Questions about skills over 100% & Critical Hits

[Urox]

Combat:

- Attacker rolls to hit using their full skill rating.
- Defender decides whether to use Reaction to defend. If not, resolve hit.
- If Defender does React, both roll using their full skill value (the High Value Skills Rule is not used), and compare on the matrix in the combat chapter. Resolve as per that table.

Does that seem right?

Not quite -- first off, it's unclear how criticals on the initial attack roll are handled. If they are only used for unopposed hits, I think there is a little munchin wiggle room here, where you can react to negate an initial critical.

And, what happens with the opposed roll if both combatants are over 100? It seems that MQ this is reduced to rolling for crits and 96+ misses, just like RQ (which I am assuming is perceived to be a problem, hence the change).

 

[Mikko Leho]

IMO rolling under your skill and gettting a critical if you roll 1/20th and a special if you rolled 1/5th is simpler, easier, and better.

Rolling doubles is IMHO even better. I don't know why MRQ didn't choose to include this, maybe the designers felt that it would conjure comparisons with Unknown Armies :?

 

[jadrax]

Rolling doubles is IMHO even better. I don't know why MRQ didn't choose to include this, maybe the designers felt that it would conjure comparisons with Unknown Armies :?

Yeah I really like the rolling doubles mechanic, shame they dident use it but I suspect many will houserule it in.

 

[atgxtg]

IMO rolling under your skill and gettting a critical if you roll 1/20th and a special if you rolled 1/5th is simpler, easier, and better.

Rolling doubles is IMHO even better. I don't know why MRQ didn't choose to include this, maybe the designers felt that it would conjure comparisons with Unknown Armies :?

or TUnnels & Trolls.


The way HARN does it, by tracking die rolls that end in "5" or "0" was actually an easy way to track 1/5th and 1/10th of skill without needing a chart or crunching any numbers. Clever, easy to implement, and simple.

 

[Rurik]

IMO rolling under your skill and gettting a critical if you roll 1/20th and a special if you rolled 1/5th is simpler, easier, and better.

Rolling doubles is IMHO even better. I don't know why MRQ didn't choose to include this, maybe the designers felt that it would conjure comparisons with Unknown Armies :?

Doubles has an simple elegance that is appealing I admit. It does have a couple of problems though.

First and formost it breaks down with skills over a hundred.

Secondly, it reduces the chance of a critical to be less than 10%. A character with a 10% skill cannot crit. A character with a 50% skill only has a 4% chance of critting, and a character with a 98% skill only has an 8% chance of a crit. If you can live with the reduced numbers it works well though.

 

[Mugen]

IMO rolling under your skill and gettting a critical if you roll 1/20th and a special if you rolled 1/5th is simpler, easier, and better.

Rolling doubles is IMHO even better. I don't know why MRQ didn't choose to include this, maybe the designers felt that it would conjure comparisons with Unknown Armies :?

This was actually debated during early playtest stages. I don't remember why skill/10 was prefered, perhaps because previous editions of RQ worked in a similar way, with low rolls being criticals.

EDIT : Now I remember it was discarded for the reasons Rurik mentionned above...

 

[Urox]

You don't find Heroquest a bit wacky in and of itself?

HQ/HW is pretty much the definition of wacky.

The simple contests mostly work, but I'm not a fan of opposed dice rolls to determine success, especially when both are subject to modification before the roll.

The extended contests in HW/HQ are fubar'd, tho. While they might work somewhat for resolving storytelling, they don't work as a combat simulation. Of course, Prince Valiant's coin-flipping probably worked better for resolving storytelling.

I am not opposed to simpflication where it works -- IIRC, the old Pacesetter games (Chill, Star Ace, TimeMaster) were one of the first games to combine success and degree of success into one roll -- and that worked for those games (or am I confusing them with Marvel Super Heroes?)

 

[Mikko Leho]

Doubles has an simple elegance that is appealing I admit. It does have a couple of problems though.

Well, one could rule that 11 is always critical and 00 fumble. I however value more the ease of use than how balanced the rules actually are.

 

[HyrumOWC]

I am not opposed to simpflication where it works -- IIRC, the old Pacesetter games (Chill, Star Ace, TimeMaster) were one of the first games to combine success and degree of success into one roll -- and that worked for those games (or am I confusing them with Marvel Super Heroes?)

They all used the same mechanic, as all 4 games were designed by the same people.

Hyrum.

 

[Rurik]

Doubles has an simple elegance that is appealing I admit. It does have a couple of problems though.

Well, one could rule that 11 is always critical and 00 fumble. I however value more the ease of use than how balanced the rules actually are.

Creating special case rules takes away from the 'simple elegance'. Personally, a skill 10% or less not being able to crit isn't even that big a deal to me. My second point really is just pointing out some of the quirks. I actually like the doubles system.

It is the handling skills over 100 that is the big drawback to me.

 

[atgxtg]

The simple contests mostly work, but I'm not a fan of opposed dice rolls to determine success, especially when both are subject to modification before the roll.

Several games handle opposed contests well. I like the way the new Usagi Yojimbo RPG does it. Both characters roll thier dice and high roll wins. It works as the characrters are rolling different size dice based upon thier own abilities. Most characters are rolling a die for stat, one for skill, and possibly one or two more depending on other circumstances. IN UY bonuses and penatlies don't modify your stats, just give bonus/penalty dice to one side. If more than one of a player's dice beat the opponent's high rscore, they get one or more criticals. Very simple, but doesn't work well with D100.

THe James Bond game had another way to work opposed tests, and much more like RQ. In the JB game, a roll was given a Quality Rating to rate the desgree of success. QR results ran from 1 (the best) to 4( acceptable). 1/10 success chance was a QR1, 1/5th = QR2, 1/2 = QR3, >1/2 =QR 4, >success chance=failure.
Opposed tests were handled by comparing the QR results. Depending on the sitation either the better QR won (such as when playing poker), or the winning QR was modifed by the losing result. FOr example a QR1 opposed by a QR 4 get's turned into a QR2.

THis could really work out nice for attack/parry situations, or even for a Pendragon style game where the best QR hits. IF we "reversed" the QR results (so that 4 is best, and 1 is acceptable) we could even use the modifed QR to determine the number od damage dice rolled.

 

[Urox]

The James Bond game had another way to work opposed tests, and much more like [MQ].

I agree, 007 worked quite well, but I think it was a slightly different animal. Almost all of the 007 I played was with 1 player and a GM. The system is very much designed where the Agent is to be superhuman and is able to resolve conflicts on his own.

007 also had a bidding mechanic similar to HQ/HW's extended contests for resolving chases, which was moderately exciting (much akin to the old TV gameshow, Name that Tune).

 

[atgxtg]

The James Bond game had another way to work opposed tests, and much more like [MQ].

I agree, 007 worked quite well, but I think it was a slightly different animal. Almost all of the 007 I played was with 1 player and a GM. The system is very much designed where the Agent is to be superhuman and is able to resolve conflicts on his own.

Yeah the game was well designed for solo play. THat was one reason for the Hero Point system. In group play, if one player is having bad luck with the dice the others can compensdate for it. In a solo, bad luck is often fatal. Hero Points helped with that.

The JB success chances were also based on a somewhat heroic agent, with a base chance of 75% of success for average tasks. THis works out well for high powered RQ characters like Rune Levels. The Bond system also worked out remarkable well at the sub 100% chances too. THe info Ihave read about real word firefights actually matches up better to the Bond RPG than any other.

There really wasn't much difference between JB's QR results and RQ3's Critical/Special/Normal sucess.

007 also had a bidding mechanic similar to HQ/HW's extended contests for resolving chases, which was moderately exciting (much akin to the old TV gameshow, Name that Tune).

Yes, although they were not that similar to HQ. In HQ you don't really bid against your opponent, but decide how much you are going to risk-more like making a bet on a hand of blackjack. In JB the better was opposed allowing each side to increase the stakes by attemping more daring (and sucicidal) maneuvers.

JB's chgase rules were sort of vulnerable to the "2 Hero Point escape". Bid EF 1/2. Spend 1 HP to make the roll if you fail, then spend another Hero Point if needed to make the mandatory Safety Check. THe sit back and watch the chase cars go up like a bunch of Ford Pintos.

 

[Mugen]

I think I won't use the "Very High Skill" rule at all. I will certainly apply a mechanic allowing a character with skill above 100 to reduce his chance of success and his opponent's, maybe by a smaller amount, for instance 1/2 of the original handicap.

 

[Nyhotep]

Phew! Just read 13 pages of posts on this.

Testing out the excellent combat calculator above, the system is broken (as you've all posted ad nausem)

Some suggestions:
Only use the halving rule when both sides have skills over 100%, and apply to both the attack roll and the opposed (parry/dodge) rolls (so a 160% and a 130% fight would be resolved as 80% against 65%).

If only one side has over 100%, either use the HQ bumps, or subtract the amount over 100%- but in this case, a character can never be reduced below the critical chance based on the original value:
therefore, a character with a base of 50% can't be reduced below 5%, even if fighting someone with 160%.

Those who like to describe their rolls in dramatic terms and who can't figure out how to describe two attacker rolls in one blow - base your descriptions on the table result rather than the rolls - easy!

Using the same roll for the original attack and the opposed roll works best if you declare the parry or dodge before making the original attack roll.

 

[burdock]

UROX WROTE

The extended contests in HW/HQ are fubar'd, tho. While they might work somewhat for resolving storytelling, they don't work as a combat simulation.

I think the combat situations in HQ are supposed to be done in a story-tellish sort of way.....Not in an accurrate simulation-ish sort of way!! They require a shift in approach to roleplaying....a shift that can glean marvellous rewards if made.


About criticals......I like them being based on % of skill level. the maths isn't difficult!

 

[atgxtg]

UROX WROTE

The extended contests in HW/HQ are fubar'd, tho. While they might work somewhat for resolving storytelling, they don't work as a combat simulation.

I think the combat situations in HQ are supposed to be done in a story-tellish sort of way.....Not in an accurrate simulation-ish sort of way!! They require a shift in approach to roleplaying....a shift that can glean marvellous rewards if made.

Yeah, that is one reason why there is a large segement of RQer who don't lie HQ. RQ was more "gritty combat", where as HQ is more "mythic/superheroic". Both styles have been used in telling myths, but are not quite compatable with each other. Fans of one system probably won't like the other. Personally, I find the AP wagering artifical (it would be more exciting it you added to AP wager to your opponent's and combined both tests into one) and more of an exercise in basic math than a representation of combat (or any other form of activity).

About criticals......I like them being based on % of skill level. the maths isn't difficult!

Me too. I can calculate RQ3 critis, special success, and fumbles in my head, along with the QR results for the Bond RPG and several other games. Apparently, most people don't consider that to be easy.

 

[Mugen]

Only use the halving rule when both sides have skills over 100%, and apply to both the attack roll and the opposed (parry/dodge) rolls (so a 160% and a 130% fight would be resolved as 80% against 65%).

Nice idea.

 

[Urox]

Only use the halving rule when both sides have skills over 100%, and apply to both the attack roll and the opposed (parry/dodge) rolls (so a 160% and a 130% fight would be resolved as 80% against 65%).

Nice idea.

I think I have come up with a totally new approach to resolving skills like this:

If a player has over 100% skill, they subtract 100% from their skill to create a new target number, and then bump their results one level (unless both contestants were over 100, in which case they cancel each other out).

 

[Rurik]

I think I have come up with a totally new approach to resolving skills like this:

If a player has over 100% skill, they subtract 100% from their skill to create a new target number, and then bump their results one level (unless both contestants were over 100, in which case they cancel each other out).

A very nice system. I may use it if when I get the rules (and I hate all of you who already have them) - assuming that after reading/trying them they still need fixed.

A question I have is "how hight can we reasonably expect skills to go". We may have to wait for the legendary supplement. The rules say that after halving, if a skill is still over 100, halve again. Are we going to see skills like 250% ever? Will a creature of the scale of say the Crimson Bat be represented as having attacks like 150% or 175%, or will it have skills like 300% or 400%

I was working on a mechanic that was inspired by Pendragon, and starting to like it a llot, but it pretty much only supports skills up to 200%.