crits specials and fumble for the higher person, and use 5%, 20%, and 100% for the lower person. This preserves the same increased chances of crits, specials, and fumbles for both people even though the numbers are lower.

May be a little bit arithmeticy for some, but certainly much less than the original nightmare I came up with

 

[litrevan]

I realized after writing the above that a lot of people won't like the way I slid down the critical and special curve and would prefer to keep the higher number at the same percentage is was before it was divided. That'll work, but you should then take the new percentage for the lower person and multiply it by the original critical or special percentage.

For example:
200% and 160% with crits of 10% and 8% would become
100% and 80% with crits of 10% and 6.4% rounding to 6% rather than the 4% one would ordinarily get with 80%. This also avoids the problem of large differences both ending up with nearly the same critical.

Also, I forgot to mention the auto miss percentage. If you run those up like I do (e.g. 110% fails at 97% rather than 96%) you should keep the higher number for that also, although the calculation becomes sort of involved for the lower number of the pair.