simple combat question

[Cleombrotus]

I see where you're coming from with your 'hit based on defender's skill rather than attackers'. Runequest has always suffered from its own success in this respect. The attack roll has always implied many things. Lots of dodging, scrambling, feinting, looking for an opening, etc. Your attack roll represented the idea that with, for example, a skill of 65% that statistically 65% of the time this character is going to find a way through anybody's defence. The defender's skill variable is that this character can still parry or dodge x% of those blows that get through - remember the definition of melee. It implies confusion and chaos, not a duel.

However, because of the way the system plays, everyone I know, myself included, feels that the roll you make is actually representative of the backswing of a sword or the thrust of a spear. It's the involvement you feel with the system and the cool images it invokes (a very very good thing) that creates an issue for the system's logic. This has been exacerbated by the new rules since now each attack is potentially one of many, all occurring in about 5 seconds. Melee indeed. This issue has always been there, but has never hindered or halted overall logic, fun, realism, suspension of disbelief, atmosphere, etc, etc. The system plays very well indeed. If you want increased realism in a playable format, I would recommend Harnmaster. Seems like I do that a lot. They should pay me. Runequest is better, in my opinion, because of the atmosphere it creates.

As to your point about armour and the old AD&D rules, I would argue that damage reduction is exactly what armour does. It has nothing to do with not being hit. As I'm sure you know, a 'hit' produces kinetic energy (in addition to physical trauma which armour also helps to prevent) which does 'damage'. Armour dissipates that energy, effectively reducing the impact, i.e damage. A hit against a heavily armoured character is still a hit. It doesn't miss because he's in armour - it just doesn't hurt him as much. The critical provides a framework for those attacks which bypass the protection of armour. What more do you need? This: there was a simple rule in RQ3 that catered for your problem. It differentiated between flexible armour and rigid (nice and simple to apply), and treated flexible armour as having half value against weapons that rely on impact for their damage. Simple but effective for gaming purposes if you remember to apply it. Not sure I ever did.[/i]

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Note that in the very first public playtest for MRQ the rules said that an attack against an opponent who did not actively defend would be an automatic hit.

There were two problems with this:-
1) It meant that Combat worked differently from every other skill
2) Somebody pointed out that it is quite possible to swing a sword at a stationary object and miss as they had done so. (In a similar vein, if striking an unmoving target was easy then the whole "Man hits thumb with hammer" gag would not exist....)


I suspect the table has not been corrected in the SRD as it would then disagree with the published rules. I'm also suspicious that the "Players guide" correction was a hurried correction to answer criticism of the two roll combat method rather than the originally intended rule.

Hopefully once Mongoose have cleared the backlog they will use the new Printing machine to produce a corrected and complete edition of Runequest as a single volume rather than an infinite number of hardback pamphlets.

 

[Steel Rat]

As to your point about armour and the old AD&D rules, I would argue that damage reduction is exactly what armour does. It has nothing to do with not being hit. As I'm sure you know, a 'hit' produces kinetic energy (in addition to physical trauma which armour also helps to prevent) which does 'damage'. Armour dissipates that energy, effectively reducing the impact, i.e damage. A hit against a heavily armoured character is still a hit. It doesn't miss because he's in armour - it just doesn't hurt him as much. The critical provides a framework for those attacks which bypass the protection of armour. What more do you need? This: there was a simple rule in RQ3 that catered for your problem. It differentiated between flexible armour and rigid (nice and simple to apply), and treated flexible armour as having half value against weapons that rely on impact for their damage. Simple but effective for gaming purposes if you remember to apply it. Not sure I ever did.

The problem is that DR is all-encompassing, generalizing against everything equally. Something like a dagger is relatively effective against full plate, because it can be maneuvered in between the interlocking plates at critical joints, which is why many knights carried daggers as backup weapons. DR removes ANY chance of a dagger doing damage in this way.

Conversely, the English Longbow wasn't as effective against plate armor as many lead us to believe. You basically had to have the right arrowhead made of high-quality metal, and be within 20 yards of the target to penetrate even a short distance into quality plate armor. Modern tests have proven this. But, because most of those killed by arrows were less-armored footmen, the bow gained a terrific reputation.

And then there are weapons like the Godentag, flails, etc, which are very specialized and don't just deal damage. The godentag was designed to penetrate plate armor (and consequently just about any other type of period armor) by sheer brute force, meaning DR wouldn't have much of an effect.

Do I want perfect realism? No. But I also don't want sweeping generalizations.

 

[Quire]

Perfect realism is, of course, the reserve of reality. Sweeping generalisations are a feature of any simulation, and the harder you look at simulating combat in an RPG, the further things will stick out.

It's a debate as old as RPGs, but it comes down to what happens at the table. If you and your group are happy with comparing weapon types versus armour types and accommodating a potential range of interactions, that's great. But there comes a point where pretty much everyone gets bored shitless of spending more than a moment defining such things, so you have to pare down the realism to a point where it's not making you pine for Grand Theft Auto.

Where the actual balance points falls is the issue at any gaming table. For me, it stops being fun real quick if I have to compare types on every damage roll. Sometimes, you just have to go with it, because any RPG is - when you get down to it - actually terrible at simulating anything even approaching reality.

- Q

 

[weasel_fierce]

The problem is that DR is all-encompassing, generalizing against everything equally. Something like a dagger is relatively effective against full plate, because it can be maneuvered in between the interlocking plates at critical joints, which is why many knights carried daggers as backup weapons. DR removes ANY chance of a dagger doing damage in this way.

Which is incidentally why the system includes an option to attack at -40, to negate armour

Conversely, the English Longbow wasn't as effective against plate armor as many lead us to believe. You basically had to have the right arrowhead made of high-quality metal, and be within 20 yards of the target to penetrate even a short distance into quality plate armor. Modern tests have proven this. But, because most of those killed by arrows were less-armored footmen, the bow gained a terrific reputation.

yeah, if pop history and wargame rules were to be taken at face value, the british should have adopted long bows rather than lewis guns in ww1

And then there are weapons like the Godentag, flails, etc, which are very specialized and don't just deal damage. The godentag was designed to penetrate plate armor (and consequently just about any other type of period armor) by sheer brute force, meaning DR wouldn't have much of an effect.

These are specialized cases, that can be handled by notes on the particular weapon type though.
Conversely, some weapons simply deal very high amounts of damage, making armour not much of an issue.

Why not sit down and make a matrix of every weapon in the book, and their effect on soft / rigid / mail armour ? Its open license material, so no reason not to dive in, and do something

 

[Quire]

Why not sit down and make a matrix of every weapon in the book, and their effect on soft / rigid / mail armour ?

Because every time a row or column is added to the table, the baby jesus cries.



- Q

 

[beeber]

Because every time a row or column is added to the table, the baby jesus cries.



- Q

i have an urge to make a huge excel spreadsheet, now :twisted:

 

[frogspawner]

Then you'll probably want to make up a whole host of arbitrary D&D-style bonuses/penalties, like the aforementioned -40, while you're at it - that'd make Him cry even more. It certainly does me...

 

[gamesmeister]

What's wrong with the -40% ? What penalty would you prefer to apply?

 

[frogspawner]

Not just that one, but any +/- bonuses/penalties are bad.

Because they are arbitrary (why -40%? why not -50%, -30%, or whatever?), affect different skill-levels disproportionately (135%+ skill wouldn't notice -40%, but 45% certainly will), slow down play with calculations/looking up (even simple sums can be tricky, and who can remember all those bonuses/penalties?), make unfamiliar the target numbers for success/criticals (and I still use specials) and take the certainty/immediacy out of combat rolls (and others).

I prefer a system of multiples: an advantage doubles (e.g. attack from rear, or v prone), a disadvantage halves (e.g. attacking from prone, or encumbered), and great advantages/disadvantages give x10 or /10 respectively.

If pressed, I would rate Precise Attack as Great Disadvantage, i.e. chance/10.

 

[Baron Meliadus]

I totally agree with Frogspawner. +/- penalties are both arbitrary and disproportionate. It immediately stood out to me like a sore thumb when I first picked up the rulebook.

As it stands, gaining that 140% weapon skill is a breaking point for combat since you can use a Precise Attack at will with only a 4% reduction in your critical range... a fact which is more than made up for if you are automatically going to bypass the opponent's armour, or strike to the head.

In my opinion using multiples/fractions is mathematically far more elegant and smooths the penalty of difficult acts across a wider range of skill levels.

 

[gamesmeister]

As it stands, gaining that 140% weapon skill is a breaking point for combat since you can use a Precise Attack at will with only a 4% reduction in your critical range... a fact which is more than made up for if you are automatically going to bypass the opponent's armour, or strike to the head.

Someone who has a skill of 140% is phenomally skilled with a sword - IMO, they should be able to precise attack at will. If you are that skilled, you *can* select the location to hit, or look for chinks in armour. What you can't do of course is prevent your opponent from parrying or dodging your attack, which means if your opponent is equally skilled, your precise attack will rarely strike home anyway.

In my opinion using multiples/fractions is mathematically far more elegant and smooths the penalty of difficult acts across a wider range of skill levels.

There's no way multiples/fractions are more elegant than simply addition/subtraction...it's far easier in the heat of battle to subtract a fixed 25% from 75% i.e. 50% than reducing 75% by 25% i.e. 56.25%

On top of that, if a precise attack reduced your chance to hit by say 50%, why should a master at 100% be penalised by 50%, while a novice at 10% will only be penalised by 5%. Makes no sense.

 

[B_Steele]

Someone who has a skill of 140% is phenomally skilled with a sword - IMO, they should be able to precise attack at will. If you are that skilled, you *can* select the location to hit, or look for chinks in armour.

You share my opinion on the matter.

In my opinion using multiples/fractions is mathematically far more elegant and smooths the penalty of difficult acts across a wider range of skill levels.

I generally hate additional math in a roleplaying game if I don't need it - hence the blanket penalties and bonuses. We have to assume that some of our players might be younger or not as adept at fraction tables as others, so it is easier and more streamlined to run with constant modifiers rather than adjustable ones. With the exception of "% times level" style modifiers, that are necessary in places for fairness, like with spells.

And of course, a GM could adjust any roll they want to by the nature of their power as a GM. It is the eternal caveat of any RPG...if you don't like it, alter it!

Back to work for me,
Bry

 

[frogspawner]

If you are that skilled, you *can* select the location to hit, or look for chinks in armour.

I'm not interested in the Precise Attack ability. Don't like it, don't use it, and I suspect many others treat it likewise. Making armour irrelevant is bizarre and unfair. But that's not the point.

There's no way multiples/fractions are more elegant than simply addition/subtraction...it's far easier in the heat of battle to subtract a fixed 25% from 75% i.e. 50% than reducing 75% by 25% i.e. 56.25%

It's a matter of taste whether multiples or addition/subtraction are the more elegant. Would anyone else care to express an opinion? Simple multiples (x2 and x10) are the only ones I am suggesting (mention of quarters is misleading). Even addition/subtraction isn't easier than that.

Makes no sense.

I can make sense of it - anyone else?

 

[frogspawner]

I generally hate additional math in a roleplaying game if I don't need it - hence the blanket penalties and bonuses. We have to assume that some of our players might be younger or not as adept at fraction tables as others, so it is easier and more streamlined to run with constant modifiers rather than adjustable ones.

He's actually agreeing with the simplicity of the x2/x10 multiples idea. Let's hope, for his sake, that the evil Mongoose overlords don't notice!

It is the eternal caveat of any RPG...if you don't like it, alter it!

Or stick with a superior earlier version...?

Back to work for me,
Bry

Back... to the drawing board? ;-)
Steve W

 

[frogspawner]

I totally agree with Frogspawner. <etc>

Thanks! It makes all the grief from Mongoose minions worthwhile!

 

[vitalis6969]

I'm not interested in the Precise Attack ability. Don't like it, don't use it, and I suspect many others treat it likewise. Making armour irrelevant is bizarre and unfair. But that's not the point.

Its only "bizarre and unfair" if you have never worn and fought in armor. Targeting is pretty much the point of every shot thrown and yeah, it is more difficult. The current Mongoose way of the penalty for precise attack is accurate enough to represent combat and still shows a viable tactic of aiming for the unprotected areas to drop your opponent fast.

Sure, the -40% is arbitrary, but so is a x2, a x10 or whatever other means of mathmatical variation someone can come up with for a die modifier. Hell, the armor points themselves are arbitrary, as are the hit points and the characteristics... etc...

If anything is unrealistic it is the random hit location table. Never once have I swung at somebodies head and hit them in the leg. That table should be split between an "Upper" locations and a "Lower" locations for melee combat while the current table remains in use for ranged weapons.

-V

 

[Swampy]

If anything is unrealistic it is the random hit location table. Never once have I swung at somebodies head and hit them in the leg. That table should be split between an "Upper" locations and a "Lower" locations for melee combat while the current table remains in use for ranged weapons.

-V

You could always use a d10 for lower locations and a d10 + 10 for upper locations then. It would fit better and is the system we use in our game.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Researches on ancient burial sites show that most deadly wounds were leg wounds. Maybe because many soldiers were unarmored there, but maybe because in actual battles it happened more frequently.

Also, do not forget that the chance your opponent leaves an opening that you try to exploit is factored in the d20 roll, and an opening in the leg is more likely than one in the head.

 

[vitalis6969]

You could always use a d10 for lower locations and a d10 + 10 for upper locations then. It would fit better and is the system we use in our game.

Good idea, I think we will start using that.... Makes more sense.

-V