Pete's Combat Rules from the Wiki

[Rurik]

Wanted to tank pete Nash for donating the rules he wrote for combat, check it out.

http://mrqwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Opposed_Roll_Combat

Tank him - they're not that bad are they?

Actually these look quite comprehensive and playable. It certainly is a major move away from core MRQ combat, but after a quick once over they seem more coherent than MRQ core combat has been, well, ever. I certainly plan on taking them for a spin.

One question - does one get to apply their damage modifier to the Deflection roll for weapons (and the fixed AP for sheilds as well)?

 

[Magistus]

Hopefully Pete will jump in and discuss the rules.

 

[Deleriad]

Lots of good stuff in there. One thing I will say though is that the "degree of victory" system does have a lot steeper learning curve than MRQ. I used opposed rolls in combat in RQ3 with a similar system a long time ago. E.g. someone with a good enough degree of victory might qualify for 2 "criticals" which they could choose from a list of about 8-10. This is very similar to the "special effects" idea. What I found was that experienced players who played it a few times liked it but it did slow things down because they tended to weigh up their choices each time. Inexperienced players often found it very tricky because they couldn't just look at the dice and see what the result was. The big advantage of BRP has always been that you know your odds of success and how well you've done simply through looking at dice. When we went back to RQ3, players preferred the RQ3 combat system on the whole.

I'm personally ambivalent in that I like the scalability of "degree of victory" systems but I just about prefer using a a simplified system: basically the winner gets whatever they rolled and the loser's result is capped at "partial success." I suspect that DoV is a technically superior system but that simplified opposed contests are easier to play. As with many things, it comes down to taste and play style.

Anyway, thanks to Pete for putting these ideas up. Definitely things I'll steal in there. If anyone else is interested, I keep a rather sketchily written description of my house rules on http://b5quest.pbwiki.com/Combat.

Bruce

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Tank him - they're not that bad are they?

<Raises head from keyboard at the ominous squeaking of metal treads, cutting through the choking cough of a 15 litre diesel engine...>

Actually these look quite comprehensive and playable. It certainly is a major move away from core MRQ combat, but after a quick once over they seem more coherent than MRQ core combat has been, well, ever. I certainly plan on taking them for a spin.

Thank you. I'd appreciate feedback from other groups who might have different playing styles.

One question - does one get to apply their damage modifier to the Deflection roll for weapons (and the fixed AP for sheilds as well)?

I deliberately didn't specify this so that individual GM's could decide for themselves. There is a question of interpretation since a deflection could be a case of finesse using the length of the weapon (rapiers or daggers for example)... or a more direct use of blocking (shields, two handed weapons, etc). In the former the application of strength doesn't make much sense, whereas in the latter it would.

Personally, I would add the damage bonus. Years of fighting have taught me to be very respectful of hulking brutes... But that's just me!

 

[Puck]

Wow! At first glace these look very cool and they solve a lot of problems that I have personally had with the MRQ combat. I particularly love "special effect" options and whats more the players in my group will go nuts over them. I am just weaning my group from D20 to MRQ (one is a young local game store owner). Although, it will take a while for me to get the hang of the whole thing before I introduce it to them and change stats and skills though (I had just solidified a bunch of house rules).



So far it looks really exciting! I got to go read it over a couple of more times.

Thanks

 

[Mongoose Pete]

After Puck's welcome enthusiasm and the improbable (but very appreciated) thumbs up from Rurik, I must have done something right. Perhaps the Great Old Ones are awakening after all... :lol:

I particularly love "special effect" options and whats more the players in my group will go nuts over them.

The 'special effect' system is open to GM's who like to tinker, and it is easy enough to add others which are specific to certain genres or particular weapons. For example, in Heian or Sengoku campaigns you could include secret okudens taught by martial arts schools, etc.

Although I originally wrote it as an exercise to demonstrate the potential of the Opposed Roll mechanism, as a set of combat rules they have turned out to be very flexible indeed.

If anyone has any other questions, then please let me know. As I mentioned earlier, it takes several different play-test teams to really shake a system apart.

So far it looks really exciting! I got to go read it over a couple of more times.

I suppose it would make good toilet reading! If you fundamentally disagree with the rules, or run out of bog roll, you could always... :shock:

 

[RosenMcStern]

Looks fine. A pity that the success level concept was not integrated in the initlal ruleset. I like it better than opposed rolls.

I do not lilke the opposing roll rule very much. Subtracting 73 or 27 from my skill is something I do not like.

All in all, it is almost a different game. But possibly better.

 

[Loz]

A pity that the success level concept was not integrated in the initlal ruleset.

Pete developed this some time after the Players Update was published at the GMs Guide had been submitted.

 

[RosenMcStern]

When speaking about Success Level, I was referring to the initial suggestion by Steve Perrin, during the Playtest phase. Long before any Player's Update.

 

[Loz]

When speaking about Success Level, I was referring to the initial suggestion by Steve Perrin, during the Playtest phase. Long before any Player's Update.

Ah - apologies, Paolo. I thought you refering to the Victory levels in Pete's stuff. I didn't see Steve P's stuff, so can't really comment!

 

[atgxtg]

These rules do look interesting. They appear to address a lot of the problems with MRQ, and use some ideas I've seen in other games. The "PICK YOUR CRITICAL" thing is very interesting to me, as there is another game that does that for things like impales and it would make it very easy to adapt that stuff.

Has anyone (other than Pete and Loz) tried these rules yet?

 

[RosenMcStern]

didn't see Steve P's stuff, so can't really comment!

Nobody did see it, in fact. He just suggested it when the system was in the making. I like degree of succes more than opposed rolls (as does Pete Nash, I suppose). But that is just my personal opinion. Maybe going for opposed rolls was a good move, after all. I have been on the "opposed roll" side in all the debates about using/not using the opposed roll rule with the combat tables lately.

 

[Wolverine]

Has anyone (other than Pete and Loz) tried these rules yet?

Yes, I have. They're rather good actually, work well with MRQ, and would recommend people give them ago. ^_^

 

[Rurik]

I got a quick chance to try these and they seem to work as well as they read. They address all my major concerns with the players update and play well. Using fighting style as a skill makes perfect sense.

A couple of comments. I used the first set of tables (with AP) only, and the one result that was a bit wonky was the defender wins a normal success on a parry (specifically a successful parry against a failed attack). Normal human vs. Normal Human is fine, but since in essence it converts a missed attack to a hit (albeit at reduced damage), A duck parrying a troll can get creamed as a result of his successful parry against a failed attack. Also, in moderate skilled combats (50% - 60%) this result happens a lot. Maybe just an Attack Misses Completely and no special effect would work here (or maybe the defender can choose that result or the 'normal' result).

Not a big deal but I figured it was worth mentioning.

The only other oddity I found was with the Bastion Item Effect from the companion (one of my NPC's I use to test combats has Bastion Plate, which I take to be 'Full Plate'). It is supposed to make the penalty for bypassing armor -80%. Maybe a spot rule would be that it takes 2 effects to bypass Bastion armor. Which leads to another suggestion, perhaps you can keep halving your skill for additional effects in precise attacks. If you have a 240% skill you can halve it twice for 2 additional effects.

And finally, if characters being converted get to re-allocate points from dodge, characters who took separate weapon and shield skills should get to re-allocate their shield points as well.

That's my 2 cents after a quick playtest. Take them as you will. I haven't used the second tables yet, but these seem quite playable and were fun to use.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I got a quick chance to try these and they seem to work as well as they read. They address all my major concerns with the players update and play well. Using fighting style as a skill makes perfect sense.

Thank you very much for giving them an honest go. I'm glad they held together!

I used the first set of tables (with AP) only, and the one result that was a bit wonky was the defender wins a normal success on a parry (specifically a successful parry against a failed attack). Normal human vs. Normal Human is fine, but since in essence it converts a missed attack to a hit (albeit at reduced damage), A duck parrying a troll can get creamed as a result of his successful parry against a failed attack. Also, in moderate skilled combats (50% - 60%) this result happens a lot.

This is a good point. The difficulty lies in the interpretation of the opposed test, since its the difference between the success levels which counts, and not strictly the individual dice rolls themselves. Its a small crack, but a lethal one in the wrong situation.

Maybe just an Attack Misses Completely and no special effect would work here (or maybe the defender can choose that result or the 'normal' result).

Instead I could add a new special effect of 'Attack Misses Completely' which can only be selected if the attacker failed their attack roll. Its a slightly more elegant fix. But in that case I'd need to add an equal and opposite special effect on the attacking side of the table of 'Parry Fails Completely' when the defence roll fails. Annoying, but it seems necessary!

Not a big deal but I figured it was worth mentioning.

If your game style involves lots of big monsters, then it'd get frustrating. Thanks for spotting it.

The only other oddity I found was with the Bastion Item Effect from the companion (one of my NPC's I use to test combats has Bastion Plate, which I take to be 'Full Plate'). It is supposed to make the penalty for bypassing armor -80%. Maybe a spot rule would be that it takes 2 effects to bypass Bastion armor.

To be quite frank here, I've never used any of the MRQ Companion's item quality effects in games I run, so these rules were never designed to be compatible.

However... in the spirit of trying to make things work together and more elegantly, how about this? Either;

1) Bastion Armour is treated as half its normal value when subjected to a Bypass Armour special effect. If you manage to gain two special effects you can always Maximise Damage as well.

or

2) Bastion Armour is totally proof against the Bypass Armour special effect. In the worst case scenario this is only 6 APs, and an intelligent opponent can always defeat a heavily armoured foe with other clever manoeuvres.

Which leads to another suggestion, perhaps you can keep halving your skill for additional effects in precise attacks. If you have a 240% skill you can halve it twice for 2 additional effects.

Utterly horrific! But if you've got the skill to back it up, why not...

And finally, if characters being converted get to re-allocate points from dodge, characters who took separate weapon and shield skills should get to re-allocate their shield points as well.

Yes. I should have added that already. Silly me!

That's my 2 cents after a quick playtest. Take them as you will. I haven't used the second tables yet, but these seem quite playable and were fun to use.

They were good observations which I am happy to act upon. I'm very pleased that not only did the rules fix most of your concerns, but (more importantly) were fun to use too.

Thank you once again Rurik. I deeply appreciate your help.

 

[Rurik]

I used the first set of tables (with AP) only, and the one result that was a bit wonky was the defender wins a normal success on a parry (specifically a successful parry against a failed attack). Normal human vs. Normal Human is fine, but since in essence it converts a missed attack to a hit (albeit at reduced damage), A duck parrying a troll can get creamed as a result of his successful parry against a failed attack. Also, in moderate skilled combats (50% - 60%) this result happens a lot.

This is a good point. The difficulty lies in the interpretation of the opposed test, since its the difference between the success levels which counts, and not strictly the individual dice rolls themselves. Its a small crack, but a lethal one in the wrong situation.

Maybe just an Attack Misses Completely and no special effect would work here (or maybe the defender can choose that result or the 'normal' result).

Instead I could add a new special effect of 'Attack Misses Completely' which can only be selected if the attacker failed their attack roll. Its a slightly more elegant fix. But in that case I'd need to add an equal and opposite special effect on the attacking side of the table of 'Parry Fails Completely' when the defence roll fails. Annoying, but it seems necessary!

Maybe something simpler than both above solutions could work, such as "Attack Misses Completely, No Reaction Used" - no need for balancing special effects.

Not a big deal but I figured it was worth mentioning.

If your game style involves lots of big monsters, then it'd get frustrating. Thanks for spotting it.

Not a lot - that would ruin the shock and awe factor when you do spring them.

(plus kill the party a lot)

The only other oddity I found was with the Bastion Item Effect from the companion (one of my NPC's I use to test combats has Bastion Plate, which I take to be 'Full Plate'). It is supposed to make the penalty for bypassing armor -80%. Maybe a spot rule would be that it takes 2 effects to bypass Bastion armor.

To be quite frank here, I've never used any of the MRQ Companion's item quality effects in games I run, so these rules were never designed to be compatible.

However... in the spirit of trying to make things work together and more elegantly, how about this? Either;

1) Bastion Armour is treated as half its normal value when subjected to a Bypass Armour special effect. If you manage to gain two special effects you can always Maximise Damage as well.

or

2) Bastion Armour is totally proof against the Bypass Armour special effect. In the worst case scenario this is only 6 APs, and an intelligent opponent can always defeat a heavily armoured foe with other clever manoeuvres.

I can certainly understand that. They seemed a bit D&Dish to me at first. However way back when people argued the Bypass Armor Precise attack made Armor worthless I started playing around with this feature, and quite frankly now most of my biggest of baddies can be counted on having this. All the full plate those Rightness Army Knights spreading the good word of Malkion wear is Bastion Plate in my game (because also being proficient sorcerers on top of skilled warriors isn't always enough when there are blasphemers and doubters to be converted).

 

[duncan_disorderly]

but since in essence it converts a missed attack to a hit (albeit at reduced damage), A duck parrying a troll can get creamed as a result of his successful parry against a failed attack.

This doesn't necessarily sound unreasonable - I've successfully shiled-parried a troll before now in RQ2, and still managed to lose a limb. The smart durulz would be attempting to duck (No pun intended) rather than parry.

On the other hand it does make that hoard of low-skill trollkin more dangerous as you are more likely to be parrying their failed attacks...

 

[Rurik]

but since in essence it converts a missed attack to a hit (albeit at reduced damage), A duck parrying a troll can get creamed as a result of his successful parry against a failed attack.

This doesn't necessarily sound unreasonable - I've successfully shiled-parried a troll before now in RQ2, and still managed to lose a limb. The smart durulz would be attempting to duck (No pun intended) rather than parry.

On the other hand it does make that hoard of low-skill trollkin more dangerous as you are more likely to be parrying their failed attacks...

I gotta disagree for a couple reasons. In Pete's mod parry and dodge are lumped together anyway, so the Duck can't duck (dodge) per se. He just rolls his defense roll. Worse is that the likeliness of this happening increases if the Duck has a greater skill than the Troll. If the Troll has a 35% and the Duck a 90% it would be suicide for the Duck to try to defend at all. Better to not apply any defense and hope the Troll just misses.

 

[atgxtg]

but since in essence it converts a missed attack to a hit (albeit at reduced damage), A duck parrying a troll can get creamed as a result of his successful parry against a failed attack.

This doesn't necessarily sound unreasonable - I've successfully shiled-parried a troll before now in RQ2, and still managed to lose a limb. The smart durulz would be attempting to duck (No pun intended) rather than parry.

On the other hand it does make that hoard of low-skill trollkin more dangerous as you are more likely to be parrying their failed attacks...

Not, It if when you consider that it is parrying a miss. IN RQ2, if you successfully parry a miss, you should suffer no damage (but the attackers weapon might take damage). Parrying a miss isn't so much stepping into the line of attack behind your shield (that's a fumble) but more like pushing away an attack that had already missed the mark, possibly putting the attacker off balance or creating an opening.

 

[AKAramis]

Not, It if when you consider that it is parrying a miss. IN RQ2, if you successfully parry a miss, you should suffer no damage (but the attackers weapon might take damage). Parrying a miss isn't so much stepping into the line of attack behind your shield (that's a fumble) but more like pushing away an attack that had already missed the mark, possibly putting the attacker off balance or creating an opening.

Real world SCA Fence experience: parrying an atack you know is going to miss is sometimes useful; you often can use the opponent's blade to guide you in past their other defenses.

His Lordship Nytshaed of Golden Rivers often did that to me.