Petition to keep the old combat tables

[duncan_disorderly]

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 suggests you haven't actually read the new tables as it is not true in every case - for instance, a defender who fails to dodge against a fumbled attack is not forced to give ground (He presumably does step back, but the attackers failure to press the atack allows him to recover). Also a fumble against a succesful attack appears to upgrade the attack to a critical.

I'm sort of ambivalent on the fumble tables. They can be a good thing, but if applied too blindly can cause problems.

At a first glance the combat improvements look better, Unlike the version printed in the rulebook, they at least look like they are worth trying... I'm not convinced about ties demoting the lower roll yet, but it might work - I'd prefer a "half step" so for instance on the dodge table Success v success would be soemthing like "Attacker has High Roll - cause 1/2 rolled damage, Defender has High roll - cause min damage"

Conceptually I prefer not having to roll parry or dodge unless the attack hits - it is (generally) less overall rolling and makes tracking reactions easier, as well as making life easier when one party is outnumbered or outgunned, but in practice the opposed roll makes more sense.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

At a first glance the combat improvements look better, Unlike the version printed in the rulebook, they at least look like they are worth trying... I'm not convinced about ties demoting the lower roll yet, but it might work - I'd prefer a "half step" so for instance on the dodge table Success v success would be soemthing like "Attacker has High Roll - cause 1/2 rolled damage, Defender has High roll - cause min damage"

Funnily enough Loz and I did come up with the following as a potential solution for those of you who were a bit disenchanted. However is not not 'official' and should be regarded as a house-rule.

FOR THE PARRYING MATRIX
*If using Opposed Test combat, and both combatants succeed at the same success level, apply the following results

Critical:Critical
Attacker rolls highest: as per the Critical/Critical entry.
Defender rolls highest: as per the Critical/Critical entry, but maximum damage reduced by x3 AP of the parrying weapon

Success:Success
Attacker rolls highest: as per the Success/Success entry
Defender rolls highest: damage roll is halved and reduced by AP of parrying weapon.

and

FOR THE DODGE MATRIX
*If using Opposed Test combat, and both combatants succeed at the same success level, apply the following results

Critical:Critical OR Success:Success
Attacker rolls highest: Attacker inflicts half damage.
Defender rolls highest: Defender takes minimum damage

Of course its not perfect, but it does smooth the table a little if using Opposed Rolls.

 

[Rurik]

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

Were they all like this!

Glad you feel that way!

Because I have another niggle I feel is worth bringing up.

I have actually run through some combats and the new rules do work, but one thing bugs me - in many cases a critical is a worse result than a normal success that wins the opposed roll.

Take a bunch of decent swordsmen fighting sword and shield. Even if everyone has a 1d2 or even 1d4 damage bonus getting full rolled damage through with no AP deducted is worse than than getting Max damage through but with AP subtracted.

Now this is not the case fighting say 2H Longspear to 2H Longspear, where the Critical is going to almost always be the better result. But the point is in many common situations (or specifically vs. shields) a critical attack against a successful parry is worse than a successful attack that wins the opposed roll.

Parrying it is almost always better to get a normal success and win the opposed roll than to critical. First off, by strict interpretation of the rules, the result of 'attack fails' means no knockback will be incurred. And maybe this makes some sense - the blow could have been diverted by the parry to not strike at all rather than just be blocked. But compare to a critical - 2xAP blocked - not so good in the case of the Longspear. Also, even if you block 20 points with a Kite Shield you still will suffer knockback.

Now I realise a critical almost guarantees you will 'win' the result where a normal success is more likely to result in 'losing' the result, but it seems quirky to me that the end result of a critical is often worse than a normal success.

The other thing I noticed is that combat against big trolls is much deadlier. I think someone else mentioned this earlier but I can say play has backed it up. NOT getting your 8 AP between his maul and your body on parry success is deadly.

However I can say a shield is not a waste of improvement points. True in most cases you will never get to use the 8 or 10 AP you spend valuable points improving, but it is really nice to have when you are on the receiving end of a critical. And Criticals happen often enough in combat that any character will be on the receiving end of one sooner or later. A shield can be the difference between surviving long enough to get the chance to be on the receiving end of another one further on down the road.

I'm pretty sure this horse ain't getting up so I'll put my whip away now.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Do not be so negative, Rurik. The authors admitted that these results were not intentional and cause some oddities, so maybe the horse is going to get up and a solution to these "quirks" is on the way. I am more worried about the waste of reactions on missed attacks than about this, though. And I am still waiting to know whether a parried critical is an impale :roll:

The general consensus seems to say that the new tables are better (I noticed later, after one poster pointed it out, that some fumble results are in fact not exact photocopies of the failure result), barred these inconsistencies. However, the "downgrade the worse roll" rule makes a big difference for them. The audience is split in half about this rule, some like it and some do not. I do.

Many people have chosen the "I do not care, use whatever you wish, it is your game." option. It is certainly possible to ignore official errata and houserule everything. I certainly do it a lot. However, I also play at conventions and write adventures that are for general use. Also note that the opposed roll rule makes it possible to use combat tactics that are useless without it. A fast swashbuclker with 145% Dagger or Rapier and no armor can now survive a battle with a clumsy, 50% to hit Great Troll. This was not possible without the opposed roll rule. And being able to defeat the Big Bad Guy without being forced to play a Tank character is FUN!

 

[Rurik]

Do not be so negative, Rurik. The authors admitted that these results were not intentional and cause some oddities, so maybe the horse is going to get up and a solution to these "quirks" is on the way. I am more worried about the waste of reactions on missed attacks than about this, though. And I am still waiting to know whether a parried critical is an impale :roll:

I'm not really trying to be negative, my comments are in the spirit of constructive criticism - even if there are things I don't like. I've been pretty outspoken on this issue and figured I'd update my thoughts about the new combat tables after actually playing with them. And it is not all bad - I found my fears about shields being obsolete unfounded.

While I can play quite happily with my house rules I too would like to conform to the 'official rules' as much as possible. Is just makes life easier in so many ways.

Plus there is always the hope that damned horse will get up and start pulling...

 

[weasel_fierce]

A fast swashbuclker with 145% Dagger or Rapier and no armor can now survive a battle with a clumsy, 50% to hit Great Troll. This was not possible without the opposed roll rule. And being able to defeat the Big Bad Guy without being forced to play a Tank character is FUN!

While Im generally of the assumption that smart people wear armour, it is nice to have a way to play a highly skilled, but lightly armoured character type, which Runequest has never really provided for (Dodging in RQ3 was something you did if you were naked and had no weapon at hand, and in RQ2, your Defense rating is unlikely to be big enough to matter)

 

[andakitty]

And again, SB provided rules to do all this and more. Without the complications. Nothing new.

 

[weasel_fierce]

Stormbringer did, yeah.

(though you were still better off wearing armour AND dodging, than wearing underpants and dodging)

 

[BlueCorpse]

I like the new tables but won't be using the opposed resolution on equal success rule. To my mind, this rule is carried over from opposed skill tests of other kinds in order to achieve an instant success/failure in a single roll. The point of combat is that succes is measured over time by degrading hit points until an ultimate winner is acheived. There is no need to skew this any further.

Looking at opposed skills I still won't use the resolution method described but instead instroduce the concept of attrition in. Let's look at 3 common opposed resolutions, arm wrestling, lock picking and stealth vs perception.

Arm wrestling is an obvious match of Athletics(brute force), but rather than go for an instant success in a single roll I go back to the old spirit combat from RQ2. Assign each a task value equal to STR. If both succeed in an athletics roll then knock 1 of each. If one succeeds and the other fails then the winner knocks 1D3 of the other. If both fail then no points are lost.

Lock picking is a simple roll to suceed or fail. The task can be assigned a penalty based on how difficult the lock is to pick, 10% or -20% etc. But if we assign a task value of 3 or 5 or whatever and a give the lock a resistance roll then we can use the same resoltuion method. Now we also have a variable time interval to work with while the adventurer tries to work on the lock rather than a simple 12 rounds for all locks. In this case their is no attribute for the adventurer so both succeed would indicate no points lost.

An opposed stealth vs perception is harder to work and requires more GM interpretation. When moving stealthily the adventurer willhave an ultimate goal in mind, to sneak past a guard, to creep across the room without waking the occupents etc. Assign a task value and a resistance roll and then work it the same as lock picking.

I got tired of typing so have not expanded this fully but thought I would throw it out for comment.

 

[Cowboy]

I don't like any of the options presented. Specifically, I don't like the "we both succeed but I rolled better". I prefer there to be only three or four possible results: Fumble (optional), Failure, Success, Critical and for everything to be based on those three or four possible outcomes.

Then the combat tables would look like this:
Attacker fails:
•Defender fails: No hit.
•Defender succeeds: Attacker overextended.
•Defender crits: Riposte!
Attacker succeeds:
•Defender fails: Hit.
•Defender succeeds: Miss if defender dodged, -2xweapon AP if defender parried.
•Defender crits: Attacker overextended.
Attacker crits:
•Defender fails: Critical Hit!
•Defender succeeds: Hit if defender dodged, Critical Hit -weapon AP if defender parried.
•Defender Crits: Miss if defender dodged, -2xweapon AP if defender parried.

 

[andakitty]

With this I heartily agree. Easy enough to just go ahead and use it in one's own game, though. Or something even simpler. I am not so sure about the 'ap/hp' for the weapons either. Wouldn't just hp be as colorful and easier to play?

 

[atgxtg]

Okay, before I vote, just one little question...

What new tables? :?:

Has Mongoose done some sort of revision in one of the supplements?

 

[andakitty]

See the sticky, above. They posted a new updated combat matrix and some miscellaneous 'fixes'.

 

[Deleriad]

Discovered this thread a little too late. I don't think I'm going to be able to use the new tables because I think they're wrong and I don't think that the full implications of using opposed contests in RQ have been fully thought through. What I plan to use for opposed contests is to introduce the concept "partial success". You score a partial success any time you succeed at your skill but lose the contest.

If both roll normal successes then the person who rolls highest has a normal success and the low roller has a partial success.
If one rolls a critical and the other a normal then the one who rolls normal scores a partial success while the other scores a critical success.

The possible combat success results are

Attack
partial success: weapon does min damage (damage modifier not affected)
Normal success: weapon does normal damage
Critical success: weapon does maximum damage

Parry
Partial success: block 1*AP in damage
Normal Success: block 2*AP
Critical success: block all damage and ignore knockback or block 2*AP and riposte

Dodge
partial success: defender rolls d4 and ignores that much damage (it does not count for knock back)
success: attack does no damage (Overrides an attacker's partial success)
critical: attack does no damage, attacker becomes over-extended

There's bound to be flaws in there but it avoids the need for a combat matrix. examples

1. Bob Criticals and Mike tries to dodge rolling a normal success. Bob has, naturally won the contest so Mike scores a "partial success" and Bob scores a critical. Bob does maximum weapon damage, Mike rolls a d4 and hopes for a 4.
2. Bob succeeds at an attack and Mike succeeds at a doge but rolls higher. This gives Bob a partial success at his attack and Mike a normal success at dodge. In theory Bob does minimum weapon damage but full damage modifier (partially successful attack) but Mike's dodge overrides this.
3. Gert the Great troll succeeds at an attack, Mike makes a parry (Greatsword 4AP) and wins the contest. Gert's using a Great Hammer (d10+3+d12) but lost the contest so does 1+3+d12 damage, Mike parries 2*4APs of it. Mike's still going to face some pain but that which doesn't kill him only makes him stronger.

 

[Halfbat]

here's bound to be flaws in there but it avoids the need for a combat matrix

Thanks, Deleriad. I'm pretty sure the combat tables can be listed as a set of results without the tables already, but I (have always liked) like the idea of a simple set of results from a success/fail.

As it is, the idea loads defense: AP heavily (simply because of the way the wins work in an opposed system), and also Dodge (a critical Dodge blocks a critical attack completely). There is also the "if both roll a critical" result. As a kneejerk response (that may be wrong, so beware!) to balance it, the attack options could be changed to (Damage Modifier should never be modified, doubled or reduced):

Partial Success: Normal Weapon Damage + Damage Modifier
Normal Success: 2*Weapon Damage + Damage Modifier
Critical Success: Maximum Weapon Damage + Normal Weapon Damage + Damage Modifier (similar to RQ2 Impales).

However, a "partial Critical success" is still needed, in addition to dealing with the Dodge issue. Perhaps partial Criticals are downgraded to "normals"....

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

Having typed this, and even looking at the possiblities, I've realised still quite like the new tables without opposed rolls...

 

[Deleriad]

here's bound to be flaws in there but it avoids the need for a combat matrix

Thanks, Deleriad. I'm pretty sure the combat tables can be listed as a set of results without the tables already, but I (have always liked) like the idea of a simple set of results from a success/fail.

As it is, the idea loads defense: AP heavily (simply because of the way the wins work in an opposed system), and also Dodge (a critical Dodge blocks a critical attack completely). There is also the "if both roll a critical" result. As a kneejerk response (that may be wrong, so beware!) to balance it, the attack options could be changed to (Damage Modifier should never be modified, doubled or reduced):

Partial Success: Normal Weapon Damage + Damage Modifier
Normal Success: 2*Weapon Damage + Damage Modifier
Critical Success: Maximum Weapon Damage + Normal Weapon Damage + Damage Modifier (similar to RQ2 Impales).

However, a "partial Critical success" is still needed, in addition to dealing with the Dodge issue. Perhaps partial Criticals are downgraded to "normals"....

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

Having typed this, and even looking at the possiblities, I've realised still quite like the new tables without opposed rolls...

I agree that there is a good argument for using the new tables without opposed rolls and the dodge downgrade rule. Where I am coming from is an attempt to keep RQ a game where you very rarely need to consult a table.

I don't think you actually need a "partial critical" in the system above because I think that adds unneeded complexity.
For example critical attack vs critical parry:
If the parry wins
attack does min weapon damage parry blocks all damage.
If the attack wins
attack does max weapon damage and parry blocks 1*AP

Critical attack vs critical dodge
If dodge wins: all damage ignored, if attack wins, attack does max weapon damage and dodger can ignore 1d4 damage.

Generally, in my idea, if the defender wins the opposed contest then it is relatively unusual to take crippling damage but if the defender loses they may be able to mitigate some of the damage. This does give a little edge to the defender but now that you have to declare defence before you see the attack result, that is no bad thing. Compare to previous RQ where if you made a parry you always blocked the same amount of damage and if you dodged it was all or nothing. My idea works out, when all is said and done, similar but with an intermediate stage where you can get a bit of a parry defence or avoid some damage with a dodge.

My problem with the tables in the updated player's guide is not a degree of flavour - because different folks always like different strokes - but that they are bad game design with erratic and counter-intuitive results.

 

[Halfbat]

If the attack wins
attack does max weapon damage and parry blocks 1*AP

Critical attack vs critical dodge
If dodge wins: all damage ignored, if attack wins, attack does max weapon damage and dodger can ignore 1d4 damage.

So, effectively you're saying the losing critical is downgraded? What about equal results? If kept as is, it still biases towards the defender, but I'm assuming that's what you're looking for.

-----
On a different tack, given the rolls, an option with Dodge, I guess, is to roll 1d10 per 100% skill and allow the amount rolled to act as the Damage Reduction up to the player's skill/10.... or even allow the amount of DR to equal the success result/10.

 

[Deleriad]

If the attack wins
attack does max weapon damage and parry blocks 1*AP

Critical attack vs critical dodge
If dodge wins: all damage ignored, if attack wins, attack does max weapon damage and dodger can ignore 1d4 damage.

So, effectively you're saying the losing critical is downgraded? What about equal results? If kept as is, it still biases towards the defender, but I'm assuming that's what you're looking for.

Yes but no...
Basically, if you lose the contest the best you can do is a partial success. It's not a result downgrade, it is is a result cap. No matter how good your result, if your opponent wins, you can't get better than a partial success. This means that a critical result for a winner will always be fairly dramatic. The advantage to this is that you don't have to look at a 4 by 4 matrix you can just remember the 3 possible success results that you can generate and that shouldn't take long.

-----
On a different tack, given the rolls, an option with Dodge, I guess, is to roll 1d10 per 100% skill and allow the amount rolled to act as the Damage Reduction up to the player's skill/10.... or even allow the amount of DR to equal the success result/10.

I had thought of that but it has some oddities. For example, say you ignore damage equal to the 10's die then if you critical and lose then you'll do significantly worse than rolling, say, 54 and losing. If you base it on skill then it can start to get crunchy and dodge could become too good compared to parry. I might change the d4 reduction to d6. I've also thought about saying that a partial success steps the weapon dice down by 2 e.g. d3 becomes 1, d4 becomes d2, d6 becomes d3 and so on but I do like to keep the amount of figuring to a minimum. At it's best, RQ is good at being a system that gets out of the way.

 

[Rurik]

All fine points Deleriad (and Halfbat).

I've done something very similar to what you (Deleriad) have done for my houserule sheet to eliminate the need for any matrix - though I was using the much more awkward terms "Greater Success" and Lesser Success" - I fully plan on stealing your partial success terminology.

My major difference is I only apply partial success/full sucess to parries/dodges. In your system you both downgrade the attack and upgrade a parry at the same time (Minumum damage vs. 2xAP).

So I use:

Attack:
Critical: Double rolled damage + normal rolled damage modifier
Success: Normal Damage
Fumble: Roll on Fumble Table

Parry:
Critical: 2xAP Blocked and May Riposte
Success: 2xAP Blocked
Partial Success: AP Blocked
Fumble: Roll on Fumble Table

Dodge:
Critical: No Damage - attacker overextends unless attack was also a critical.
Partial Success: Minimum Damage
Success: No Damage
Fumble: Roll on Fumble Table.

Though I use 2xRolled Damage on a critical you could just as easily use the official Max Damage. I like the ability to do massive damage, and that a dagger to the head can serously ruin your day (up to 10 damage w/out a damage modifier).

I think those results are easy enough for a player to digest without a matrix.

 

[Deleriad]

So I use:

Attack:
Critical: Double rolled damage + normal rolled damage modifier
Success: Normal Damage
Fumble: Roll on Fumble Table

Parry:
Critical: 2xAP Blocked and May Riposte
Success: 2xAP Blocked
Partial Success: AP Blocked
Fumble: Roll on Fumble Table

Dodge:
Critical: No Damage - attacker overextends unless attack was also a critical.
Partial Success: Minimum Damage
Success: No Damage
Fumble: Roll on Fumble Table.

Though I use 2xRolled Damage on a critical you could just as easily use the official Max Damage. I like the ability to do massive damage, and that a dagger to the head can serously ruin your day (up to 10 damage w/out a damage modifier).

Agreed. Actually I've been thinking of going back to double damage for crits - more fun than max damage...

Under your system I take it that a partial success dodge vs critical attack would cause double minimum weapon damage plus normal damage modifier. That would work really nicely in that critical still gets something but the partial success might keep you alive.

if I use double damage for crits in my system that would allow me to turn partial success dodge back to a "weapon dice generate minimum results". Makes dodge really good and keeps a nice gradation without needing to roll more dice. I think I might go for that. E.g. a 1h battle axe does 2d6+2+DM damage. If a partial dodge is rolled then it does 2+2+DM damage. That's an average damage reduction of 5 points. In hand-to-hand then 2d3+DM reduces to 2+DM. It makes dodge a better option against really big weapons while a parry (especially a shield) is better against small to medium sized weapons.

I'm probably going to keep the "loser's result cap" because I use it throughout the game in a unified way. It helps keep results dramatic.

Cheers for the comments. Useful stuff.