simple combat question

[Patadin]

Am I correct in reading the combat rules to say the following-

The initial combat roll- if I fail, there is no reaction roll needed. If I succeed in the roll, an reaction is available if the foe has any reactions correct.

What if I roll a critical on the initial roll, then have to roll another weapon skill for a reaction test.

Do I get two chances to get a critical?

What if I get a critical on the first roll but fail on the reaction test? Can I loose the critical?

Thanks!

 

[Halfbat]

The initial combat roll- if I fail, there is no reaction roll needed. If I succeed in the roll, an reaction is available if the foe has any reactions correct.

Correct

What if I roll a critical on the initial roll, then have to roll another weapon skill for a reaction test. ... Do I get two chances to get a critical? ... What if I get a critical on the first roll but fail on the reaction test? Can I loose the critical?

First off, No, this isn't how it's supposed to work but is a aresult of the unfortuante explanation of the initially-a-two-roll-but-now-one-roll-system that MS and the others weep over whenever it's now raised.

Go to the Player's Guide PDF which clears this oft-asked question. The Guide is http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/pdf/rqplayersguide.pdf.

In short the two-roll system you describe has been abandoned for a single-roll system in which the defender _only_ rolls a reaction if the attacker hits AND the attacker's roll stays as it stands. The combat tables are checked on these two, single rolls (attacker hits or criticals and defender dodges/parries, fails to dodge/parry and criticals). The "attacker missed" line on the reaction tables is a legacy of the original two-roll combat system.

Some people, btw, use the two-roll system - if the attack hits, he re-reolls to determine his success (as does the reactor). Others also use the single-roll results uploaded to the MRQ Wiki (Mr. Qwiki) and still others use some of Simon Phipp's ideas (and I've lost his bookmark on this userid, sorry).

 

[elgrin]

If I may help, this is the Simon Phipps link that I have - very useful site for any RQ version.


http://www.soltakss.com/

elgrin

 

[Steel Rat]

I'm not sure if my question is related here. I don't have RQ yet, but looking at the SRD Combat section there is a matrix which shows a failure for both the Attacker and the Dodger. If the attacker has already failed, there is no reaction. So why is there an Attacker Failed (Weapon skill)? Or is this still the "legacy" two-roll system? This isn't at all clear.

Also, if the attacker and dodger both fail, why would the attack proceed as normal?

Also also , why does the attacker have to beat (get equal to or lower than) their own weapon skill percentage? If he doesn't, does this mean he failed to wield his weapon? This doesn't make a lot of sense, especially if the defender can't or doesn't declare a dodge or parry, effectively making him a stationary target, and basically an automatic hit?

 

[weasel_fierce]

I'm not sure if my question is related here. I don't have RQ yet, but looking at the SRD Combat section there is a matrix which shows a failure for both the Attacker and the Dodger. If the attacker has already failed, there is no reaction. So why is there an Attacker Failed (Weapon skill)? Or is this still the "legacy" two-roll system? This isn't at all clear.

This is indeed a legacy of the two-roll system.
You can easily permit the defender to attempt the defense, if the attacker fails, in the hope of getting a critical

Also, if the attacker and dodger both fail, why would the attack proceed as normal?

This is from the two roll system. If you permit the defender to still roll, in an attempt to get the riposte or overextend, then its just a gamble.

Also also , why does the attacker have to beat (get equal to or lower than) their own weapon skill percentage? If he doesn't, does this mean he failed to wield his weapon? This doesn't make a lot of sense, especially if the defender can't or doesn't declare a dodge or parry, effectively making him a stationary target, and basically an automatic hit?

Trying to hit an opponent isnt automatic unless you're extremely good. Even if its not a "dodge" in game terms, nobody simply stands around and waits to get hit.

 

[Steel Rat]

This is indeed a legacy of the two-roll system.
You can easily permit the defender to attempt the defense, if the attacker fails, in the hope of getting a critical

Seems like there is a lot of editing needing to be done to get rid of these inconsistencies.

Trying to hit an opponent isnt automatic unless you're extremely good. Even if its not a "dodge" in game terms, nobody simply stands around and waits to get hit.

But shouldn't this be based on the defender and not the attacker? In the current situation the attacker has the same chance of the initial miss every time regardless of the defender. Not logical at all. There should be a derived initial defense % for each combatant, which the attacker has to beat, or perhaps which is subtracted from his Weapon Skill as an initial result. This way a very skilled opponent will be initially harder to hit, even if they don't specifically use a Dodge or Parry reaction. Once I get RQ, I'll immediatly throw out the need to beat your own weapon skill to hit an opponent, it just doesn't make any sense.

Also, if there are multiple attackers against one defender, why wouldn't some of them get near-automatic hits? The defender can't actively defend against them all. It certainly should not be based on the attacker's skill %.

 

[weasel_fierce]

Seems like there is a lot of editing needing to be done to get rid of these inconsistencies.

Ignore the example in the book and it works without any further clarifications.

But shouldn't this be based on the defender and not the attacker? In the current situation the attacker has the same chance of the initial miss every time regardless of the defender. Not logical at all. There should be a derived initial defense % for each combatant, which the attacker has to beat, or perhaps which is subtracted from his Weapon Skill as an initial result. This way a very skilled opponent will be initially harder to hit, even if they don't specifically use a Dodge or Parry reaction. Once I get RQ, I'll immediatly throw out the need to beat your own weapon skill to hit an opponent, it just doesn't make any sense.

The default weapon skill gives you the chance of landing a reasonably effective hit during normal combat circumstances, while keeping yourself fairly well guarded, not slipping over a dead body, without freaking out or loosing your cool, and catching an opportunity to land "a real hit".

Like I said, noone just stands around, waiting for someone to maim them. The dodge roll represents you throwing yourself out of the way (thats why it moves the defender 4 meters), not just a small sidestep to avoid a blade. (which is subsumed into the fact that you have to roll to hit)

Making attackers hit automatically would make combat exceedingly fatal.

The idea you mention of a basic defense being deducted was used in RQ2nd edition, but plainly ? Its more fun to roll dice to defend yourself, than just modify the opponents attack. I think, anyways.

Also, if there are multiple attackers against one defender, why wouldn't some of them get near-automatic hits? The defender can't actively defend against them all. It certainly should not be based on the attacker's skill %.

This is reflected by the defender only having 2-3 reactions against successfull attacks. Additionally, anyone attackign from the rear has a +20 bonus to hit.
For a average, but definately not elite swordsman, that lands him between 70 and 80 % chance of hitting, 2-3 times per turn.


I'd advise you to play the rules first a few times, before making sweeping changes.
In the pursuit of "realism" its easy to go overboard with things that are not, in fact, realistic.

 

[Halfbat]

Also, if there are multiple attackers against one defender, why wouldn't some of them get near-automatic hits? The defender can't actively defend against them all. It certainly should not be based on the attacker's skill %.

But the defender is always moving so the attacker has to hit that. As w_f says, above, once you play through a load of combats using the rules as they stand you find that being outnumbered is deadly, unless your very careful: and it's tactics that should be used in reverse, too.

Try the rules as is or with the minor combat table adjustments mentioned. They do work - and they work very well and reasonably "realistically".

 

[Steel Rat]

All well and good guys, but neither of you are addressing the fact that the attacker is rolling against himself initially, which doesn't make sense. They should be rolling against a base defense % of the defender, therefore making a skilled defender harder to hit initially than an unskilled one, instead of the same chance to fail every time. This is as bad as d20's initial crit being the same regardless of skill level.

I've already said that I don't expect the defender to be standing still unless he declares a dodge or parry.

As I said, I haven't gotten the book yet, but the two-roll errors are in the SRD, seems like that would be easy to fix, and I'm wondering why they haven't.

 

[weasel_fierce]

The attacker rolls against himself, because a veteran fencer is more likely to land an effective hit without exposing himself, than a peasant with a stick.

The defenders skill at defense is covered by his dodge or parrying skill. The attack roll is simply "default circumstances" that may not be related to just the person being attacked.

There's nothing stopping you from adding a penalty (runequest 2 had this) but Im not sure its worth the added bother and calculation, for something that the system already covers just fine

 

[Steel Rat]

The attacker rolls against himself, because a veteran fencer is more likely to land an effective hit without exposing himself, than a peasant with a stick.

The defenders skill at defense is covered by his dodge or parrying skill. The attack roll is simply "default circumstances" that may not be related to just the person being attacked.

There's nothing stopping you from adding a penalty (runequest 2 had this) but Im not sure its worth the added bother and calculation, for something that the system already covers just fine

But it doesn't make sense that the veteran fencer has exactly the same chance to fail no matter who his opponent is. Circumstances are almost always different, so why should that be a constant?

 

[weasel_fierce]

You're taking the wheel out of a car and saying "this cant work" without looking at the bits in the car, that makes it work.

Since the defender is rolling to avoid the attack, his skill IS factored in, without a need to modify a bunch of stuff.

Your weapon skill is your basic chance to land an effective hit in a few seconds space, without overly exposing yourself, tripping in some guts, dropping some of your adventuring kit etc, before factoring your opponents defense.

 

[Steel Rat]

You're taking the wheel out of a car and saying "this cant work" without looking at the bits in the car, that makes it work.

Since the defender is rolling to avoid the attack, his skill IS factored in, without a need to modify a bunch of stuff.

Your weapon skill is your basic chance to land an effective hit in a few seconds space, without overly exposing yourself, tripping in some guts, dropping some of your adventuring kit etc, before factoring your opponents defense.

The defender isn't rolling to avoid the attack until there is a successful attack to avoid, and then only if they choose to. That's the backwards part. The defender's skill ISN'T factored in until the attacker can show that he knows how to hold the right end of the sword. And the attacker's weapons skill says nothing about circumstances. Sorry, but this is totally backwards.

The car wheel is a poor analogy. Speaking to an experienced fencer, he totally disagrees with the mechanic, and he's a gamer as well. Sorry, but I won't be using the mechanic in my gaming, and I really think it's a poor way of representing even fictitious combat.

Please don't take this personally, but I don't think it was well thought out, and I've been gaming for a loooong time. So far I like what I see of RQ, though I think there should be separate attributes for Agility and Dexterity, they aren't even close to the same thing. Dexterity has always been a catchall for eye-hand coordination and physical speed and quickness since the original D&D, but it's WAY too generalized. But I'll obviously have to change some things...

 

[vitalis6969]

Also, if the attacker and dodger both fail, why would the attack proceed as normal?

This part, I'm not sure of. It defeats the "missing" you get when you fail your attack roll.

Also also , why does the attacker have to beat (get equal to or lower than) their own weapon skill percentage? If he doesn't, does this mean he failed to wield his weapon?

Yeah, essentially. I have been fighting SCA (essentially stick fighting martial arts) for a loooong time. As a real world example here, I once threw a shot in a tourney so wrong and so bad (critical failure) that I snapped a bone in my wrist that took surgury to fix. I knew better, my skill level certainly shouldn't have allowed that, but yet it happened. A quarterback of great level can still throw a bad pass, Gretsky can still miss a shot on goal, and some soccer/football guy (sorry donn't follow the sport) can still make a bad kick or pass. It's the human error effect.

This doesn't make a lot of sense, especially if the defender can't or doesn't declare a dodge or parry, effectively making him a stationary target, and basically an automatic hit?

Another real world example. We do a lot of "demo" fighting for scout troops and such to raise money for our group. In those fights we throw a lot of shots at each others shields and such to make a lot of noise and to put on a big show, the kids love it. I have personally missed my opponants shield and hit him in the head once because I wasn't paying attention. My opponant never tried to block because he assumed I would hit his shield. The shield was a stationary target and I missed because I was dumb. Human error.

Before the "SCA isn't real fighting" comes into effect, let me say that I have found that the same goes for the fencing that I have done and the live steel reenactment I have done. Human error takes a huge part in everything we do.

You have to remember that in a weapon fight against an opponant even if they aren't blocking or dodging, your character does not know the opponant is not going to block or dodge. Your opponant is still moving, still in combat stance and still a possible threat. Not parrying or dodging does not mean flat-footed and drooling. This can add to hesitation or error on the attacker's part.

Ok, another example for a target that is most certainly not moving at all. I do quite a bit of target shooting, some of my rifles are "tack drivers" meaning that off a bench rest can put the bullet through pretty much the same hole at 100 yards to 150 yards. Yet I still screw up on the rare occasion and jerk the trigger or unfocus my eyes or whatever and wing a flyer out there that blows my whole grouping. That is a stationary target, being fired on from a sand-bagged bench rest. It doesn't get much easier, but misses still happen.

I've seen fighters practicing on the pell (target dummy) miss the shot they were throwing.

Now, for the rules to make sense with everything I have written above, there is one change in the Mongoose combat table that needs to be changed, and that is when the attacker misses and the defender misses there should be no hit at all. Right now that one square of the combat table favors the attacker and should err in the side of the defender.

Hope this helps explain the other side a little bit from my angle anyway. Have fun no matter which way you go.

-V

 

[vitalis6969]

Also, if there are multiple attackers against one defender, why wouldn't some of them get near-automatic hits? The defender can't actively defend against them all. It certainly should not be based on the attacker's skill %.

This I also know from personal experience, unless the attackers are trained extremely well together they can and will get in each other's way as they are attacking, thus making sure there is no guaranteed hit. Just having their attack not parried or dodged is more than sufficient, it still allows for error.

-V

 

[vitalis6969]

All well and good guys, but neither of you are addressing the fact that the attacker is rolling against himself initially, which doesn't make sense.

It makes all the sense in the world, the attacking individual has to draw on the skill he has in the given situation (and combat, even non lethal fun reenactment combat is not a calm situation) and apply that skill in a changing environment. Swinging a weapon is NOT just dumbly swinging. It is a coiled and balanced movement that starts from your feet and travels through your body to your arm that will hopefully culminate in you throwing a shot that will defeat your opponants defences. It is then up to the defender to block/parry or dodge that shot. If you are standing wrong or fail to execute the martail skill needed to throw the proper shot you will not hit.

Your reasoning for applying a modifier to the attackers score before he rolls is assuming that he will automatically hit. If you are going to apply a modifier to the attackers roll then the defender SHOULD NOT be allowed to block or parry since his skill has already been figured into combat. You might as well use the old D&D AC system.

When I worked at an Ice Arena I watched countless hockey teams practice and when you see person after person after person skate towards the undefended net, shoot the puck, and miss the net you will note that they failed their "to hit" shot. This is why we / they practice.

-V

 

[weasel_fierce]

Well, being open source, (or OGL anyways), the beauty of it is, you CAN change it, if you'd like to

The rules work better than most stuff out there, for what I want out of it. If you want something that isnt out there, there's only one thing to do, write it

Thats why i ended up wrtiting my own wargame rules

 

[Steel Rat]

I appreciate the replies folks, I guess we'll just have to agree that people interpret things differently and have different life experiences. I still plan on changing this when I use RQ since I don't agree with it.

I think there's a lot to be said in favor of the old AD&D combat system, and some things against it of course. One of the main things I miss from it is weapon vs armor type. In my opinion, using damage reduction doesn't nearly account for this, but it's a start. All it means is that people will tend, as in d20, to use the same handful of weapons, since no weapons made to defeat certain armor types is taken into account. Was it cumbersome? Sure, but it made have a wide variety of weapons make sense.

 

[weasel_fierce]

I liked that system as well, though it became a side effect in AD&D, since most combats tend to be against weird monsters, that dont fall into the armour catagories.

For more sword-n-sorcery stuff, it was nice though.

 

[vitalis6969]

I appreciate the replies folks, I guess we'll just have to agree that people interpret things differently and have different life experiences. I still plan on changing this when I use RQ since I don't agree with it.

Thanks for your insight as well, it has led me to take another look at the combat matrix and ditch the miss / miss is still a hit box and make it a miss instead.

One of the main things I miss from it is weapon vs armor type. In my opinion, using damage reduction doesn't nearly account for this, but it's a start. All it means is that people will tend, as in d20, to use the same handful of weapons, since no weapons made to defeat certain armor types is taken into account. Was it cumbersome? Sure, but it made have a wide variety of weapons make sense.

I agree completely. My own home gaming system which we have been playing around 20 years has four types of damage: Slash, Chop, Peirce, and Impact. Each armor type has a different armor value for each type of damage so for example mail would protect against 8 points of slash damage, 4 points of chop damage, and only 2 points of pierce or impact.

By wearing mail you got good protection against a long sword (slash), fair proctection against a broadsword or axe (chop) and minor protection against arrows or a flanged mace (peirce and impact respectively).

The trade off is that a long sword is very fast, broadsword and axes are slower, pierce does less damage compaired to other attacks, and maces and hammers are really slow and do less damage than edged weapons.

Even with this, the most happy medium I have seen used in the game is was the broadsword... Nearly everyone carried it or some other chop weapon. :roll:

This has been a fun discussion

-V