Single Rolls vs Double Rolls

[Rurik]

All of this brought me to a realization on how to use the tables as is without two rolls.....

...which is:

Attacker rolls. If success defender rolls.

If the defender rolls lower than the attackers (one) roll, use the Attacker Fails Row (as if he had missed his second roll). If the defender rolls higher than the attackers roll, use the Attacker Succeeds Row.

Restores the dodge being able to block all damage and the parrying weapon blocking 2xAP results without implementing a second roll.

I think I like it. Must playtest.

Of course will have to work out skills over 100, but that shouldn't be too hard.

 

[weasel_fierce]

thats not bad at all. I'll have to roll some dice and do some test combats tomorrow to see how it compares with how I've been doing it (which was a simple "succeed / fail" binary approach)

 

[Rurik]

thats not bad at all. I'll have to roll some dice and do some test combats tomorrow to see how it compares with how I've been doing it (which was a simple "succeed / fail" binary approach)

Well the Irony is I had just completed a pretty detailed combat results table based on the single roll to use. I spent a lot of time on it and had reintoduced the possibility of incidental damage to weapons.

But I think I like this system. I have run numerous test combats with bunches of house rules and liked the result set from the two roll system, but just didn't like the two rolls - feels too funky, a lot of players hate the idea at first mention, and there is the oddness around attacker criticals.

Oh well, time to play god again and ressurect my combat test beings for a few more fights.

 

[Itto]

All of this brought me to a realization on how to use the tables as is without two rolls.....

...which is:

Attacker rolls. If success defender rolls.

If the defender rolls lower than the attackers (one) roll, use the Attacker Fails Row (as if he had missed his second roll). If the defender rolls higher than the attackers roll, use the Attacker Succeeds Row.

Restores the dodge being able to block all damage and the parrying weapon blocking 2xAP results without implementing a second roll.

I think I like it. Must playtest.

Of course will have to work out skills over 100, but that shouldn't be too hard.

Genius, pure genius!

I start to use the two roll system, but always find that half way through a combat I'd end up just with the one roll each (I GM). I guess so many years of BRP.

I think for attacks over 100% just take the stuff over 100% off the parry and vice verser. Yes there may be an issue when you reduce an opponent to less that zero % (just give them the basic 5% min) and you keep the remainder. IE 190% attack against a 60% parry ends up 130% against 5%. Yes the attacker is didled out of 5% but what does it matter.

Also I think that I may have the one that rolls the highest gets the success, rather than the lowest as that keeps it in line with none combat opposed rolls.

 

[Dr. Halflight]

All of this brought me to a realization on how to use the tables as is without two rolls.....

...which is:

Attacker rolls. If success defender rolls.

If the defender rolls lower than the attackers (one) roll, use the Attacker Fails Row (as if he had missed his second roll). If the defender rolls higher than the attackers roll, use the Attacker Succeeds Row.

Restores the dodge being able to block all damage and the parrying weapon blocking 2xAP results without implementing a second roll.

I like this, but shouldn't it be if the Defender rolls lower, us the Attacker Succeeds & if the Defender rolls higher Attack Fails? High rolls are better, in MRQ (if its successful).

BTW, the tables make complete sense if a Reaction is declared BEFORE the Attacker rolls, is anyone else doing this?

Doc

 

[Rurik]

All of this brought me to a realization on how to use the tables as is without two rolls.....

...which is:

Attacker rolls. If success defender rolls.

If the defender rolls lower than the attackers (one) roll, use the Attacker Fails Row (as if he had missed his second roll). If the defender rolls higher than the attackers roll, use the Attacker Succeeds Row.

Restores the dodge being able to block all damage and the parrying weapon blocking 2xAP results without implementing a second roll.

I like this, but shouldn't it be if the Defender rolls lower, us the Attacker Succeeds & if the Defender rolls higher Attack Fails? High rolls are better, in MRQ (if its successful).

BTW, the tables make complete sense if a Reaction is declared BEFORE the Attacker rolls, is anyone else doing this?

Doc

You can really play it either way. One way it is better for the attacker to roll high and the other it is better for the defender. The end result is the same - all the combat results become possible again. I liked the possible results from the two roll system but in the end didn't like the two rolls. This allows the full results with one roll - roll high or low is a matter of preference, both work.

Declaring reaction before the attack is rolled doesn't really make the tables work right in my opinion. Doing that still results in a missed attack becoming converted to a hit on a failed parry or dodge. Even worse in the case of a failed attack and a successful parry the attack becomes a hit but 2xAP are blocked, which could be as few as 4 points. Not very strong incentive to parry.

 

[Dr. Halflight]

I haven't been very active on this forum since the rulebook released & the debates started, but looking at the Dodge & Parry tables....has anyone just looked at them from the point of view, that if you want to overextend or riposte your opponent, you have to risk either getting hit for minimum damage or having to parry otherwise missed attacks?

The more I think about it from that POV, the more I don't mind the table.

Doc

 

[gamesmeister]

I haven't been very active on this forum since the rulebook released & the debates started, but looking at the Dodge & Parry tables....has anyone just looked at them from the point of view, that if you want to overextend or riposte your opponent, you have to risk either getting hit for minimum damage or having to parry otherwise missed attacks?

The more I think about it from that POV, the more I don't mind the table.

Doc

I, along with several others, have suggested this in the past, but Rurik's solution is infinitely better IMO. I'll definitely be using it.

I'm actually thinking about buying the PDF copy of the core rules so I can make all these changes and print them out.

 

[FatPob]

I had the big game day, and used the 2 rolls. With powerful characters it becomes a drag, especially yhr skills over 100% stuff.

I concluded for future the best way would be like Pendragon really (though people will probably hate it) so here goes:

1 attack roll.
1 defence roll.
If the defender chooses to defend, compare rolls Highest (under skill) suceeds. (A crit counts as a 100). If the defender gets higher, Attack fails, otherwise as normal (like has been said earlier but in reverse).

For skills over 100, there are 2 ways, both quite simple.
1. roll as normal but add a bonus to the dice of the skill - 100) the max result is 100, ie:
BtBS has 170 Sword, King Broo has 140 dodge.
BtBs rolls 26, so his result is 96
King Broo rolls 65 (+40 = 105) max is 100, so 100, KB dodges (as per rules above)
Next action BtBS rolls 55 (+70=125) so 100, KB rolls 30 (+40) = 70, so he gets a wallop.

2. if the skills are super high reduce the lowest skill to 60, and take whatever the reduction was off the other skill. Obviously if there is a difference still of 100, then the character with the lowest skill just fails.

 

[Melkor]

I have played both double roll and single roll, and am convinced the tables are designed for Double roll.

If you guys remember my long and frustrating arguments right after MRQ was released, that's been my opinion all along....and as someone stated earlier in this thread - it seems like Matt and Mongoose released the Player's Guide PDF to cut off criticism of a two roll system (which seems to have been what the game was originally designed to be) instead of addressing any of the questions that confused players had posed up to that point.

I haven't touched MRQ in months because the lack of solid clarification and the inexplicable Player's Guide PDF and answers from Mongoose frustrated the hell out of me.

In fact, I thought I would visit the forums today to see if anything had ever been fixed.

Doesn't look like it.