Question about riposte, trip and regain footing.

[Dan True]

Hello.

First post on this forum. Gave MRQII a testrun this Friday, and really liked it! However, some questions popped up in our gaming group, which I hope someone can answer. I have searched the forum, and have been unable to find a thread already answering this. Please provide a link if I have not searched thoroughly. Thanks!

Riposte: Does this attack have some advantage over a normal attack? (ie. cannot be parried or such?). As I see it, there is no reason to use the riposte action. It is much better to simply wait choose enhance parry or something, and then wait till your SR to attack. The benefit of waiting is that you have another CA availaible for parry until you attack.

On top of this, is there any rule stopping a character from simply "do nothing" the first 2-3 runs of the strike rank loop and then use all of his CA. I would never allow it as a DM, but is there a rule governing it?

Trip and regain footing: As we found, trip opponent is a very good combat manouvre, although the opposed athletic can be quite easy to win of the attack roll was a low one. However, I am in doubt as to how a tripped character regains his footing.
There are two possibilities in he rulebook, either the CA "Change Stance" or the CM "Regain footing". As we decided to play it, "Change Stance" is only if unengaged, as an engaged character would surely be hardly pressed to stand up if an opponent is bearing down upon him.
If the character is engaged, we decided that the character needs to gain a CM from an attack roll (at the -20%) and then choose "Regain footing" - this represents the character struggling for room to get up again.

Have I done this correctly? if not, does the opponent gain an "attack of opportunity" (to use a d&d term) when using "change stance" - because I find it weird that one can just stand up with an armed opponent a few feet from you.

Hope someone can help. Thank you in advance.

- Dan

 

[Mikko Leho]

Have I done this correctly? if not, does the opponent gain an "attack of opportunity" (to use a d&d term) when using "change stance" - because I find it weird that one can just stand up with an armed opponent a few feet from you.

It already kinda works that way: the character changing stance loses one CA which could have been used for parrying or attacking. If the duelling characters are tied at CAs, then a successful trip will either grant the standing character one attack that cannot be parried or reduces opponent's chances to land blows and parry. IMHO giving a free attack on top of this would make trip too powerful. Not giving the chance for spend a CA to change stance would seriously hinder prone characters at least at lower skill levels.

 

[Mikko Leho]

Riposte: Does this attack have some advantage over a normal attack? (ie. cannot be parried or such?). As I see it, there is no reason to use the riposte action. It is much better to simply wait choose enhance parry or something, and then wait till your SR to attack. The benefit of waiting is that you have another CA availaible for parry until you attack.

As far as I can see the Riposte's usefulness depends largely on the situation. For instance if two fighters are tied at three CAs, then the character with higher initiative can potentially land two hits and parry one blow. However if the character with lower initiative gains a defensive CA and chooses Riposte, then it is he who will possibly score two hits instead of his opponent. With this example I am disregarding a lot like reach, armour and such but Riposte has its uses.

 

[Deleriad]

As you say, riposte is only useful in some fairly limited circumstances. Essentially it changes the attack and parry order in that it allows you to attack twice in a row.

I personally wouldn't let a character who is engaged simply use the "change stance" combat action, I would make them use Change Range to stand. The rules are silent on this. That said, standing up does use a CA, putting the character at risk of not being able to defend an attack that round.

On the CAs and SR cycle, if a person doesn't take an action during a 'cycle' then they lose the CA. The best way to understand it is like this. During a SR cycle, each character has a turn. If they have any CAs when their turn starts then they must take an action or delay their turn until the end of the cycle. If they don't take an action by the end of the cycle then their turn automatically becomes "do nothing" which costs a CA.* You can also only have one turn each cycle, so there's no way of taking all your CAs at once on the same turn.

*This is why the rather odd looking CA which lets you use your turn to declare a parry is good. By taking a "defensive stance" you can use your turn to prepare a parry and this lasts until your next turn.** So if you have nothing better to do with your turn then you can prepare a parry and defend yourself rather than having your CA go to waste.

**It's not in the rules but I also allow a CA called "prepare an attack" which lets you take an offensive stance and dedicate your CA to an attack before your next turn. Useful for guarding a place or firing at someone trying to run past your field of view etc.

 

[ThatGuy]

On top of this, is there any rule stopping a character from simply "do nothing" the first 2-3 runs of the strike rank loop and then use all of his CA. I would never allow it as a DM, but is there a rule governing it?

- Dan

If you choose "do nothing" and the Strike ranks count down to 0, you lose the unused CA. This is the same risk run for choosing "parry.". If the strike ranks count down to 0 and know one attacked you, you loose the CA anyway!

 

[Deleriad]

On top of this, is there any rule stopping a character from simply "do nothing" the first 2-3 runs of the strike rank loop and then use all of his CA. I would never allow it as a DM, but is there a rule governing it?

- Dan

If you choose "do nothing" and the Strike ranks count down to 0, you lose the unused CA. This is the same risk run for choosing "parry.". If the strike ranks count down to 0 and know one attacked you, you loose the CA anyway!

That's not actually the case. The option "parry" lets you use that action at any time before your next turn. It's unique in that respect. If it didn't, it would be totally useless as you would always just choose delay.

 

[ThatGuy]

That's not actually the case. The option "parry" lets you use that action at any time before your next turn. It's unique in that respect. If it didn't, it would be totally useless as you would always just choose delay.

You are right. Important distinction. Text turn covers you into the next round of SR up to yours. But, still, if no one attacks you, it is a wasted CA.

This actually happened in an online PBP game I was in. In the middle of a sea of Orcs, no one attacks my character. Admittedly my dice were horrible, and my character may not have seemed to much a threat...because he wasn't, despite weapon skills in the 80s (the highest of the group...and actually makes contact the least...)

 

[Vagni]

Trip and regain footing: As we found, trip opponent is a very good combat manouvre, although the opposed athletic can be quite easy to win of the attack roll was a low one. However, I am in doubt as to how a tripped character regains his footing.
There are two possibilities in he rulebook, either the CA "Change Stance" or the CM "Regain footing". As we decided to play it, "Change Stance" is only if unengaged, as an engaged character would surely be hardly pressed to stand up if an opponent is bearing down upon him.
If the character is engaged, we decided that the character needs to gain a CM from an attack roll (at the -20%) and then choose "Regain footing" - this represents the character struggling for room to get up again.

I let my players spend either a CA to 'change stance' or use the Combat Manoeuvre 'Regain Footing' even if they are still being attacked. If they use a CA to change stance then they cannot attack or parry on that SR and anyone attacking them gains a +20% due to them being prone. Thus anyone attacking them is likely to gain at least one combat manoeuvre and be able to trip them again and keep them prone.

Getting up in a combat isn't really that hard, it's getting up without being hit that's the tricky bit! That's when 'Regain Footing' (at the -20% prone penalty) comes in.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Having to lose one CA to regain footing is already bad enough. As stated, either you are much faster than your opponent or this already means your foe gets a free attack anyway! There is no need to make it even worse than it already is by re-introducing the "opportunity attack" complication that was carefully erased from the previous version of the rules. The elegant simplicity of the unified CAs solves this and other problems better.

 

[Deleriad]

Having to lose one CA to regain footing is already bad enough. As stated, either you are much faster than your opponent or this already means your foe gets a free attack anyway! There is no need to make it even worse than it already is by re-introducing the "opportunity attack" complication that was carefully erased from the previous version of the rules. The elegant simplicity of the unified CAs solves this and other problems better.

Precisely this issue came up in the Living Glorantha scenario I was running. A PC got tripped by a pirate. However the PC had one more CA and it happened to be the last action of the round. At the time I simply let the PC use the change stance action to stand up. The pirate couldn't do anything about it and, of course, the PC still had the same number of CAs as the pirate remaining.

Because of that it seems to me that any attempt to manoeuvre in combat (changing stance, changing range, disengaging) should work the same way and all use the same system - the change range combat action. After all it seems reasonable to me to say that it's no easier to stand up while hard-pressed by an opponent than it is to try to disengage.

 

[Vagni]

The way I play trips is:

If your opponent is out of CA's that round and your not, then your faster wit and agility allows you simply roll away and get up before he can hit you again.

If your opponent still has a CA left then he still has enough momentum left to strike you again as your getting up.

I allow the next attack that round on someone who used their last CA to get up to be at +20% for a prone foe.

 

[Chalupacabra]

My thoughts on this rule is: According to how it's worded, if the athletics counter-roll is a sucess, there's no effect of a trip, so a wasted choice for little game effect. The other CM give results unless a crit parry took place.

I play the trip as it is in a fumble (if athletics roll is failed) then lose D3 CA and use the -20% modifier for the prone character and +20% for the not prone player. Then, a regular CA to change stance.
If the athletic roll sucedes, then I play it like the overextend defensive CM. Didn't knock 'em down, but put them off balance enough that it will take one CA to recover.

On a side note, the lower the roll on D100, the better, so for a counter ability (like athletics) I play you have to roll under that number. You have to do better than them to prevail is my thought.

 

[hector]

On a side note, the lower the roll on D100, the better, so for a counter ability (like athletics) I play you have to roll under that number. You have to do better than them to prevail is my thought.

Doesn't work like that as written: if a 5 or less on a d100 is a critical success in a given skill, then precisely 5 is the best roll you can achieve with that skill. Remember that opposed rolls are roll under your skill but higher than your opponent's roll (or roll below your crit chance, but above your opponent). Thus if a guy with skill 20 and a guy with skill 50 do an opposed roll, with the guy with skill 20 getting a 10 and the guy with 50 getting 45, the guy with 50 wins because he got the higher roll and the same level of success. If the guy with a 50 rolls between 21 and 50, then the guy with 20 can only win on a critical. This was deliberate, I suspect, in an attempt to make skill matter more than blind luck in opposed rolls. All counters for trips and disarms and suchlike are opposed rolls, and so they work like this.

 

[Dan True]

On a side note, the lower the roll on D100, the better, so for a counter ability (like athletics) I play you have to roll under that number. You have to do better than them to prevail is my thought.

Doesn't work like that as written: if a 5 or less on a d100 is a critical success in a given skill, then precisely 5 is the best roll you can achieve with that skill. Remember that opposed rolls are roll under your skill but higher than your opponent's roll (or roll below your crit chance, but above your opponent). Thus if a guy with skill 20 and a guy with skill 50 do an opposed roll, with the guy with skill 20 getting a 10 and the guy with 50 getting 45, the guy with 50 wins because he got the higher roll and the same level of success. If the guy with a 50 rolls between 21 and 50, then the guy with 20 can only win on a critical. This was deliberate, I suspect, in an attempt to make skill matter more than blind luck in opposed rolls. All counters for trips and disarms and suchlike are opposed rolls, and so they work like this.[/quote]

Yep, else skill would just decided how often you succeeded, but when you succeeded you would often succeed more than any opponent trying to oppose your roll. Take for instance the following example:

Character A has a skill rank of 10% in the used weapon, fighting an opponent with skill rank 80% and athletics 60%. A will only hit 10% of the times and will thus be hammered quite fast. If we assume the fight goes on though then at some point A will succeed and the opponent fail. Therefore character A gets a CM and chooses Trip Opponent. Now, as A had to roll 10 or lower to even hit his opponent, then the Athletics check the opponent has to make has to be lower than 60 AND above 10 = quite easy. Which it should be, as he is clearly more competent than A.
However, if we did it like Chalupacabra said, the athletics roll would have to be below 10 = quite hard. Which is wrong, as it creates a situation where A might not hit that often, but when he hits his trip is very hard to avoid. This should not be the case, as having a skill rank of 10 is not some secret combat style that focuses on few powerful attacks... It just means A is incompetent.

Other than that, thanks for all the answers, I think I have gotten a more clear view as to how to handle trip and riposte. Thank you.

- Dan

 

[Deleriad]

The way I play trips is:

If your opponent is out of CA's that round and your not, then your faster wit and agility allows you simply roll away and get up before he can hit you again.

If your opponent still has a CA left then he still has enough momentum left to strike you again as your getting up.

I allow the next attack that round on someone who used their last CA to get up to be at +20% for a prone foe.

That may be how you play it but it's not what's in the rules. Generally the effect of a successful trip, if you play by the rules, is to cause the tripped person to waste a Combat Action standing up. So standing up may leave you open to an attack you can't defend against. The standard pattern for two people with 3 CAs each would be:

A attack. B parry fail. A trips B
B stands up
A attacks. B parries.
A attacks. (B out of actions).

If B is worried about this, then B could stay prone until A misses at which point, B should have a free CA that he can use to stand up with. E.g.
A attack. B parry fail. A trips B
B attack. A parry.
A attack miss. B no response.
B stand up. A no actions left.

Personally I don't think it makes sense to allow use of the stand up action in combat so I would force the downed person to use the "change range" CA instead. That's because Change Range is a really useful generic CA for all sorts of manoeuvres. So again:
A attack. B parry fail. A trips B
B Change Range. A can oppose (evade vs evade), counterattack (weapon vs evade) or do nothing.
This basically means that when you try to stand your opponent can either try and prevent you from doing so, swing at you while you're vulnerable or stand back like a gentleman and let you get back to your feet.

 

[Chalupacabra]

Didn't mean to hot topic the opposed rolls here in a CM thread! This is my house rule based off my logic, not my trying to state what is written in the rulebook. Maybe I can clarify my thought process.

To simplify: using the character A with 10% vs 80% character B, If A crits, it's still a superior action, skilled or accident, maybe B is expecting what they are trained for and A isn't "following normal form" or they didn't do exactly what they intended, but got a better result, an accident. However you might roleplay an unskilled person achieving a crit against a superior foe. However it occured, a normal evasive action, IMHO, shouldn't be enough to throw off the effects. It's a crit. If you want to suceed, you must do better than your opponent did, not what they and you are capable of doing. Chuck Norris can get hit by a lucky blow every now and again! :wink:

I know the rules don't agree, but thinking older runequest where the skills would be matched before the roll and the difference was used to give the advantage. Frex: Trip attack (character A) vs Athletics (Character B) Character B would get a huge advantage to stay afoot. But, MRQII rules are based on the already rolled results of the attack. If A rolls a 1, that's pretty much against the odds to start with. So for that one action, they performed as perfect as you can get. If B rolls an 80, they just barely even made it, so I dont feel that they should get by against a superior attack. I don't think D20, so a lower roll is better in a D100 system, that's why I have an issue. In order to get a CM you have to roll a superior action, so it should be difficult to counter it. Again, all my opinion, my reasons for opting out on the rulebook in this case.


As far as the trip results, I think there should be a penalty for being tripped. Using athletics means you've wasted time and proper positioning in order to regain. Losing one CA to stand up isn't really big enough a penalty for me. I like the way the fumble/prone rules are written, so I think it should be the same effect, just someone did it to you instead of you fell yourself. I also feel if you counter and stay afoot, you've still lost positioning and balance and there should be a penalty, which I decided is to spend 1 CA to not be prone. I've stumbled and not fallen, but my concentration and full effort is being used to do that. Hence, loss of an action.

That's how my brain logic's it out. I also removed Common Magic and made it into a lost magic which the players discover. One of many reasons is to have something fun no one else has but isn't overwhelmingly powerful. Always more fun to be better than the average Joe!

 

[Mikko Leho]

To simplify: using the character A with 10% vs 80% character B, If A crits, it's still a superior action, skilled or accident, maybe B is expecting what they are trained for and A isn't "following normal form" or they didn't do exactly what they intended, but got a better result, an accident. However you might roleplay an unskilled person achieving a crit against a superior foe. However it occured, a normal evasive action, IMHO, shouldn't be enough to throw off the effects. It's a crit. If you want to suceed, you must do better than your opponent did, not what they and you are capable of doing.

I don't know if I am reading you correctly, but that is how the rules work as written. A critical always wins against normal success no matter what the characters' skill percentages were. If in an Opposed Test both characters achieve critical, the higher critical roll will win. Same goes for normal successes. So if the original roll that caused the Trip was critical, then the opponent's Evade roll must be critical and higher to evade Trip effects.

 

[PhilHibbs]

If B rolls an 80, they just barely even made it, so I dont feel that they should get by against a superior attack. I don't think D20, so a lower roll is better in a D100 system, that's why I have an issue. In order to get a CM you have to roll a superior action, so it should be difficult to counter it. Again, all my opinion, my reasons for opting out on the rulebook in this case.

I think it's very important that higher rolls beat lower rolls within the same success band. With a "lower is always better" system, a success rolled against a 10% skill is virtually guaranteed to beat a success rolled against an 80% skill. With "higher is better", a success rolled against an 80% skill is nearly always going to beat a success rolled against a 10% skill. It's mathematically identical to comparing "how much you made the roll by", but that involves subtraction, so comparing higher-is-better achieves the same thing with less maths.

 

[Chalupacabra]

Lol, sorry, was trying to keep it simple but am at work so not in a gaming mindset. To me it just seems that the crit percentage is attatched to the lower part of your skill ability. That implies a lower roll is better so to be beaten by a higher roll seems wrong. It works for me and my players have all agreed that it makes sense to them so by no means am I saying to do anything that would confuse your players.

If both skills involved were 50% and the trip roll was a 20 and the athletics was a 42, to me the trip was more sucessful. The rules say otherwise so I house rule-trump them. But I will pull out the book and take another look since everyone feels more comfortable with the way it's written. Maybe my logic's broken!

I do love the CA and CM though, excellent revamp of RQ.

 

[Deleriad]

If both skills involved were 50% and the trip roll was a 20 and the athletics was a 42, to me the trip was more sucessful. The rules say otherwise so I house rule-trump them.

Your way and the rules' way is identical only your way requires more maths. The probabilities of "high roll wins" are identical to "person who made their skill by their most" only you don't need to bother subtracting.