Serious/major wounds: opposed resilience test

[HalfOrc HalfBiscuit]

I'm still slowly digesting (or at least trying to digest) the new rules (sadly I have plenty of time to do it as I don't have an active game at present ).

Anyway, I note that when a character suffers a serious or major wound they must now make an opposed resilience test versus the opponent's successful attack roll.

I would be grateful for some insight into the logic behind this choice. I realise that under the MRQ1 rules where there was a straight resilience check, there was a risk of PCs raising their resilience scores to such a point as to more or less guarantee success. However, I wonder why the opponent's attack roll was chosen for the opposed test instead of, say, 10 x the damage inflicted by the wound causing the check.

Assuming an existing wound that has already brought the character close to the threshold, why is a 2HP wound from a skilled opponent more likely to have serious effects than a 10 HP lucky shot from an unskilled one?

To clarify this point, consider this scenario: Andy the adventurer has a resilience score of 70%. He is fighting Vinny the villain who has 95% in a fighting style. Andy has already suffered a serious would to his chest, but has managed to remain conscious. Vinny hits him in the chest again, but only just, rolling 90% on his attach and scoring 2 HP - enough to take Andy to a major wound. Since in an opposed test, where both participants roll the same level of success the one with the higher dice roll wins, Andy has to roll a critical success or die.

Take the same scenario but now Andy faces Tommy the troll who only has 40%, but is very strong and wielding a large weapon. He rolls 35% and hits Andy for 10 HP. In the opposed test, Andy now avoids death not only if he rolls a critical, but also if he succeeds by rolling 36-70%.

This feels wrong to me. I realise such a scenario may occur very very rarely, but the possibility is there.

There's also a much more common possibility that I'm also not sure of here - what opposes resilience in a situation where the damage occurs without an attack roll (falling/collapsing building etc.)?

 

[HalfOrc HalfBiscuit]

Ruminating a bit further, I've realised that my suggestion of 10 x damage dealt would be too likely to result in insta-death even where there was no previous damage.

I think the general point still holds though.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I would be grateful for some insight into the logic behind this choice. I realise that under the MRQ1 rules where there was a straight resilience check, there was a risk of PCs raising their resilience scores to such a point as to more or less guarantee success.

The reasons behind this rule are twofold.

Firstly, as you rightly surmised, unopposed tests against Resilience etc, become meaningless once the resisting skill reaches the 100% mark. So to ensure that this doesn't happen, the Resilience test is opposed by another skill. This is a core mechanic of the entire rules system. For example in the case of spells, its the caster's magic skill which opposes it.

Secondly, the reason the attack skill is used is because it reflects the growing accuracy and knowledge of the attacker to inflict deadlier, more efficient wounds.

As an example to illustrate the model, lets take Bruce Lee and Zydrunas Savickas (currently the world's strongest man). Bruce Lee has a combat skill in the 100+ range, Zydrunas Savickas only has a skill of 30% and I have a Resilience of 70%. If Bruce Lee hits me he will do less damage in terms of direct Hit Points, since he's not as strong as Zydrunas. However, his blow will probably be aimed perfectly on my sternum and do some weird thing which causes my heart to stop. Zydrunas on the other hand will do more brute force damage, but because his blows are wild uneducated punches, he might only break half a dozen of my ribs and I'll lie there gasping. Both attacks inflict a major wound, its just Bruce Lee's mastery of combat means his strikes are more deadly.

However, I wonder why the opponent's attack roll was chosen for the opposed test instead of, say, 10 x the damage inflicted by the wound causing the check.

The reason damage isn't used is because the mechanics break when applied to different scale creatures, or if magic augments damage.

Assuming an existing wound that has already brought the character close to the threshold, why is a 2HP wound from a skilled opponent more likely to have serious effects than a 10 HP lucky shot from an unskilled one?

As demonstrated in the above example, its not simply about how much damage is generated, but how it is applied. 10HP's to my thigh might simply sever a lot of muscle tissue, or it could cut my femoral artery.

There's also a much more common possibility that I'm also not sure of here - what opposes resilience in a situation where the damage occurs without an attack roll (falling/collapsing building etc.)?

Then you can either:
1) give the character the benefit of the doubt and say that they automatically succeed
2) allow them an unopposed roll of Resilience for a fairly good chance of success
3) in the case of mechanical traps and the like, use the Engineering/Mechanisms skill of the trap maker as the opposing skill
4) choose an opposing value depending on how deadly the circumstances are

As a GM you set the deadliness according to the dramatic nature of the situation. :wink:

 

[HalfOrc HalfBiscuit]

Thanks for the quick reply, Pete.

I won't say I'm wholly convinced, but, when I get a game actually going, I'll almost certainly go by the RAW and see how I feel about it in practice.

I do see your point about sticking with the core mechanic - and I can see there are practical difficulties in going to damage instead. But if I'm honest, I find the argument that's not just about the damage it's about how its applied a little weak.

 

[Deleriad]

But if I'm honest, I find the argument that's not just about the damage it's about how its applied a little weak.

I've actually being using this exact same rule in my houserules for over a year now and it works for me. There are various implications:

A critical that causes a serious or major wound is almost impossible to resist. It makes critical attacks more scary.

The higher your skill the more likely you are to incapacitate someone with a serious wound. So skill becomes a factor in how damaging a blow is.

If there is no attack skill I use a modifier depending on the severity of the wound, e.g. Major wound to the head is -60% while serious wound to the arm has no modifiers.

Relatedly, if you look through the various Combat Manoeuvres you'll see that they are based on the original attack/parry roll as well so most things work in about the same way. The rules lawyer in me approves of that kind of thing.

 

[RosenMcStern]

If you want a fast and effective rule for taking damage into account, just add damage to the die roll. This way, a 20-point fall is deadly on 76+, whatever your Resilience, and a 1-point critical can still be overcome by rolling another critical.

 

[HalfOrc HalfBiscuit]

I've actually being using this exact same rule in my houserules for over a year now and it works for me. There are various implications:

A critical that causes a serious or major wound is almost impossible to resist. It makes critical attacks more scary.

The higher your skill the more likely you are to incapacitate someone with a serious wound. So skill becomes a factor in how damaging a blow is.

Sure. And I appreciate those points.

If there is no attack skill I use a modifier depending on the severity of the wound, e.g. Major wound to the head is -60% while serious wound to the arm has no modifiers.

I'm thinking I might go with a straight resilience test modified by how damaged the hit location is. Probably 5 x the negative HP. So a character with resilience at 70% forced into a test because a location has been reduced to -4 would have roll against an effective skill of 50%. I'll probably add an extra penalty if it's a major wound (maybe up the modifier to 10 x negative HP).

Relatedly, if you look through the various Combat Manoeuvres you'll see that they are based on the original attack/parry roll as well so most things work in about the same way. The rules lawyer in me approves of that kind of thing.

True, but then Combat Manoeuvres (unsurprisingly) only arise in combat, so there is always an attack roll for the opposed test. The rules lawyer in me likes one rule for a particular situation regardless of how it has arisen. Not "This is how you do it if it happens in combat, and if it happens outside combat ... well, make it up." At least when (as in the case of major and serious injuries) it's quite likely to arise outside combat.

Don't get me wrong - it's a fairly minor irritation in what otherwise seems to me to be an absolutely fantastic rules set. This version of RQ will without doubt be my fantasy RPG of choice for here on (and, believe me, I've been through several over the last 30+ years).

 

[Deleriad]

I'm thinking I might go with a straight resilience test modified by how damaged the hit location is. Probably 5 x the negative HP. So a character with resilience at 70% forced into a test because a location has been reduced to -4 would have roll against an effective skill of 50%. I'll probably add an extra penalty if it's a major wound (maybe up the modifier to 10 x negative HP).

That was my first thought back in the day but it doesn't scale. E.g. a rhino is less able resist the pain of losing 2/3 of its hit points in a leg than a pixie is. E.g. If a rhino has 12 HP in each leg and loses 18 then it's resilience test is at -30% as opposed to a pixie with 3 hps in the leg who is at -1 or -2 and therefore -5 or -10%. Generally speaking, it's best to scale the resilience test with the TYPE of injury rather than a raw loss of HPs.

There is still a unified mechanic here:
If someone is actively trying to hurt you then your resilience test is opposed.
If you are receiving damage due to falling, standing in fires and so on then your resilience test is unopposed but might have modifiers depending on how nasty the situation is.

That's the same logic as to when a skill is a simple test (climbing a mountain) or opposed roll (trying to climb while the spirit of the mountain tries to shake you off).

 

[Simulacrum]

Interested question to Loz and Pete: Why did you not go for use of major/minor wound levels, e.g.

minor injury - small hit but takes character into the red = resilience unmodified

serious injury - e.g. takes character into the red and does 1/3 HP in one blow = resilience - 20%

major injury - e.g. as above, 1/2 HP in one blow = reslience - 40%

grevious injury - e.g. as above but to head or chest = resilience - 60%

I presume a model like this would have been looked at in design and rejected - too fiddly, didn't test well or bad fit with the system?

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Interested question to Loz and Pete: Why did you not go for use of major/minor wound levels, e.g.

Two of the most important paradigms we embraced when revising the rules were Simplicity and Scalability.

As you postulate, lots of different wound criterion is very fiddly. We kept the previous three for speed and ease of use.

In addition we went through the rules and tried to limit the use of static penalties where we could. Static penalties do not scale with increasing skill chances. For example in your suggested rules, a serious injury suffers a -40% penalty to Resilience. Which is great at low skill levels, but may be laughed off by Heroes with skills in the 100+ range.

This is why almost every actively resisted action in the system is opposed by another skill. The chances of resisting can develop with the characters, and you can easily skew things for or against them by the competence of the opposition.

Static modifiers ultimately break and are, on the whole, arbitrary values which sometimes make little sense depending on the verisimilitude of your campaign.

So as Deleriad mentioned earlier we have attempted to impose several unified mechanics under the rules.

If someone is actively trying to hurt you then your resilience test is opposed.
If you are receiving damage due to falling, standing in fires and so on then your resilience test is unopposed but might have modifiers depending on how nasty the situation is.

 

[Simulacrum]

Thanks for that Pete, very clear