The original 2 roll combat?

[weasel_fierce]

So Ive been re-reading my MRQ stuff, and it occured to me.. the original 2 roll combat (attacker rolls to hit, if he hits and defender reacts, you then make an opposed roll and refer to the charts) that was in the original rulebook and the combat example might not have been that bad an idea after all.


its a little wonky (an extra dice roll), but the charts make sense (you have the chance of both completely avoiding the attack, as well as partial results).

High skill attackers can bypass defenses more effectively

Unskilled attackers may get lucky hits in, but they will be easily deflected

Armour points for weapons are important

Dodging and parrying feels fundamentally different



Did anyone ever play it that way, and how did it go ?

 

[Rurik]

I always used the two roll table with one roll.

If the attacker succeeds the defender rolls defense opposing the attckers roll. If the defender wins the opposed roll use the attacker fails row of the table. If the defender makes his roll but loses the opposed roll use the attacker succeeds column.

Works great, same set of varied results as the two roll system with one roll.

 

[weasel_fierce]

ah, good idea. I'll adapt that for sure

 

[smiorgan]

I've run a few sessions using the infamous two rolls system and it works fine with the old tables. Overall, it's not more dice throwing than the DeluxeRQ opposed rolls, because you only parry succesful attacks.

I prefer it to the now official "opposed roll+downgrading" which DOES result in some strange outcomes. (E.g. critically parrying a success is actually worse than beating it with a greater success!) + APs are largely irrelevant...

The new tables are fine without downgrading, though.

Smiorgan

 

[Rurik]

ah, good idea. I'll adapt that for sure

There is also this here on the wiki, which is directly related to using the original two roll tables with a single opposed roll. It is for people who do not like tables:

http://mrqwiki.com/wiki/index.php/Non_Tabular_Combat

The main simplification is that the rolls don't really interact with the opposing roll. The effect of the attack roll is never changed by the defending roll, simplifying the results that need to be remembered to play without consulting any reference material.

 

[Deleriad]

ah, good idea. I'll adapt that for sure

There is also this here on the wiki, which is directly related to using the original two roll tables with a single opposed roll. It is for people who do not like tables:

http://mrqwiki.com/wiki/index.php/Non_Tabular_Combat

The main simplification is that the rolls don't really interact with the opposing roll. The effect of the attack roll is never changed by the defending roll, simplifying the results that need to be remembered to play without consulting any reference material.

This is essentially the system I have been using for over a year now and it is my preferred way of using opposed rolls in combat though I have made some refinements. I like the fact that you read the results from your roll without having to look at a matrix of result interactions and gives a role to parry armour points.

By the way it is possible to use opposed rolls in combat but not declare reactions until after you know the result. Works perfectly well but can seem a little counter-intuitive because there's often no incentive to try to parry a critical attack.

E.g. Max attacks Tim and succeeds with a roll of 23. Tim's weapon skill is 78% so he decides to parry because he feels that he has a good chance of making a parry. Next action Tim attacks Max and rolls 03 for a critical. Max has a weapon skill of 62% which means he has less than a 1/30 chance of winning the contest. He decides to take the pain and save his reaction for something he can do something about.

Allowing the choice to react after you see the results of the attack rewards high skill characters. If you want to play a Conanesque style game then it makes for a good option as numbers become relatively less important than skill.

 

[Mugen]

As far as I'm concerned, I think the best version proposed for Combat was in the latest Playtest rules.

*It didn't use a 2-roll system.
*A failed roll from the attacker meant the attack was a failure, no matter what the defender roll was.
*If attacker and defender obtained an equal level of success, the outcome of the attack was determined according to the highest roll. For instance, in case of a normal parry against a normal attack, damage reduction was either 1*AP (if parry roll was lower) or 2*AP (if parry roll was higher).

I don't know why combat rules changed before the release of the game.