Questions about skills over 100% & Critical Hits

[d(sqrt(-1))]

v.) Why the additional roll at all? Why not simply have Attack Attempt vs Parry Attempt as the opposed contest? That would avoid the "hey you've succeeded oops no you haven't" situation that will crop up all the time here. Also it completely breaks the "Opposed Tests" rule on p20, ie Stealth vs Perception. Unless I have to make one Stealth roll first (at 120% for example), and then another one at 60% to oppose the opponent's Perception attempt?

Exactly - this is my understanding also, hence my mention of the footrace example on p21. As I've said, I've seen it mentioned that one piece of errata is indeed for those tables, where a failed attack roll should be a fail regardless.

[Reads example on p60-61] Hm, the wording of that does seem to imply that's what happening - shame it doesn't seem to be in the rules clearly...

Most bizarre if so.

Mark

 

[d(sqrt(-1))]

The two rolls is how the Mongoose guys did the demo. When you read the effects of the Dodge and Parry contest it also only makes sense with a second opposed roll.

Also if you read the Example of Combat on page 61, starting at "Bruka(16) acts next....)

You will see that Brucka hits, Amn uses a Reaction of dodge, then Bruaka succeeds (again) and Amn succeeds.

The example of combat is not very clear, far too many situational modifers going on.

As I said before, it works well and fast and will not fall apart when someone starts going Fanatic.

Hope this helps folks.

Sure, I agree from reading that example that makes sense. I would never have sussed that from the rules though.

I've still got an itch that there's something funny mathematically about it though...

cheers,

Mark

 

[andakitty]

I have been speculating that this was the way it is supposed to work for a while, since Hyrum posted the elements of the charts, a ways back. See the thread 'Runequest Combat and Reactions' by Halfbat in the Rulesmasters forum, and my response dated 22 May. The thing I was missing was halving the percentage before the opposed roll when skills rise above 100%. Now it makes sense, and I guess there is not a major typo after all. I think this is terrific news!

I also don't think it will feel artificial, but will improve on the BRP style combat where a parry stops all the damage. It infuses a greater variety of results at the cost of one extra, easy to implement roll. And as Mongoose has been saying helps simulate the give and take of melee better. No more 'I hit, no you parried' endlessly, I bet. Ten percent criticals are a no-brainer for anyone, and after you play a little it will be no trouble to remember all the potential results. I can't wait to see the rules for myself.

 

[Rurik]

p47 says:

1 - Making the Attack: attacker rolls d100 and compares vs skill. If <= skill, then a hit. If > skill, missed.

2 - Target Reaction: If target has Reaction left, attack may be opposed. Target may attempt to dodge or parry as they wish, see p49

3 - Damage Resolution: If attack successful, damage resolved...

p49 says:

"Reactions are declared after the trigger event has occurred but before it's effects are applied. For instance, the trigger event for a dodge or parry is a successful attack upon the character; the dodge or parry resolution occurs after the attack has been determined as a hit but before any damage is allocated"

Actually, I think the rules quoted above do describe the system Itto described. The attack roll does not say it is opposed in step 1. The defender chooses to react, and page 49 states this occurs after the trigger is resolved. Step 2 says the target may oppose the attack with a reaction, so that implies an opposed roll.

It is not very clear and I certainly did not take it that way on first reading. A detailed combat example in the book would have helped A LOT (hint hint).

Also, the strange attack/parry table actually seems to make sense if it is this way. The halving rule actually works pretty well in this situation.

I am not sure I agree with deciding to parry after the attack is resolved - real world logic tells me that waiting to see if my opponent hits me before deciding to block is a little too late. But it may work out in practice. I was a bit concerned that a character with 4 combat actions would have 2 free attacks on a character with only 2 reactions (this was covered in some thread about making combat actions, and thus presumably DEX, the most important combat stat). If the character only has to use reactions on successful hits he stands a better chance of surviving, which somewhat dilutes the combat action advantage.

We'll just have to play and see.

 

[Rurik]

If you hate the second roll an easy to implement house rule would be to to just use the results of first roll as the attackers second roll. If my spear skill is 150, and the trollkins' parry is 50, and I roll a 87. I hit and he has to parry. If he rolls under a 25 he succeeds and I don't on the opposed roll and I don't have to roll again. If I had rolled a 72 on my initial attack I would have also succeeded on the opposed roll.

And while as written there is an extra roll for a successful attack, there is never a parry roll on a failed attack, so there is some rolling saved.

 

[andakitty]

I had thought of that too, but it kills part of the charts, ie fail/fail and the 'attack succeeds as normal'. I am going to try it as written, although I have some trepidation as to how I am going to keep up with who has a roll when during actual play. Just another few days...

Anyway, a lot of positive reports on actual play, always a good sign.

 

[Rurik]

I had thought of that too, but it kills part of the charts, ie fail/fail and the 'attack succeeds as normal'. I am going to try it as written, although I have some trepidation as to how I am going to keep up with who has a roll when during actual play. Just another few days...

Anyway, a lot of positive reports on actual play, always a good sign.

Not really, in my example the roll of 87 was a simple success. If used for the parry it is a fail. If the trollkin rolls above a 25 the "fail/fail attack succeeds as normal" would apply.

Though the system does seem a bit fuggly at first I actually feel a lot better about it now than after some of the preview material. The halving skills over a hundred and funky attack/parry table seemed to be inspired by crack induced dementia taken alone, but make a lot more sense now.

 

[Archer]

Well, I have to say it. This does not seem like a simplification or an improvement at all too me. It is never a good thing when you add extra rolls, since it will not make things run faster or smoother.

Compared to the neck-breaking speed at which we "duel" with the dice rolls when running Stormbringer, this looks like a sleep-pace simulation.
(dice never stay still for more than 1/2 a second when we do battle in Stormbringer, because that is the pace at which combat can be resolved).

 

[andakitty]

I don't quite grok what you are saying, Rurik, but that's OK. Right now I just want to try it myself, 'cause that's the acid test.

No, I'm not sure about it either. It looks like it will be at least as playable as SB5/ Elric!, though. The tables look like they will be easier to memorize than the SB5 equivalents. To me. Nobody that has mentioned it so far seems to be having trouble with the dual attack rolls, and I think that's a good sign. Just four or five more days...

 

[Claymore Driftwood Pub]

I've been simply having all the combat rolls opposed (rather than waiting to expend a reaction to defend if the attacker hits) and going straight to the charts. Of course, I am running with some slightly modified charts (and critical system).

 

[Archer]

Well, I can understand that. That makes a lot more sense, and would be faster than rolling twice for the same thing.

 

[Urox]

I've been simply having all the combat rolls opposed (rather than waiting to expend a reaction to defend if the attacker hits) and going straight to the charts. Of course, I am running with some slightly modified charts (and critical system).

It almost sounds that MQ isn't quite playable out of the box, and needs to be moddified...

So, can someone explain to me how these two combats work:

A. 99% Swordsman vs 99% Dark Troll

and

B. 101% Swordsman vs 99% Dark Troll

I am trying to grep the halving math here -- is going up that 2% significant or not...

 

[Archer]

I've been simply having all the combat rolls opposed (rather than waiting to expend a reaction to defend if the attacker hits) and going straight to the charts. Of course, I am running with some slightly modified charts (and critical system).

It almost sounds that MQ isn't quite playable out of the box, and needs to be moddified...

Unfortunately it seems so.

 

[Rurik]

Can someone who has access to the opposed attack/parry table post that information?

It would help clear some the confusion on this topic.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Claymore Driftwood Pub]

Can someone who has access to the opposed attack/parry table post that information?

It would help clear some the confusion on this topic.

Thanks in advance!

It has already been posted in another thread. Someone posted a link to the table here: http://www.medjkainebula.info/Dragonshome.net/DodgeParryTables.htm

 

[andakitty]

That is a modified table. The tables in the rulebook apparently have nine results, including 'attacker fail/defender fail, attack succeeds' in, as Itto said, an opposed roll after the successful attack roll (with the second roll being halved). Which leads to some more questions about how the critical works, exactly.

It would help if someone from Mongoose, or Hyrum, posted the full tables and simply stated what the intent of the rules are. Hint, hint.

Whether the game is playable out of the book or not has yet to be seen.

 

[Rurik]

Can someone who has access to the opposed attack/parry table post that information?

It would help clear some the confusion on this topic.

Thanks in advance!

It has already been posted in another thread. Someone posted a link to a the table here: http://www.medjkainebula.info/Dragonshome.net/DodgeParryTables.htm

Thank you for the link!

Unfortunately the table at that link is ammended because the poster assumed the attaker fail row was bogus.

It is now apparent that the fail/fail and fail/success results are entirely valid because of the second attacker roll during the opposed parry roll.

I was hoping for the table as published.

 

[Claymore Driftwood Pub]

That is a modified table. The tables in the rulebook apparently have nine results, including 'attacker fail/defender fail, attack succeeds' in, as Itto said, an opposed roll after the successful attack roll (with the second roll being halved). Which leads to some more questions about how the critical works, exactly.

It would help if someone from Mongoose, or Hyrum, posted the full tables and simply stated what the intent of the rules are. Hint, hint.

Whether the game is playable out of the book or not has yet to be seen.

The table in the OGL has has Attacker: Failure/Success/Critical results and Defender: Failure/Success Critical results

 

[Itto]

I've been simply having all the combat rolls opposed (rather than waiting to expend a reaction to defend if the attacker hits) and going straight to the charts. Of course, I am running with some slightly modified charts (and critical system).

It almost sounds that MQ isn't quite playable out of the box, and needs to be moddified...

So, can someone explain to me how these two combats work:

A. 99% Swordsman vs 99% Dark Troll

and

B. 101% Swordsman vs 99% Dark Troll

I am trying to grep the halving math here -- is going up that 2% significant or not...

In the case of A.

Swordsman(99%) swings at the troll and gets as 76.

The Troll can either accept the hit or if he has any Reactions left
can try to parry.

The Troll decides to parry (wise Uz).
A Parry contest happens.
The Troll rolls 56 for his parry.
The Swordsman has to roll on his attack for the parry contest and gets a 25.
Result: Looking at the Parry contest table, "Attack succeeds but AP of weapon is deducted from the damage"

Troll swings at the Swordsman and gets a an 80.
The swordsman decided to parry.
A parry contest happens
Swordsman gets a 05, a crit
Troll gets a 40.
Result from the table, "Attack succeeds but AP *2 of weapon is deducted from the damage; defender may reposte"

In the case of B

Swordsman(101) swings at Troll, 10 a crit!

Troll decides to parry.
As the parry contest is an opposed contest and the swordsman has over 100+ both half their skills for the parry contest.
Troll(49%) gets 75 (in effect a failure)
Swordsman(50%) gets 85 (in effect a failure).
Result: from the table "Attack succeeds as normal"
Net result Swordsman skill criticals the troll, who is in trouble

In the past the Troll would most likely parry, and the combat would rumble on and on.

As I've said a couple of times today, I've played it, I've read the rules. They work, no tinkering needed, its fast, people die. Also cool things like repostes happen, defender have to give ground and attackers overextend. Lots of fun stuff. 8)

 

[Claymore Driftwood Pub]

Thank you for the link!

Unfortunately the table at that link is ammended because the poster assumed the attaker fail row was bogus.

It is now apparent that the fail/fail and fail/success results are entirely valid because of the second attacker roll during the opposed parry roll.

I was hoping for the table as published.

Sorry, I missread your post and thought you were looking for the modified table. As I mentioned above, the table has entries for Attacker: Failure/Success/Critical as well as the same for the defender. As far as I know the same table appeared in the Runequest Rulebook.