Opposed skill reduction cap

[PhilHibbs]

If I have a skill of 175% against an opponent who has 50%, what is my skill reduced by?

I don't think the reduction can take my opponent's effective chance of success below 5%, so the reduction should be capped at 45% giving me a 13% critical success chance. If my skill were reduced by 75% then my crit chance would be reduced to 10%, and it would not matter whether my skill were 175% or 500%, I would be gaining no benefit for the increased skill.

The skill reduction should be capped at lowest-skill-minus-five. I don't think this is mentioned anywhere in the rules.

 

[Deleriad]

I would say that it ends up as
125% vs 0%

However the 0% has the usual chance of 01-05 of succeeding with a 01 being a critical.

 

[PhilHibbs]

I would say that it ends up as 125% vs 0%
However the 0% has the usual chance of 01-05 of succeeding with a 01 being a critical.

I suppose that has the advantage of simplicity... it does introduce one minor kink, though, in that if I have 100% skill versus 5%, then increasing my skill by 5% has absolutely no benefit for me.

 

[danskmacabre]

I suppose that has the advantage of simplicity... it does introduce one minor kink, though, in that if I have 100% skill versus 5%, then increasing my skill by 5% has absolutely no benefit for me.

Increasing your skill to 105% from 100% will increase you critical range to 11% from 10%.
That's a benefit.

 

[PhilHibbs]

... if I have 100% skill versus 5%, then increasing my skill by 5% has absolutely no benefit for me.

Increasing your skill to 105% from 100% will increase you critical range to 11% from 10%.
That's a benefit.

Not if I'm making an opposed roll against a 5% skill.

 

[Runefang]

I would say that it ends up as 125% vs 0%
However the 0% has the usual chance of 01-05 of succeeding with a 01 being a critical.

I suppose that has the advantage of simplicity... it does introduce one minor kink, though, in that if I have 100% skill versus 5%, then increasing my skill by 5% has absolutely no benefit for me.

The benefit would be you will eventually be able to get to 106% and above!

 

[PhilHibbs]

I suppose that has the advantage of simplicity... it does introduce one minor kink, though, in that if I have 100% skill versus 5%, then increasing my skill by 5% has absolutely no benefit for me.

The benefit would be you will eventually be able to get to 106% and above!

I was thinking about a bonus such as from a spell or other sit mod.

 

[DamonJynx]

Well, as RAW everyone less than 75% or less would have a 0% chance and could therefore only "succeed" on a critical of 01%. If you also had rolled a critical 01-10% (remembering in opposed tests that the critical range is 10% of the modified skill value i.e. 100%) I would rule that you win as you have the highest critical roll. I use the option that on a tie, the participant with the highest skill level wins.

 

[Morgan d'Barganfore]

I guess technically your 175% versus foe's 50% would give foe -25% skill which then gives way to the 01-05% on the dice is an automatic success.

Additional benefits would be your fumble range reduction to 100% on the dice and being able to cope with -30% of situational (negative) modifiers.

RQII p34 cites for opposed rolls, all skills are reduced to a max of 100% and that (p32) crit range is determined after modifiers. Thus foe's crit range is just 1% (natural roll, p32) and yours would reduce to 10% rather than 17%. This feels wrong. Comments?

Extrapolating from the logic of the above, I would propose (as an optional rule) that where a foe has a negative (modified) skill, that 10% of this negative (as an absolute value) should be added to the attacker's crit range. E.g. 175% skill versus 50% skill modifies to 100% versus -25%. Taking a tenth of the foe's negative skill, i.e. 2.5% would increase the attackers crit range from 10% to 12.5% (=13%)

Comments?

 

[DamonJynx]

RQII p34 cites for opposed rolls, all skills are reduced to a max of 100% and that (p32) crit range is determined after modifiers. Thus foe's crit range is just 1% (natural roll, p32) and yours would reduce to 10% rather than 17%. This feels wrong. Comments?

This is RAW, which as you say is pretty unfair. If you rule that your Critical range is determined after situational modifiers but prior to the skills Over 100% reduction, then your critical range could well be 18% (rounded up, isn't it?). The drawback however, is that your foes Critical range will also be higher irrespective of his final skill value... what's good for the gander...

Extrapolating from the logic of the above, I would propose (as an optional rule) that where a foe has a negative (modified) skill, that 10% of this negative (as an absolute value) should be added to the attacker's crit range. E.g. 175% skill versus 50% skill modifies to 100% versus -25%. Taking a tenth of the foe's negative skill, i.e. 2.5% would increase the attackers crit range from 10% to 12.5% (=13%)

Comments?

I understand where you're coming from, but if you balance encounters this will probably be quite a rare scenario and I don't think further 'complications/rules' are required. Just my opinion.

The master thief should be able to sneak past the lazy guard with little or no effort, the resultant differences in success levels in this situation are negligible. In combat, you would get at least 1 CM 95% of the time. So in that case, to me at least, the rules are fairly balanced.

 

[Morgan d'Barganfore]

Hi DamonJ,
Excuse me, but I'm (relativelty) new here.
RAW = "right as written"?
Or..?

 

[DamonJynx]

Hi DamonJ,
Excuse me, but I'm (relativelty) new here.
RAW = "right as written"?
Or..?

Rules As Written

And welcome to the club!

 

[Morgan d'Barganfore]

Thanks, very kind. These forums are addictive I think.

Actually I agree. with you.
I was was just picking up the "ball" put down by Phil H, re the 175% vs 50% and seeing what it looked like at "the other end of the field".

It's taken me like forever (and every opportunity) to increase my weapon style to 115% (and that started play at 90% or somewhere close).

 

[EricJ]

If I have a skill of 175% against an opponent who has 50%, what is my skill reduced by?

Under those circumstances, your character should be looking for a better class of opponents. Your Gamesmaster should finesse the encounter. In Chaosium/AH RQ, you should not bother checking off skills for experience rolls. Consider Cthulhu's stats in CoC: Cthulhu devours 1D3 adventurers per round.

Hard cases make bad law. Extreme stats make bad gaming experiences.

 

[PhilHibbs]

Hard cases make bad law. Extreme stats make bad gaming experiences.

I suppose you're right, I'm fussing over tiny statistical quirks in massively asymmetrical engagements.

 

[Morgan d'Barganfore]

Sure. Not significant, just like tidying things up once they were noticed.