Petition to keep the old combat tables

[RosenMcStern]

Okay, after a lot of whining and complaints, it is high time to make some serious analysis about the new update. I think Rurik has already expressed all the doubts about the new Spell Resistance mechanics, and I am not against it, although I preferred the previous version - but the new one works fine as well, and it is more streamlined.

Now to the painful stuff - the combat matrix!

Let's just have a look at how the old combat tables work, using Rurik's rule (as incorporated into the update by Loz & Pete). I like this "I roll better - I downgrade your roll" rule very much, as it is the very same rule that is used for non-combat contests. So I assume it is in effect, although someone has stated that the new combat tables are better than this rule. I think this someone is horribly wrong. Let's see why.

I am assuming that both combatants make their roll. In case one fails the result is rather obvious, and it did not change in the new rules.

ORIGINAL RULES

I attack, you parry, I roll better
- hit (ouch!)

I attack, you parry, you roll better
- 2xAP blocked (bruise)

I attack, you parry, I critical
- 1/2 AP blocked (SH*T! I CRITICALLED! HAD BETTER ROLLED A SIMPLE SUCCESS BUT BELOW YOUR ROLL- GM, DO I HAVE SOME PENALTY TO REDUCE THIS CRAPPY CRITICAL ATTACK TO A SUCCESS????))

I attack, you parry, you critical
- 2xAP blocked (bruise), and you may Riposte

-

I attack, you dodge, I roll better
- hit (ouch!)

I attack, you dodge, you roll better
- miss!

I attack, you dodge, I critical
- hit (but you are not impaled at least)

I attack, you dodge, you critical
- miss!

-


NEW RULES

I attack, you parry, I roll better
- hit (ouch!) AS ABOVE

I attack, you parry, you roll better
- miss! (WHO TOLD YOU CANNOT PARRY A POLEAXE WITH A DAGGER????)

I attack, you parry, I critical
- AP blocked, max damage (DO I IMPALE? DO I IMPALE THROUGH YOUR SHIELD AS IN RQ3????)

I attack, you parry, you critical
- 2xAP blocked, normal damage (SH*T! I CRITICALLED! HAD BETTER ROLLED A SIMPLE SUCCESS BUT BELOW YOUR ROLL- GM, DO I HAVE SOME PENALTY TO REDUCE THIS CRAPPY CRITICAL PARRY TO A SUCCESS????)

-

I attack, you dodge, I roll better
- hit (ouch!) AND YOU GIVE GROUND -NEXT TIME DO NOT ATTEMPT A DODGE!

I attack, you dodge, you roll better
- miss! AS ABOVE

I attack, you dodge, I critical
- hit (SH*T! I CRITICALLED! AND YOU WERE ON THE EDGE OF A BOTTOMLESS CHASM! HAD BETTER ROLLED A SIMPLE SUCCESS BUT BELOW YOUR ROLL- GM, DO I HAVE SOME PENALTY TO REDUCE THIS CRAPPY CRITICAL ATTACK TO A SUCCESS????)

I attack, you dodge, you critical
- miss! AS ABOVE

-------------------------------------

I will not analyze the combat results without the downgrade rule. People who like these new tables so much can do that and I believe that they will. However, as you can see, the Ohshiticriticalledinsteadofjustrollingasuccess effect takes place once with the old tables and twice with the new, not to mention other inconsistencies like the dagger parrying the troll maul with a simple success.

I thereby propose, also on behalf of my shining new GM screen, bought at Tentacles and used only once, which does not like having patches pasted upon its interiors, to keep the opposed roll rule and drop the new matrix altogether (although the old matrix could use some minor fixes, too, to be honest).

And yes, I know I can houserule this. But I also play at conventions and online, so I do care for official rules, too!

 

[Rurik]

Well, I vote keeping the old table, but that is because after months of messing with combat, tables, one roll systems and two roll systems I found I liked the all the results possible with the two roll system, but didn't like two rolls. So by using the 'unused' row of the original table for when the defender rolled better than the attacker I get the following result set for normal successes:

I attack, you parry, I roll better: 1xAP blocked.

I attack, you parry, you roll better: 2xAP blocked.

I attack, you dodge, I roll better: Minimum Damage

I attack, you dodge, you roll better: No Damage

With these results weapons are not totally useless for parrying, but shields are far superior. Shield's need some advantage because it takes twice as many improvement points to learn weapon and shield as a fighting style than just a single weapon or, better yet, two weapons. If shields have little utility you are far better off using a second weapon in your off hand, you get a choice of an extra reaction at no penalty or an attack at -20% if at the end of the round you don't need the reaction (actually you can take this attack with a shield as well, but at -30%).

Now my understanding is that historically it is easier to learn weapon and shield than to fight with two swords (or maces or axes - the rules allow any 1 handed weapon in the off hand). Shields may become obsolete in the new rules. Though I am no expert with only some light boffer behind me, so maybe someone with more knowledge can speak to this (Pete?).

I say may become obsolete in the new rules as those extra AP for a shield do count versus criticals, and are really nice to have then. But is that often enough to warrant two improvement rolls versus one for your fighting style? I don't know - time will tell I suppose.

 

[Utgardloki]

I still think that my system is best:

Attacker rolls. If she fails, she misses. If she succeeds, defender rolls. If he succeeds, he reduces her success. Criticals count as two successes, so if her hit was a crit, he has to roll a critical defense.

The attacker can voluntarily take a penalty to hit, and apply the same penalty to the defenders defense. (If the attacker has more than 100%, there is little reason not to take a penalty to bring her chance down to 95%, except for reduced chance of a critical.)

A hero point can be spent by either the attacker or the defender to "buy" a success.

No tables. Parry and Dodge are rolled together.

 

[Halfbat]

I think the new tables are generally fine. The single roll after a declaration by each is also fine, especially as it forces defenders to think up their reactions carefully.

It's the opposed test on equal success that throws things with the new tables.

As mentioned by Rurik, in the new tables and using the new opposed roll, a dagger becomes as effective as a shield for almost all parries (Dagger vs Poleaxe: hah! ). Having done some of the math, for many situations a weapon's AP only comes into effect about a 5th of the time under previous rules, but _any_ parry has a much increased chance of blocking the incoming attack completely. The "drop" also produces some strange, non-intuitive effects: they polarise combat.

For example, a solid warrior at 80% facing a trollkin at 40% actually has around a 75% chance of hitting the trollkin (not 80% - that's a 5% absolute effectiveness from the shield). ~6.5% of the time the trollkin will be able to use the AP of his shield but the remainder of the time (~68.5%) the attack goes straight through.

That's fine when you're up against trollkin and you're a tough fighter. Now put the boot on the other foot, though. Ouch.

As another example, try being a good 60% attack against a tough 80% troll. OK, it's tough, and you' dexpect it to be so, but with a mate or two you can do it, right? Hmmm.... Your attack against him now has only a ~35% chance of getting through, not 60%, but he'll be able to block that with his shield only around 10% of the time. Against you, his attack gets through ~67% of the time (whew! our dagger is blocking ~13% of his attacks all the time) BUT you're still only to use your AP against him about 10% of the time: ~57% of his attacks get through completely unopposed.

Ouch! Again. At 1/3 chance of hitting you're not going to last long and those mates of yours had better be 2-3. Of course, there's also a chance that you'll roll lucky, though, as everything depends on his dice roll, and only partially on the level of success. A critical, as Rurik suggests, can produce some strange results, sometimes so that you wished you hadn't!

Without the opposed roll the tables work fine. It's simply the "on equal success drop a success level on losing the opposed roll" that's the issue.

Please drop it, guys. Let the tables do their work!

 

[RosenMcStern]

The single roll after a declaration by each is also fine, especially as it forces defenders to think up their reactions carefully.

You will never buy me on this. Remember that a DEX 12 character has less reactions than a DEX 13 character has attacks. My DEX 13 noob attacks your DEX 12 master. The sequence of my attacks is miss, miss, critical. You are dead, because your parries were wasted on my misses. There is no planning in this, just freaking randomness. On the contrary, there was some planning with the old rules, because you could left a simple success unparried for fear the last attack could end up being a critical.

Let the tables do their work!

Just a question for all those who suggested option 3 (new tables, unopposed roll): the most frequent results (failure/failure, failure/success, success/failure and success/success) yeld exactly the same results as the old tables, except for Dodge where the Give Ground option happens in the case of Failure/Failure or Success/Failure and not Success/Success. Does this represent so great an improvement in you opinion?

 

[vitalis6969]

Just a question for all those who suggested option 3 (new tables, unopposed roll): the most frequent results (failure/failure, failure/success, success/failure and success/success) yeld exactly the same results as the old tables, except for Dodge where the Give Ground option happens in the case of Failure/Failure or Success/Failure and not Success/Success. Does this represent so great an improvement in you opinion?

Apparently, since that is the way we voted :wink: The old table was fine except that it wasn't, as you often pointed out, complete with all the criticals and fumbles on it. Now it is. It's just the opposed role that ruins it.

A way to fix your problem with the actions that people receive, based on my real life experience anyway, would be to generate actions based not on DEX, but on skill level. DEX should provide the "potential" amount of attacks you could gain (think old school D&D max spells per level, etc), but the actual number be based on the attackers skill. The same would go for defense actions.

Someone trained, even someone considered "slow" (low dexterity), is still able to defend against the wild flailings of someone who has a lack of skill yet great dexterity.

-V

 

[Quire]

Someone trained, even someone considered "slow" (low dexterity), is still able to defend against the wild flailings of someone who has a lack of skill yet great dexterity.

That is a very interesting point...

- Q

 

[RosenMcStern]

The old table was fine except that it wasn't, as you often pointed out, complete with all the criticals and fumbles on it. Now it is.

It was not me who pointed this out. The addition of fumbles in the main combat matrix is just a waste of space. The outcome is exactly the same as the corresponding "failure" box, except that you roll on the Fumble table. This could be easily explained in a footnote. It is the Fumble Tables that are a much needed addition!

A way to fix your problem with the actions that people receive, based on my real life experience anyway, would be to generate actions based not on DEX, but on skill level. DEX should provide the "potential" amount of attacks you could gain (think old school D&D max spells per level, etc), but the actual number be based on the attackers skill. The same would go for defense actions.

I think it is not my problem. The first time someone has his master swordsman killed by an unparried trollkin attack he will see things the way I do.

Glad to hear that your field experience confirms my idea. Basing actions on skill level was proposed several months ago. Unfortunately this is not applicable, since you can do other things in addition to fighting in a round, or fight with two weapons.

However, you have a good point, Vitalis. Maybe we could introduce a "Lose 40% off your weapon skill or Dodge for one round and gain +1 Reaction in that round" rule, a la Stormbringer. Might work....

 

[frogspawner]

How about this system:

ATTACK
Normal Success = Normal damage
Special* Success = Double damage
Critical Success = Double damage, bypass armour
Fail = Miss
Fumble = Roll on Fumble Table

PARRY (optional)
Normal Success = Blocks damage up to AP of weapon
Special* Success = Blocks damage up to 2xAP of weapon
Critical Success = Blocks all damage
Fail/Fumble = No effect

DODGE (optional, requires giving ground, can be after parry)
Normal Success = Reduce hit by 10 damage
Special* Success = Reduce hit by 20 damage
Critical Success = Reduce hit to 0 damage
Fail/Fumble = No effect

(* 'Special' is 1/5th of normal chance)

Rolls and results are independent, not "opposed", so you always want to roll low, and know how well you've done irrespective of the other guy's roll.

 

[Sinisalo]

Someone trained, even someone considered "slow" (low dexterity), is still able to defend against the wild flailings of someone who has a lack of skill yet great dexterity.

That is a very interesting point...

- Q

I add the critical score of your skill to the DEX when doing strike ranks.

ie, Elmalandti with DEX 12 and spear 150% has a SR of (12+15) =27
Garrath with DEX 18 and pitchfork 30% has a SR of (18 + 3)=21

 

[vitalis6969]

It was not me who pointed this out.

Sorry, just found the post I was thinking of and it indeed was not you.

I think it is not my problem. The first time someone has his master swordsman killed by an unparried trollkin attack he will see things the way I do.

It is until others join you on your soapbox.. Also with the current rules, using your example, it is pretty unlikely that a DEX 12 is ever going to be a "master swordsman" anyway since a faster trollkin will destroy him when he is a noob. So, in a way, it is a bit of a strawman you are offering up here.

But I do support the notion that it is not the most realistic way to represent combat actions.

One possible way to address the issue of there being other things to do in the round when fighting would be to give everyone a base of one or two actions plus any additional actions gained from their fighting skill. Extra actions gained from a fighting skill need not be just used in the attack or defense, enhanced combat awareness and trained muscle reflex can be applied to moving to new opponents, throwing, tripping, shouting an order, etc...

In addition, whether carrying a shield or an extra weapon has no bearing on the amount of attacks either way. In actual combat unless it is a "Duel" style fight with rules and all, two weapons is more of a suicide move than an advantage. Running around with two weapons or just a broad-sword and a loin cloth is a thing of fantasy fiction, not real world fighting.

-V

 

[Sinisalo]

Unfortunately this is not applicable, since you can do other things in addition to fighting in a round, or fight with two weapons.

If you're fleeing out a window use DEX + athletics critical score
If you're casting a spell use POW + runecasting critical score
If you're shouting out "stop fighting you fools!" use DEX + influence critical score

etc,

 

[RosenMcStern]

Unfortunately this is not applicable, since you can do other things in addition to fighting in a round, or fight with two weapons.

If you're fleeing out a window use DEX + athletics critical score
If you're casting a spell use POW + runecasting critical score
If you're shouting out "stop fighting you fools!" use DEX + influence critical score

etc,

This is definitely very realistic, Sinisalo. But it is also too complicate to use for most players and GMs.

 

[Rurik]

Someone trained, even someone considered "slow" (low dexterity), is still able to defend against the wild flailings of someone who has a lack of skill yet great dexterity.

-V

Which is exactly what happens with the old system of waiting until a successful attack to declare a reaction.

Good Slow Bob has a Dex of 9 (2 CA) but a 100% weapon skill and is attacked by Crappy Fast Trollkin and Sucky Fast Trollkin each with Dex of 19 (4 CA) and weapon skill of 25%. They get a total of 8 attacks on Bob who has 2 reactions. The odds say the Trollkin will score 2 hits. If Bob declares ahead of the attack roll who to parry he will most likely be hit by both blows, and almost certainly by one of them. If Bob declares his reactions after the successful attack, he will almost assuredly parry both blows with ease.

And as mentioned, basing actions or strike ranks on skills does not work well as you can do different things in one round. How does it work if I am fighting an armored Great Troll and a Trollkin, I have a Sword skill of 80%, A sheild Skill of 65%, and a Runecasting(Disorder) of 50%. My plan is to parry the Trollkin with my sword cause he doesn't do much damage but parry the Great Troll with my Shield because my Swords low AP will do little against his massive damage. I plan to Beffudle the Troll first to take him out of the action then strike the Trollkin with my sword.

They used to have strike rank modifiers based on weapons that even made it into the first S&P adventure (Raven in the Roost) but dropped them at the last minute before releasing the rules. It just gets too messy.

 

[Rurik]

I think Rurik has already expressed all the doubts about the new Spell Resistance mechanics, and I am not against it, although I preferred the previous version - but the new one works fine as well, and it is more streamlined.

I just want to say I don't have a problem with the new system - the whole point of my long post was to point out that the the old way and the new way play very differently - especially when dealing with very high skills - and explain what those differences were.

There were a few discussions on using opposed rolls well before the players update, and once upon a time I was a big proponent of doing so (though also under the impression that the old ones were broken). The new rules do work, and I entirely understand why people like opposed rolls - you are after all attempting to overcome the targets resistance with your skill.

I do kind of disagree that the new system is more streamlined. I find that the old way plays very smoothly at the table.

 

[homerjsinnott]

You could just go back to a much better system (RQ2 or 3 or Stormbringer or BRP)...

 

[Wolverine]

I don't see any point to this thread. There is nothing stopping you using the new or old rules. Just decide which method you plan to use before you beginning of your campaign, or create your own house rules. It will save you from all the arguments.

 

[Rurik]

I don't see any point to this thread. There is nothing stopping you using the new or old rules. Just decide which method you plan to use before you beginning of your campaign, or create your own house rules. It will save you from all the arguments.

I don't think anyone is arguing here - just sharing thoughts and opinions about various ways of using the rules. I for one value the opinions of others on these matters and like the discussion. I use many house rules either directly taken from or inspired by the ideas of others.

I find threads like this very useful when it comes to deciding which official rules (and there have been many so far - first printing, second printing, first players guide, new players update) and which house rules to use. And discussions like this have helped a lot in the creation of my own house rules.

 

[Loz]

I don't see any point to this thread. There is nothing stopping you using the new or old rules. Just decide which method you plan to use before you beginning of your campaign, or create your own house rules. It will save you from all the arguments.

I don't think anyone is arguing here - just sharing thoughts and opinions about various ways of using the rules. I for one value the opinions of others on these matters and like the discussion. I use many house rules either directly taken from or inspired by the ideas of others.

I find threads like this very useful when it comes to deciding which official rules (and there have been many so far - first printing, second printing, first players guide, new players update) and which house rules to use. And discussions like this have helped a lot in the creation of my own house rules.

I quite agree, Rurik. The debate has been mature and sensible, and raised some interesting questions.

Were they all like this!

 

[Twigman]

I like the new matrix without the opposed roll. It's a nice idea, but I don't think it works well. It also adds a layer of complication that is not really necessary.

As for the number of combat actions I, like many others it seems, don't care for the Dex based number of actions. I have a house rule as follows:

If you have a skill of over 100% you may "split" it by taking a -50% to your weapon skill and gaining an extra General Action for a second attack. If you have 150% skill you can then take an additional -50% (for a total of -100%) on your second attack and gain a third attack also at -100%. So you would have three attacks at 100%, 50% and 50%. If you had 200% you could get four attacks at 150%, 100%, 50% and 50%. You can't split more than 3 times. You can split Reactions in the same way.

Edit: Oh, you also get an extra attack at -20% if you have a second weapon and creatures with natural weapons get extra attacks based on the number of natural weapons they have.