Petition to keep the old combat tables

[Rurik]

It was a toss up over 2xAP and 3xAP for parry - I could go either way.

I Like that a critical dodge is better than a critical parry for a couple reasons. One is that when a dragon is swinging at you you are generally better getting out of the way than trying to put something between you and the hit.

Second is that I think shields and dodge should have an advantage over weapons for defense because of the extra improvement roll it takes improve them. Shields have an advantage over dodge in that you get an extra reaction - so I don't mind that dodge has an advantage in that it can completely avoid a hit (again, good versus dragons and great trolls). The 'no damage' advantage is also balanced somewhat by the partial success - generally blocking 8 or 10 points is going to be better than taking minimum damage.

It is nice to have some variation - dodge is better than a shield parry in some cases and worse in others.

 

[Deleriad]

Yeah, I was keeping minimum damage to mean plus rolled damage bonus (as in the rules. So:

Attack:
Success: Rolled Damage
Critical: Weapon Damage is doubled. Ignore Overextended results.

Parry:
Success: Block 2xAP
Partial Success: Block AP
Critical Success: Block 2xAP and may Riposte

Dodge:
Success: Take No Damage
Partial Success: Take minumum damage.
Critical: Take no damage. Attacker Overextended.

Any simple success is considered a partial success against a critical success.

Minumum Damage equals weapons minumum damage + rolled Damage Modifier. Minumum critical damage is twice weapons minimum damage + rolled Damage Modifier.

End of Story. Hows that? I like it and am goin to run with it for a while.

I like it. I think the one quirk might be critical parry (except a shield) could be fairly useless against a critical attack. E.g. An average critical attack might be 2d8+2+DM against 2*4AP of parry protection. It essentially says that against big foes and/or big weapons, you parry with a shield or you dodge but you don't parry with anything else. This is not necessarily a bug but it is definitely a feature.

 

[frogspawner]

A very nice system, well done!

Can we call successful rolls simply "Success" when they lose the contest (rather than, grudgingly, 'partial success') and "Special Success" when they win?

This terminology would be more compatible with previous versions of RQ, and help us oldsters understand.

 

[Halfbat]

From the above, Rurik, I'm assuming that a key line missing is :

"Criticals always result in a critical result, for attacker or defender, regardless of whether or not they win or lose an opposed roll."

AND

Does an attacker ignore Riposte results if he criticals?


If this is so, I think I actually might quite like the final result set - and all because the partial attack result is missing. I'll try running it through a stats spreadsheet...

...and now,
what about > 100%? Do the attacker/defender add their excess skill in as in the new opposed rolls? Or ignore it, as in RAW?

 

[gamesmeister]

A very nice system, well done!

Can we call successful rolls simply "Success" when they lose the contest (rather than, grudgingly, 'partial success') and "Special Success" when they win?

This terminology would be more compatible with previous versions of RQ, and help us oldsters understand.

I'm an oldster (I think Rurik is too), and if I saw Special, I'd start thinking it was my skill divided by 5...

It would just be chaos

 

[gamesmeister]

From the above, Rurik, I'm assuming that a key line missing is :

"Criticals always result in a critical result, for attacker or defender, regardless of whether or not they win or lose an opposed roll."

Yes, that's kind of inherent within these rules. The only type of result that is downgraded is a success, and that to a partial success. There's no partial critical, primarily because it would be needed so rarely, and partly because the rules presented here work without them.

Does an attacker ignore Riposte results if he criticals?

My original proposal was that a critical parry blocked all damage, but didn't get to riposte against a critical attack. Rurik has suggested that the parry still only blocks AP x 2, but a riposte is allowed even against a critical attack. The jury is still out on this one, although I'm still leaning towards my original suggestion at the moment. The reason for this is because now you have to declare reactions before an attack is rolled, you can rarely spare a reaction on a riposte, and therefore you'd get very little benefit from a critical parry.

If this is so, I think I actually might quite like the final result set - and all because the partial attack result is missing. I'll try running it through a stats spreadsheet...

Cool - be very interesting to see what numbers you come up with

...and now,
what about > 100%? Do the attacker/defender add their excess skill in as in the new opposed rolls? Or ignore it, as in RAW?

I see no reason why they shouldn't add their excess skill as per the new rules, in fact I think it's important that they do. Someone with a 120% dodge skill is incredibly fast and hard to hit, and so should be winning that opposed roll more often than not.

 

[frogspawner]

Can we call successful rolls simply "Success" when they lose the contest (rather than, grudgingly, 'partial success') and "Special Success" when they win?

This terminology would be more compatible with previous versions of RQ, and help us oldsters understand.

I'm an oldster (I think Rurik is too), and if I saw Special, I'd start thinking it was my skill divided by 5...

It would just be chaos

No, not chaos - quite the reverse. If you're playing MRQ you're already remembering Criticals are 1/10th not 1/20th, so this just means there's a new way to figure Specials too. The more consistent naming & translation will smooth transition between the new and old systems.

The only type of result that is downgraded is a success...

It's preferable to upgrade a simple success to a Special if it wins the contest - it just feels more upbeat.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Ok, since the poll has been up for almost two weeks now (and I am back from my holidays), I think we can extract some conclusions from the results and the discussion.

40% of the forumers wanted to just stop the debate and leave every fixes to a houserules. Which is a very simple and elegant solution, indeed. But keep in mind that many of us also play at conventions, where you cannot use houserules. Please note that with the opposed roll there is no difference between shields and weapons and a rapier-using swashbuckler has more survival chances vs. a Great Troll than a hoplite shield user. Without the opposed roll it is the swashbuckler who cannot handle the Troll in hand to hand combat. An experienced player must be able to predict whether his caracter can survive a fight, especially when playing in a tournament, so there must be an "official" answer to anything.

The rest of us were more or less evenly divided between opposed roll lovers and opposed roll haters, whereas there was an evident majority in favour of the new tables. So the poll result so far can be summarized as such: "The new tables are generally better than the old ones, and the opposed roll should be regarded as an optional rule".

Note that I strongly disagree with this, but it seems to be the most widespread opinion here on the forum.

Someone has suggested to introduce special or partial successes, and to get rid of the tables altogether. I am definitely in favour of this, but it is outside the spirit of the new RQ ruleset. Again, if you play at conventions, you cannot stray away too much from the official ruleset.

I'll post one proposal for the resolution of combat and other problems later this day. I'll start a new thread, so stay tuned.

 

[Loz]

Someone has suggested to introduce special or partial successes, and to get rid of the tables altogether. I am definitely in favour of this, but it is outside the spirit of the new RQ ruleset. Again, if you play at conventions, you cannot stray away too much from the official ruleset.

And this point, well-made, was one I gave considerable thought to. Yes, it would have solved a great many issues perhaps, but would also have created a system that would need to be extended throughout the whole MRQ skill system - something that simply wasn't in my remit, and would, if it had been, have created pretty much a clone of BRP. And that, as Rosen points out, would stray from the official ruleset.

I think this has been a good, thought-provoking debate. I've stayed out of it largely because I have other things to concentrate on, but the nuances haven't been lost on me. The way the combat system was revised, from the Opposed Roll perspective, was to maintain it as an optional way of resolving combat. The matrices were designed to be used either or. The issues raised regarding the combination of the two point out the difficulties in rationalising the two systems, but doesn't, in my view, render the attempt (or either approach) invalid.

Thanks for your input all!

 

[Deleriad]

From the above, Rurik, I'm assuming that a key line missing is :

"Criticals always result in a critical result, for attacker or defender, regardless of whether or not they win or lose an opposed roll."

AND

Does an attacker ignore Riposte results if he criticals?

I must admit that although it's a matter of taste, my preference is that the loser of a contest can NEVER score better than a partial success.

In combat it's a matter of opinion but if you want to work towards a Grand Unified System then you need opposed rolls to work for:
spell resistance
poison resistance
stealth vs perception and so on.
So, for example, if you have a stealth vs perception contest and they both critical, though one wins, what exactly does that mean? What you need, usually in these cases is a mix of comparison and absolute. So what I prefer is:
Winning results: critical or normal success
Losing results: partial success, fail, fumble

I think this makes much more sense than:
Losing results: critical success, partial success, fail, fumble

when you look at that way, including "critical success" as one of the possibilities for losing a contest stands out like a sore thumb.

I used to call partial success "mitigation" at one point because it generally means you mitigate the worst results of a failure.

That said, this is all veering off topic as it's really about two things:
one an opposed roll combat system that doesn't need a result matrix
two a unified opposed roll system that doesn't need a result matrix.

Obviously not everyone likes opposed rolls and those who do like different flavours. This thread probably ought to be about the RAW combat tables.

 

[weasel_fierce]

you could take a cue from Heroquest, and compare the degrees of success (success vs failure is 1 degree, sucess vs fumble is 2 degrees)

 

[atgxtg]

I Like that a critical dodge is better than a critical parry for a couple reasons. One is that when a dragon is swinging at you you are generally better getting out of the way than trying to put something between you and the hit.

Interesting, but "putting something between you and the hit" isn't an actually parry. I know MRQ (and even RQ) doesn't differentiate between a block and a parry, but a real parry is deflecting the attack, preferably moving the opponent's weapon out of line to open them up for a return attack. That's why it IS possibly to parry a greataxe wth a dagger. You don't stick the dagger out in front to be chopped by ther axe, you step in, and catch the half of the axe with the dagger blade, either defelcting or even preventing the swing, that is, if you are successful. A failed parry can be worse than not parrying at all. Then again, a really good dodge could allow someone to get aside or even behind an opponent.

I finally dl'd the update and the new tables. I'm not sure yet which tables I like better. I wish they had raised most of the weapon APs though.

 

[Deleriad]

Just to dig up an old thread but having been playing with the "partial success" system of opposed roll combat for over a year now I'm pretty happy with it.

To summarize: an attack is an opposed roll (unless the defender cannot or will not react in which case it is a simple roll.)

If you make your skill test and win the roll (or defender doesn't react) the possible results are: critical success or normal success

If you lose the roll but make your skill your result is a partial success.

If you fail your skill test your result is a fail or a fumble.

I have tweaked it somewhat though.
Attack: weapon does max damage plus ignore APs equal to the actual number rolled to attack. (e.g. if you critical on 04 then you ignore 4 APs. that can include parry aps.)
Normal and partial success attacks do normal damage.

Parry:
Critical: block all damage can riposte
Normal: block 2*APs
Partial: block 1*APs

Dodge:
Critical: ignore all damage, attacker overextended.
Normal: ignore all damage.
Partial: ignore half damage.

I had been using double-weapon damage for critical attacks but that favoured 2-h weapons too much. Armour piercing effect rewards skill over weapon size.

So far very happy with it.

 

[Halfbat]

Attack: weapon does max damage plus ignore APs equal to the actual number rolled to attack. (e.g. if you critical on 04 then you ignore 4 APs. that can include parry aps.)

Glad it's working, D. I'm assuming that the above actually is omitting the word "Critical" before "Attack"....

 

[Deleriad]

Attack: weapon does max damage plus ignore APs equal to the actual number rolled to attack. (e.g. if you critical on 04 then you ignore 4 APs. that can include parry aps.)

Glad it's working, D. I'm assuming that the above actually is omitting the word "Critical" before "Attack"....

Yup. That would be a critical error on my behalf...

 

[RosenMcStern]

Uhm, I always heard of Delecti the Necromancer, not Deleriad the Threadomancer

Anyway, it is nice to reread my old poll now that two years have passed. Nontabular combat is nice and many people hate tables, but many others prefer a small table that is easy to memorize to using an opposed roll or a Degree of Success system (which I prefer instead).

 

[kurgan84]

Just to dig up an old thread but having been playing with the "partial success" system of opposed roll combat for over a year now I'm pretty happy with it.

To summarize: an attack is an opposed roll (unless the defender cannot or will not react in which case it is a simple roll.)

If you make your skill test and win the roll (or defender doesn't react) the possible results are: critical success or normal success

If you lose the roll but make your skill your result is a partial success.

If you fail your skill test your result is a fail or a fumble.

I have tweaked it somewhat though.
Attack: weapon does max damage plus ignore APs equal to the actual number rolled to attack. (e.g. if you critical on 04 then you ignore 4 APs. that can include parry aps.)
Normal and partial success attacks do normal damage.

Parry:
Critical: block all damage can riposte
Normal: block 2*APs
Partial: block 1*APs

Dodge:
Critical: ignore all damage, attacker overextended.
Normal: ignore all damage.
Partial: ignore half damage.

I had been using double-weapon damage for critical attacks but that favoured 2-h weapons too much. Armour piercing effect rewards skill over weapon size.

So far very happy with it.

I use roughly the same rule with some minor changes:

Attack:
Critical:weapon does max damage plus the actual number rolled to attack. (e.g. if you critical on 04 with a warsword (1D8). you do 8+4=12 dammage.) and take two Advantage*
Normal: attacks do normal damage and take one Advantage*
partial success: attacks do normal damage.

Parry:
Critical: block all damage and take one Advantage*
Normal: block 2*APs
Partial: block 1*APs

Dodge:
Critical: ignore all damage, and take one Advantage*.
Normal: ignore all damage.
Partial: ignore half damage.

And for fumble:
Fumble: Roll on Fumble Table or give one Advantage to the opponent

*Advantages are like special effects from the Pete Nash rule (with some new ones )

ps: sorry for my poor english

 

[Deleriad]

Thread necromancy time....

Ran my largest MRQ combat todate using miniatures and a map as well. Been using the partial success rules that I've mentioned before (basically if you make a parry but lose the opposed roll you get 1*AP) and armor-piercing criticals (on a critical ignore an amount of APs equal to the actual percentile roll). I've also replace Armor Penalty with an ENC penalty which is generally less harsh. Some things became apparent.

The EWF soldiers were using kite shields. Providing you make your parry then a shield makes you, for all intents and purposes, invulnerable if you have decent armour as well.

Because I've dropped the armour penalty I put "bypass armour" back in as a precise attack. If not, then the Thunderer with its 10APs would have still been stomping around the board the next morning. Basically if you consider something with 8 hit locations and a minimum of 10APs and 11 HPs in each location then without bypassing armour it would probably require 30-40 hits from 2H weapons just to bring one location to zero.

Big armoured critters don't parry or dodge which means that combat with them is basically a matter of attrition.

Weapon parries versus animal attacks are lethal as written. The two renderers went down very quickly, in both cases due to a weapon parry inflicting damage on its attacking location. (I know they have Fearsome Natural Weapons but I had been ruling that a successful parry versus a failed attack did damage.)

Player characters always attack horses. I tend to forget this. I wonder what the historical record is. I generally allow riders to parry for horses. Just thinking about it, I guess the main worry about attacking a horse is not having your weapon free to parry the rider. Perhaps I might state that attacking a horse while it is mounted can trigger a reaction free attack from the rider. Will have to ponder that.

My feeling about the rules I have been using is that they risk bogging down combat because if you have decent defences it can take a long time to bring down an opponent. Most fights were resolved by manoeuvres so that you could outnumber the opponent. (I don't have variable combat actions per round). The official Opposed Rolls rules resolve combat more quickly because basically you hit completely or miss completely. On the other hand, a complicated fight with 4 PCs, 15 NPC ducks, 15 NPC Wyrmfriends, a Wyrmfriend boss, a triceratops and 2 velociraptors took about 3 hours which given that it was meant to be the biggest combat yet wasn't too bad. I don't mind spending that long a set-piece combat, others might.

 

[soltakss]

Player characters always attack horses. I tend to forget this. I wonder what the historical record is.

Medieval French knights were called "Butchers", according to one source I read, not because they killed men but because they deliberately killed their opponents' horses.

Medieval pikemen defended against charging knights by skewering the horses.