Questions about skills over 100% & Critical Hits

[atgxtg]

At least I can always cast dullblade on myself to lower my skill below 100.

No wonder you keep doing so bad on paper....


More seriously, it actually makes sense for a character to cap off a secondary weapon at 99-100% to parry foes with skills under 100%.


Now if they gave people with over 100% skill extra APs when they halved the skill it would work out.

 

[Rurik]

Au contraire, my friends, you are not losing skill, as you think you are. It is all a matter of degree and matching skill...and a way to get around the sometimes endless attack/parry sequence, as someone pointed out earlier. At least I think so, from what I know. There are other ways to do that too. Subtracting percentiles over 100 from the opponents weapon skill, was it? You could always substitute something like that, and just use what parts of MRQ look useful to you. Or are you saying that there is no use for MRQ, that it is just Mongoose' unwanted redheaded stepchild? No flamebait, just mildly curious. :? ...and looking for a constructive, versus destructive, response.

I am actually losing skill. The initial hit is a given, as there is never a parry roll. In one case I have a 99% chance to block at least some damage, in the second case my chance to block at least some damage is only 60% because my skill over 100.

While it is true that his skill is halved also, that doesn't matter, because if my roll fails his blow hits at full strength whether he makes his roll or not - in both cases I take full damage.

Look at this way, with a skill of 99 I have a 1% chance of taking the full force of his hit, while when my skill is 120 I have a 40% chance of taking full damage.

I posted at length on this earlier, and even drew up a little table to show that it doesn't really matter what the attacker rolls in the opposed parry roll if the defender misses his roll.

It is not a deal breaker. I will probably even try it, but I'm pretty sure it will be house ruled pretty quick.

The only other change I see making is increasing the potency of criticals, but maybe not as much as you will :wink: .

I am willing to wait and see about the rest, and have actually posted on how I think the whole action/reaction thing may actually play very well.

The beauty of it is that MRQ is similar enough to BRP that it should be very easy to just insert your preferred way of doing things. I am actually mulling over a Pendragon inspired way of dealing with skills over a hundred.

 

[andakitty]

Sounds sensible. I don't know how much of the game I'll play as is, myself. I am, as I've said, hoping it won't need much modifying.

 

[atgxtg]

Au contraire, my friends, you are not losing skill, as you think you are. It is all a matter of degree and matching skill...and a way to get around the sometimes endless attack/parry sequence, as someone pointed out earlier. At least I think so, from what I know. There are other ways to do that too. Subtracting percentiles over 100 from the opponents weapon skill, was it? You could always substitute something like that, and just use what parts of MRQ look useful to you. Or are you saying that there is no use for MRQ, that it is just Mongoose' unwanted redheaded stepchild? No flamebait, just mildly curious. :? ...and looking for a constructive, versus destructive, response.

Well, if we are using the two roll model, than less, you actually are losing effective skill. While a guy with a 150% parry blocking a 50% attack has a 3:1 advantage. It isn't as good as a guy with a 90% skill block a 30% attack!

Example 1: 30% attack vs. 90% parry
30% chance of attacker succeding, forcing an opposed roll, with 0.9% (less than 1%) chance of a success vs failure result.

Example 2: 50% attack chance vs. 150% parry; halved to 25% attack vs. 75% parry
50% chance of attacker succeding, forcing an opposed roll, with a 3.125% chance of success vs. failure result.


Example 3: 50 % attack chance vs. 90% parry.
50% chance of attacker succeeding, forcing an opposed roll, with a 2.5% chance of success vs. failure result.

So, the "ratios are the same" stuff doesn't hold water. If you look at examples 2 and 3, the effect of inmpoving your parry ability from 90% to 150% is increase in the chance of taking more damage.


If this is the way combat works in MRQ, it pays to cap off at 99%.


There are ways to fix this. For instance, HeroQuest (which MRQ seems to be modeled after) gives "bumps" for masteries. FOr each mastery one character has over the other they get to "bumb up" their result 1 step. If we gave a bump for every mastery (90-100%) things would work fine. Oppopsed masteries cancel out.

For instance Rurik with his 120% skill would roll at 20%, but get a free bump up. So his failures would be successes, and his fumbles would be failures.

HeroQuest also allowed a character to buy a bump with a Hero Point. Note that this would make the trollkin a threat if he had a good reserve of Hero points.THe trollkin could offset Rurik's mastery with Hero Points, or force Rurik to spend his own Hero Points to counter.

 

[GoingDown]

For example, what if that pesky trollkin with club @ 40% attacks Rurik, who parries at 120%?

If the Trollkin rolls under 40% do we make an opposed 20% vs. 60% parry roll?

I was in impression that you will halve the trollkin initial attack roll as well - then it works just like is should. Is this not the case?

EDIT:

Example 2: 50% attack chance vs. 150% parry; halved to 25% attack vs. 75% parry
50% chance of attacker succeding, forcing an opposed roll, with a 3.125% chance of success vs. failure result.

If you change this to reflect the fact that first initial roll is also halved, then it again works as it should - poor Trollkin has now only 25% change to hit in first place.

 

[andakitty]

*shrug* I don't see anything that needs fixing, and have no interest in HQ in any event. Sure you are not forgetting to take some things into account, like eight other possible results on the opposed roll? Failure vs. failure, for instance? Failure vs. success? and so on?

I'm kind of an eyeball it and go sort. The MRQ opposed roll looks interesting and fun. I see no need to number crunch, personally. If you want to, have fun.

 

[WildHealer]

I think the place I'm coming from is that RuneQuest as a ruleset and system has been around for roughly 30 years. In the early days, maybe there was need to house rule a bit, but to be honest the rules were relatively solid even then. I just think that after 30 years refining the rules should be in a state where they're water-tight. RQ3 had some bits which were over-technical for some, but there was never any doubt about their fundamental correctness.

In a nutshell, 30 years on we shouldn't need to be considering house rules for a new edition of the rules, especially on such amazingly basic stuff as combat attacks, 100%+ rules, and criticals. All this should work, as is. If you *want* to house rule, that's fine, but you shouldn't *have* to. As things stand, it looks like the new edition has taken a bunch of rules which worked perfectly well and broken them for the sake of novelty and being a "bit different".

I'm kind of an eyeball it and go sort. The MRQ opposed roll looks interesting and fun. I see no need to number crunch, personally.

In this case, what do you want to play with rules for anyway? If you don't like number crunching (die rolls, attributes, skills percentages, etc), you can always just make stuff up as you go along, and ignore the rules. :twisted: Sure, I'm winding you up - but you get my point?

Imagine if this was D20. Imagine if there was a "bug" that gave you a -1 To Hit penalty for each additional skill point in combat that you got (or whatever). No need to number crunch, just play through? Didn't think so...

Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to flame or insult here, but saying "I don't mind that it's broken" is not really a help to those of us who'd like to have a working rules system for our money.

Oh, and I've got the rules, I've read them, and I've played them (just once, and just combat, but it was enough...). The only way I can see to go forwards with them is to invent a whole bunch of house rules to correct the bits that are broken. This is not a case of *my opinion* - some of these rules just don't work properly, and they used to.

I'd been looking forwards to the new RQ being as cutting edge and ahead of the rest of the market as RQ1, 2, and 3 were. :?

Sarah

 

[jadrax]

While it is true that his skill is halved also, that doesn't matter, because if my roll fails his blow hits at full strength whether he makes his roll or not - in both cases I take full damage.

I still haven't got the rules, (probably will on monday,) so can someone please summerise the Parry table. (I know theres a fan modifed version on the boards, i want to know what the original one says.)

 

[Ravage]

Parry table from rullbook:

How to right this table in text only... Hmm... Right... Attckers rolls is in bold followed by defenders roll in italics

So Attacker rolls Failure:
Defender rolls Failure: Attack succeeds as normal
Defender rolls Success: Attack succeeds by 2xAP of parrying weapon/shield is deducted from damage
Defender rolls Critical: Attack fails; defender may riposte

So Attacker rolls Success:
Defender rolls Failure: Attack succeeds as normal
Defender rolls Success: Attack succeeds but AP of parrying weapon/shield is deducted from damage
Defender rolls Critical: Attack succeeeds but 2xAP of parrying weapon/sheild is deducted from damage; defender may Riposte

So Attacker rolls Critical:
Defender rolls Failure: Attck succeeds and becomes critical hit
Defender rolls Success: Attack succeeds but half AP of parrying weapon/shield is deducted from damage
Defender rolls Critical: Attack succeeeds but AP of parrying weapon/sheild is deducted from damage

Hope you can make heads or tail of that!
[/b]

 

[jadrax]

Ok, if thats the correct table then yes, theres an issue with halfing skills for this. The ratio dosen't matter.

 

[Ravage]

Oh... Another thought for over 100% skills.
Does this work as an idea?

Take the opponents points over 100% off the others skill, and likewise if both skills over 100%

I.e. I have 140% attack, broo has 80%. Thats 40% over 100, so the broo only has 40% (80-40) chance to hit. Naturally I roll but still fail on 96-00

I.e. (2) I have attack of 140%, parry has skill of 160%. My chance becomes 80% (140-60) and broos chance becomes 120 (160-40).

No idea if its better. Frankly I'm kinda in the half the skills and use a HQ bump system as its easy to manage too...

 

[WildHealer]

Note that there is no Fumble row in any of the Defense tables, although there is a Critical row.

 

[Ravage]

Also.... anyone had ideas for skill advancements over 100%?

I presume going by my first read the rules that player can choose the skill in the experience system, then have to roll 96-00 but then gets the 1d4+1 if he makes it or 1% anyway?

RQ2 had adding your INT to the roll (or in the rule systems minus it from your chance). Is this the best viable solution?

RQ3 had the skill modifer used insted of INT, but MRQ doesnt have this so couldnt be applied.

 

[homerjsinnott]

The more I hear about the rules the less and less happy I become, the background sounds and looks great, but the rest sounds really really untidy.

 

[Archer]

homerjsinnott: Hmm, I agree. And I was only intersted in the rules with their OGL, since what I've seen from Glorantha have turned me away from the setting.

Surely, these things must have come up during the playtesting? so why are there already need to fix some major issues with the rules?

I was planning on having to work on my settings that was going to use the system, not having to rewrite the rules. Though rewrite will probably not be much. Just find a way to solve the over 100%+ issues that has been raised in this thread. And a way to remove an additional roll for each attack...

 

[kustenjaeger]

Greetings

I think the place I'm coming from is that RuneQuest as a ruleset and system has been around for roughly 30 years. In the early days, maybe there was need to house rule a bit, but to be honest the rules were relatively solid even then. I just think that after 30 years refining the rules should be in a state where they're water-tight. RQ3 had some bits which were over-technical for some, but there was never any doubt about their fundamental correctness.

In a nutshell, 30 years on we shouldn't need to be considering house rules for a new edition of the rules, especially on such amazingly basic stuff as combat attacks, 100%+ rules, and criticals. All this should work, as is. If you *want* to house rule, that's fine, but you shouldn't *have* to. As things stand, it looks like the new edition has taken a bunch of rules which worked perfectly well and broken them for the sake of novelty and being a "bit different".

....

Oh, and I've got the rules, I've read them, and I've played them (just once, and just combat, but it was enough...). The only way I can see to go forwards with them is to invent a whole bunch of house rules to correct the bits that are broken. This is not a case of *my opinion* - some of these rules just don't work properly, and they used to.

I'd been looking forwards to the new RQ being as cutting edge and ahead of the rest of the market as RQ1, 2, and 3 were. :?

Sarah

I don't know if you remember the attempts to create RQ4 - I wasn't directly involved but did see a draft. That was intended as evolution while I am pretty sure that MRQ was intended as more revolutionary. So in a way you have the evolution of some of the mechanisms 'reset' to post playtest rather than post 30 years or so of play. From my limited experience of game design that is more likely to create issues such as those you are seeing.

The over 100% does appear to be an issue from what has been presented - I'm not so sure basic approach of the two rolls themselves are from a mathematical perspective but they are different. Skybolt I reserve judgement on.

I have started to create a little situation using RQ3 starting characters and some opponents and then run the same situation (both solo) with MRQ. This won't pick up the over 100% and Rune Lord type issues but should indicate some of the key areas of difference in use.

Regards

 

[WildHealer]

I was planning on having to work on my settings that was going to use the system, not having to rewrite the rules. Though rewrite will probably not be much. Just find a way to solve the over 100%+ issues that has been raised in this thread. And a way to remove an additional roll for each attack...

I think the issues identified so far are quite easily fixed, in fact. And without getting too "house-rulesy" about it. You could do the following without causing too much pain, and, I imagine, without breaking the MRQ system:

1.) 100%+ Halving Rule Solution 1.
Ignore it. If you have a 120% skill, you have a 12% critical chance, a 96-00 failure chance, a 00 fumble chance. This applies on all rolls, opposed or not (but see #3) below. This is a minimal impact fix, as far as I can see, and would probably work well in a campaign where you have very little 100%+ activity, with most play being under 100% skills. Let me know if you see any probs with it!
2.) 100%+ Halving Rule Solution 2.
Ignore it, and replace with the "HeroQuest" mastery solution. This means that blocks of 100% cancel one another out - a 220% attacker vs. a 160% defender is played as 120% vs 60%. Any remaining blocks of 100 are used to "bump up" the success of the roll; in that latter case, the 120% is treated as 20%, but all results are "bumped up" one notch, so a fumble becomes a fail, a fail a success, a success a critical. On a critical, you bump your opponent down one level. I'm summarising, but that's more or less the mechanic. This would probably work well in a campaign where you have a lot of 100%+ activity.
3.) Opposed Defense Rolls.
Ignore the second roll - the initial unopposed attack roll becomes the first roll in an opposed contest if the defender elects to defend. Treat the success level of the first attack roll as the one the defender has to compete against. One die roll less - and I can't see that you've lost much, if anything at all.
4.) Critical Hits
Make them ignore armour. This way, a critical hit to an opponent's head with a "war sword" has at least the chance of knocking him unconscious.
5.) Skybolt
Jury's out on this one. If I ever play MRQ, I won't be using this spell, at least until I've seen how the rest of the game plays out, at length.

That just leaves you with the bits of MRQ which I see as being genuinely new - the Combat Actions, variable Strike Rank, and Rune Magic rules. I'm happy & willing to give all of these new rules a whirl & see how they play out!

Cheers,

Sarah

 

[Dead Blue Clown]

My longstanding problem with Skybolt is that it was the name of the space station in Centurions.

It throws me every time.

 

[Ravage]

2.) 100%+ Halving Rule Solution 2.
Ignore it, and replace with the "HeroQuest" mastery solution. This means that blocks of 100% cancel one another out - a 220% attacker vs. a 160% defender is played as 120% vs 60%. Any remaining blocks of 100 are used to "bump up" the success of the roll; in that latter case, the 120% is treated as 20%, but all results are "bumped up" one notch, so a fumble becomes a fail, a fail a success, a success a critical. On a critical, you bump your opponent down one level. I'm summarising, but that's more or less the mechanic. This would probably work well in a campaign where you have a lot of 100%+ activity.

You know, ironically I think this will work really well - unlike Heroquest where it suffers badly IMO and spoils our enjoyment of the game. But to be honest thats because of the fact it uses a d20 so its often a case of skills overlapping the 19-21 mark, wheras percentile will not have this so much.

Will also allow splitting attacks / gaining extra combat round in my gaming system.

4.) Critical Hits
Make them ignore armour. This way, a critical hit to an opponent's head with a "war sword" has at least the chance of knocking him unconscious.

I was going to use the RQ2/3 imaple and critical system anyway. I don't really see a reason to change that unless your mathmatically challenged.

5.) Skybolt
Jury's out on this one. If I ever play MRQ, I won't be using this spell, at least until I've seen how the rest of the game plays out, at length.

Yep its under the wrong rune, badly named as its got nothing to do with Chaos and badly thought out spell.
I have to say this spell is no different from sunspear, although obivosuly that wasnt spirit margic!

That just leaves you with the bits of MRQ which I see as being genuinely new - the Combat Actions, variable Strike Rank, and Rune Magic rules. I'm happy & willing to give all of these new rules a whirl & see how they play out!

ditto, they seem good to me.

And for what its worth thank Orlanthus that the weapon damage didnt get involved. For a start that rule in RQ2 had a failed attack versus a successful damage the opponents (attackers) weapon.
Oh top that with rediculous hafted weapons cant be damaged drove me to dispair!!

 

[bluejay]

Hi all.

This conversation has prompted me to investigate the statistics involved with combat.

I've posted up a preliminary page at http://www.genomia.co.uk/mrqstats.html

Basically you enter the attacker's % chance to hit, then the defender's % chance to dodge or parry and it brings up results.

Initially I summarise some important stats and then I detail each and every situation.

I hope people find this useful. I felt it was interesting to test across the 100% margin (i.e. difference between 100% to hit and 101% to hit) due to skills over 100% being halved in opposed tests.

The functionality of the page has been written in JavaScript and I've left it in the page with comments to allow others to check my work and conclusions.

Enjoy people!