RuneQuest Rules Rumour Control

[Rurik]

Well, another solution I have considered is not changing the rules at all and killing the characters before they raise any skills above 100.

I think that might have been the intent behind the Skybolt spell. Raise your spear skill to 97? No prob, take 3d6 to the head.

 

[atgxtg]

Well, another solution I have considered is not changing the rules at all and killing the characters before they raise any skills above 100.

You mean Call of Cthulhu, but with sowrds and horses in stead of guns and cars?

 

[Dr. Halflight]

The halving rule does seem to be a major glitch, but yeah it won't matter until you have people with skills greater than 100% opposing each other, and in my exeprience that doesn't come up too often outside of combat. Maybe the halving rule can be ignored (as in cxombat) and just use the normal combat resoultion system.

Halfing rule doesn't apply to combat. It isn't opposed in the same way as non-combat skills. Thats why there is the second roll if the target decides to react with a dodge or parry. Weapon Skills over 100 raise your chance to critical (10% of skill) & by 500% reduce your failure range from 96-100 to just 100.

Doc

 

[Halfbat]

Halfbat: As someone who has read the rules, is there any way you can see the following modification to the rules breaking the system, and by that I mean make some aspect of it problematic. [... suggestion ...]

The suggestion is similar to what I am already considering - I don't like the extra to hit roll in combat once someone decides you are worth defending against after all (and don't like it in d20, either to confirm criticals). The steps given are a bit hazy as to whether or not you re-roll (it just says "this attack may be opposed" and "this attack is unopposed") (to my reading, but then I've umpired wargames competitions :roll: ) and whilst the reroll is stated at the end of the reaction description it can be read to be the attackers roll (it is rerolled in the examples).

At the Open Day the combat was played a bit differently (and apparently erroneously), in a manner I actually prefer in that when an attack is declared the defender states whether or not they wish to react - the trigger is the declaration of an attack, not "a successful attack". A bit more "realistic" (in fantasy! ) and less munchkin-ny in my experience as you don't know what someone's like until they've attacked you a few times.

With this approach, the attacker rolls his attack and the defender rolls his parry or dodge (as in previous RQ, interestingly) and results are compared. The tables end up as follows (excuse the jpgs).

In "simple" version A a failed attack just fails and the reaction is ignored:

In version B the defending reaction has more of an effect and the tables are quite close to the MRQ tables:

I hope this helps from this angle, anyway.

 

[atgxtg]

So, in theory, a two roll attack isn't needed. THe attacker could roll once and use that result against the defender.

Would that mess anything up?

 

[Archer]

.... The steps given are a bit hazy as to whether or not you re-roll (it just says "this attack may be opposed" and "this attack is unopposed") (to my reading, but then I've umpired wargames competitions :roll: ) and whilst the reroll is stated at the end of the reaction description it can be read to be the attackers roll (it is rerolled in the examples).

This explanation have me a bit confused now.
It does not explicitly say that after a successful attack, both attacker and defender reroll and compare, if the defender choose to defend himself through a parry or dodge?

At the Open Day the combat was played a bit differently (and apparently erroneously), in a manner I actually prefer in that when an attack is declared the defender states whether or not they wish to react - the trigger is the declaration of an attack, not "a successful attack". A bit more "realistic" (in fantasy! ) and less munchkin-ny in my experience as you don't know what someone's like until they've attacked you a few times.

You mean that they ran it like this?

Example: PC1 declares he attacks PC2. PC2 Declare he parries. PC1 rolls his attack roll and compares with PC2 parry roll?

No "roll to hit first, followed by a re-roll" ? why was that erranous? that would have been the best way to solve the whole matter. By declaring attack and defense first, either both roll and compare, or just the attacker rolls his attack roll unopposed. It would speed things up considerably.
And it would been a much better way of doing it instead of the attacker first rolling to hit, then having to reroll for an opposed roll.

With this approach, the attacker rolls his attack and the defender rolls his parry or dodge (as in previous RQ, interestingly) and results are compared. The tables end up as follows (excuse the jpgs).

In "simple" version A a failed attack just fails and the reaction is ignored:

In version B the defending reaction has more of an effect and the tables are quite close to the MRQ tables:

I hope this helps from this angle, anyway.

Hmm. Version A would be nice, uncomplicated, few rolls. Just the way I want it.
It leaves a bad taste in my mouth that I will have to modify combat rules.

 

[Archer]

So, in theory, a two roll attack isn't needed. THe attacker could roll once and use that result against the defender.

Would that mess anything up?

Not that I can see. If you go with the model that as soon as an attack is declared (but not rolled) the defender gets to choose if he wants to parry or not, you can make things much simpler. If he chooses to parry, the attacker rolls his roll opposed by the defenders roll.

If he chooses to not defend, then there is just a single attack roll by the attacker.

But it all depends on that you declare attack and defence before any dice are rolled.

Could this be how the rules are supposed to work? I interpreted that so from Halfbats post above, but that sounds too good to be true

 

[Halfbat]

.... The steps given are a bit hazy as to whether or not you re-roll

This explanation have me a bit confused now.

Probably because I was pointing out where the understanding was confused - and I hope I haven't confused you too much! There are 4 steps stated in the combat rules. Step 1 is attacker rolls - if he misses that's the end of it. Step 2 says that that if there are any Reactions left "then this attack may be opposed [(see Reactions)]" and "if the enemy has no reactions left then this attack is unopposed". Then steps 3 and 4 deal with damage. It's only at the end of the descriptions of Dodge and Parry that it says the "attacker and defenders each roll D100 and compare..." It could have been made a bit more obvious BUT I think the writers were trying to fit it in with the non-opposed Reactions such as Dive which deal with other situations.

You mean that they ran it like this: [..] PC1 declares he attacks PC2. PC2 Declare he parries. PC1 rolls his attack roll and compares with PC2 parry roll?
No roll to hit first, then a re-roll? why was that erranous? that would have been the best way to solve the whole matter. By declaring attack and defense first, either both roll and compare, or just the attacker rolls his attack roll unopposed. It would speed things up considerably.
And it would been a much better way of doing it instead of the attacker first rolling to hit, then having to reroll for an opposed roll.

Exactly. Couldn't agree more. But this is not, apparently, how it is supposed to work.

Hmm. Version A would be nice, uncomplicated, few rolls. Just the way I want it. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth that I will have to modify combat rules.

Ditto. And I prefer A, too, for the same reason, but B is probably more "realistic".

But the rest of the rules (and rulebook) are really nice.

 

[Halfbat]

So, in theory, a two roll attack isn't needed. The attacker could roll once and use that result against the defender.

Only if you don't run things as written and implied and alter the result tables.

Would that mess anything up?

It didn't in previous versions. And it doesn't in play.

 

[Rurik]

So, in theory, a two roll attack isn't needed. The attacker could roll once and use that result against the defender.

Only if you don't run things as written and implied and alter the result tables.

Would that mess anything up?

It didn't in previous versions. And it doesn't in play.

This is basically the way RQ2/3 did it. If doing this in MRQ I would double the AP of weapons. Note the highest AP value of a weapon is 4 (other than sheilds). In the MRQ way a 'block 2xAP result is going to happen a lot more than only on a crit. RQ 2/3 Weapons have much higher AP.

 

[atgxtg]

This is basically the way RQ2/3 did it. If doing this in MRQ I would double the AP of weapons. Note the highest AP value of a weapon is 4 (other than sheilds). In the MRQ way a 'block 2xAP result is going to happen a lot more than only on a crit. RQ 2/3 Weapons have much higher AP.

I had a long running post with someone else about this, pointing out that in MRQ dodging is superior to parrying. Essentially 1xAP, or even 2xAP isn't as good as "defender take minimum damage, must give ground. Parry a greatsword and chances are your still going to take a serious blow (11pts-4 =7). If you have curibolli on (3 pts), you can dodge and get away unscathed.

Shields stop more and give a free parry, but using a weapon desfensively is a no-no in MRQ.

 

[Enpeze]

This is basically the way RQ2/3 did it. If doing this in MRQ I would double the AP of weapons. Note the highest AP value of a weapon is 4 (other than sheilds). In the MRQ way a 'block 2xAP result is going to happen a lot more than only on a crit. RQ 2/3 Weapons have much higher AP.

I had a long running post with someone else about this, pointing out that in MRQ dodging is superior to parrying. Essentially 1xAP, or even 2xAP isn't as good as "defender take minimum damage, must give ground. Parry a greatsword and chances are your still going to take a serious blow (11pts-4 =7). If you have curibolli on (3 pts), you can dodge and get away unscathed.

Shields stop more and give a free parry, but using a weapon desfensively is a no-no in MRQ.

Its not that problem that dodge is better than parry. Dodge is a skill, parry is just one half of the weapon skill. Dodge should be better than parry, if you like it balanced.

 

[bluejay]

I don't think that Dodge is better than Parry but I think that it is better to Dodge a large weapon than try and Parry it with something ineffectual. A shield would be fine but daggers and the like might not be.

I believe this was very much a conscious decision of the designers that they wanted the mechanics to reflect situations where it was better to parry or dodge.

 

[Enpeze]

I don't think that Dodge is better than Parry but I think that it is better to Dodge a large weapon than try and Parry it with something ineffectual. A shield would be fine but daggers and the like might not be.

I believe this was very much a conscious decision of the designers that they wanted the mechanics to reflect situations where it was better to parry or dodge.

Well Parry is the standard situation. Everybody with a weapon can parry according to his weapon skill. Dodge is a little bit exclusive because not everybody has the skill. You have to train it.

 

[bluejay]

I guess that is true however Shield is a separate skill and it is generally a lot better than parrying with a weapon (due to the AP differences, most weapons are very low) so I guess most characters need to dedicate skill points to at least one defensive skill (i.e. Shield or Dodge).

 

[Enpeze]

I guess that is true however Shield is a separate skill and it is generally a lot better than parrying with a weapon (due to the AP differences, most weapons are very low) so I guess most characters need to dedicate skill points to at least one defensive skill (i.e. Shield or Dodge).

This is correct. At first glance it seems that dodge is the better option than shield while "costing the same". All in all shield has AP which can be overcome.

But maybe shield has another advantage? I read somewhere about a free parry. And if you like you can attack with it too. This is not possible with dodge.

 

[bluejay]

I think it depends upon combat situations, it can be quite common for a Dodger to give ground. Also, don't forget that if the initial attack was a critical then the 'minimum damage, defender gives ground' result actually deals normal damage not minimal damage.

Giving ground can be a serious tactical disadvantage (check out the classic Order of the Stick sketch...

Also Dodge is either impossible or penalised in certain situations (tight spaces, on horseback, etc).

A lightly armoured guy dodging against say, a dagger may actually get 'scratched to death' through a lot of 'minimum damage' results where he would take no damage from parrying.

Yes, a second weapon or Shield gives either a free parry or a free close combat action at -20%. Cool, huh?

Hope that helps.

 

[bluejay]

Ah, I finally found that Order of the Stick sketch I was looking for...

Here is the main peril of dodging and being forced to give ground (and also a refreshing reminder of the gazillion rules issues with another fantasy game):

http://www.giantitp.com/cgi-bin/GiantITP/ootscript?SK=216

 

[atgxtg]

Its not that problem that dodge is better than parry. Dodge is a skill, parry is just one half of the weapon skill. Dodge should be better than parry, if you like it balanced.[/quote]

So is that why they got rid of the parry skill. With most weapons stopping 3-4 points, you wind up with swords not doing a good job of stopping other swords. The problem is that mpst characters in RQ have a damage bonus. THis lets a strong character brush aside a weak parry, but it doen't allow a strong defernder to stop the same attack.

I don't have a big problem with Conan, armed with a bastard sword, brushing aside Rusk Runerapier's lighter sword, and scoring some damage, but I do have a big problem with Conan not being able to stop Rusk's attack from scoring becuase Rusk has a +1d4 Damage bonus.

Now, not even a troll can parry another troll, and two greatsword wielders generally can't successfuly parry and attack.

Or does the defender get to subtract his db now with a parry.

 

[bluejay]

True although the damage bonus is usually lower now. Most characters are unlikely to have more than +1d2.