The Player's Update

[Quire]

Well, thank goodness for that. No defensiveness, just a lot of common sense.

It took too long, of course. A lot of the things in there had been suggested on this very board within a few months of the game coming out. But at least it's done now.

Two questions:

1) When will this information be incorporated into the SRD?

2) When will a second edition of the core rulebook incorporating the update be published?

- Q

 

[Rurik]

Overall very solid changes.

Declaring defense before attack is rolled is a major change (though many played this way anyway).

The new combat table/rules do not change or address the fact that weapon parries and dodging are largely ineffective defenses though.

Also, curious on the specifics as to how the opposed spell resistence works with overcharging (the more I wrestled with making it work the more I came to like the 'old' way in the rules). The way I see it the the target will have to declare how much they plan to overcharge before the casting roll is made (therefore before the spell either succeeds or fails). It is just too unfair to the caster to let the target see his casting roll before deciding whether or not to overcharge.

 

[Se Chris]

1) When will this information be incorporated into the SRD?

2) When will a second edition of the core rulebook incorporating the update be published?

1) As soon as I'm done with a load of other things I have to do.

2) I don't know, but updating the files for the rulebook is on the list just after updating the SRD.

 

[Quire]

1) When will this information be incorporated into the SRD?

2) When will a second edition of the core rulebook incorporating the update be published?

1) As soon as I'm done with a load of other things I have to do.

2) I don't know, but updating the files for the rulebook is on the list just after updating the SRD.

Excellent. Thanks for the quick response, Chris.

- Q

 

[Loz]

Also, curious on the specifics as to how the opposed spell resistence works with overcharging (the more I wrestled with making it work the more I came to like the 'old' way in the rules). The way I see it the the target will have to declare how much they plan to overcharge before the casting roll is made (therefore before the spell either succeeds or fails). It is just too unfair to the caster to let the target see his casting roll before deciding whether or not to overcharge.

As well as overcharging to make a spell harder to counter, you can overcharge to boost its effects. The rule change is there to reflect that, in an opposed roll resistance, the target has some influence on additional effects such as extended duration.

Also, if a spellcaster is going to overcharge, the decision has to be made in relation to his current skill. Those with a higher %age can get away with a lot more, whereas less experienced spellcasters have to weigh-up their options, making overcharging a tactical consideration. I don't think it's especially unfair to have casters make that decision before making their casting roll. In effect, the decision and the roll are part of the same process, rather than distinct and separate elements.

Loz

 

[Rurik]

It is not that I find it unfair that the caster decides on how much to overcharge before rolling - that only makes sense.

Normally the Target only rolls his resist if the spell succeeds, so he would decide on overcharging after the attacker rolls. Seeing the actual roll before deciding gives a big advantage to the target in seeing what overcharging is likely to buy him.

It would have to go something like this:

Caster: I cast befuddle at Target and overcharge by 2.

Target: I will overcharge by 3 if he succeeds.

Caster: (rolls)....

 

[Rurik]

The new combat table/rules do not change or address the fact that weapon parries and dodging are largely ineffective defenses though.

Never mind. Read the whole thing. Re-Grokking the combat changes.

 

[Halfbat]

Loz,
Glad you're watching this thread. At first glance, the combat tables look excellent, and I am pleased at the >100% usage. The Persistence/ Resilience changes also look good, too (the best of RQ2 returns!), some good clarifications on min/max damage, and the simple fumble tables are perfect MRQ!

That said....

I am concerned by one thing - the most comon results in combat. The new description states that when a parry "beats" a normal successful attack the attack is blocked completely (Attack fails) and when an attack beats a normal, successful parry/dodge, the parry has no effect completely (Parry fails). It is only when both results are a tie that the intersecting column is used.

If I have that wrong, then correct me!

These situations are going to be one of the most common results in combat, the other being normal fail/successes. Unfortunately, they push the results to one extreme or the other (either a completely successful attack or a completely blocked attack). This is actually a bigger change than it looks as it only applies the AP of the weapon or shield in very few situations. It means the AP of a shield, for example, is only useful on a critical parry vs a normal success or a critical success vs a normal parry...

Is this really what is intended? That is, to diminish the AP to a background factor?

Whilst I can understand swords, perhaps, forcing an extreme result one way or another, I am struggling to see the same justification with shields: might it not be better to downgrade the lesser success only when dealing with _weapons_ rather than shields?

Help, do.

 

[juhanfg]

The way I read it you are right, the APs become secondary.

I think I'll use the table but ignore the rule about decreasing the success rate of the losing roll. This way you would get to use the AP's of the weapon more often.

 

[Rurik]

Yup. Thats my take on it. AP mean almost nothing now if were are interpreting this right - which I think we are. Parries and dodges are all or nothing in most cases.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Well, I am sorry to be so negative about something that has certainly cost you a considerable effort, but I am extremely disappointed.

The cap to Persistence and Resilience is somehow more realistic. It does not solve the problem of the Dragon taking 500 HP to he head and remaining conscious for several minutes. You still have to houserule this.

Rurik's rule has been incorporated into the main ruleset. Hooray!

Using an opposed roll to resist magic is ok, but as Rurik already pointed out, the old Overcharging system was not broken except in the opinion of someone who had not yet managed to understand how to use the rules. Why did you fix it?

The current combat tables are definitely worse than the original ones, except for the fact that they explain what to do in case of fumble (which everybody had already guessed). With the successful parry not negating the critical roll, using a sword to parry anything bigger than a dagger has become totally pointless. This was another part that was not broken in the old rules, it was just a matter of the players not realizing how to use the rules mechanics to their advantage.

The combination of pre-declaring defenses, Rurik's rule and the new tables, with the defender giving ground on a failed Dodge, makes Dodge not only pointless but thoroughly suicidal. A 100% Dodger who faces a 100%.swordsman has a one-in-two chance of decreasing his level of success to failure, thus giving ground (and falling into some pit). I hope i have misinterpreted the rules, because if things are as I believe even RQ3 Dodge was more effective!

Declaring reactions beforehand is certainly realistic, but using it in combination with variable CAs produces an awful result. A 200% swordsman with DEX 12 has a very high chance of being killed by a 50% newbie with DEX 13, because if the third attack connects he has certainly run out of reactions in order to counter the previous attacks, which possibly were misses. With the old rules it happened only if all three of the newbie's attacks connected.

The worst part of the MRQ rules (I must kill you to loot your runes) is still there. Remarked, too.

I am sorry to be so straightforward about it, but I strongly believe that you have made things worse with this fix. Seriously, people, I had almost managed to persuade my "historical" group to switch to the new ruleset, but if the variable CA/ pre-declared reaction matter is not revised they will just reject MRQ. I know my old players. Overall, I think that this has cost Mongoose roughly five potential customers among my mates.

 

[andakitty]

Except when the weapon itself is attacked, I'd say.

I have mixed feelings about it. If someone wanted to run it I'd play, if I were GMing a game I would houserule it into something simpler, without the matrix or opposed roll. If I am understnding it correctly. I am going to look at it again, later.

 

[sidkfjjteidlkkf]

WHen I first read a similiar post, I replied not knowing anything about a "Reprint". Now I see what you are referring to in this post. I guess I got the second printing, from what was written here.

I thought they were referring to ANOTHER BOOK all together..

 

[Rurik]

Well, I am going to wait until I actually try the new rules to pass final judgement bit I think I am mostly in agreement with Rosen on this one (except for the killing for runes bit - I've never seen that as a 'big' problem, but I seem to be in a minority there).

My Gut feeling is that these changes add more complexity and don't really improve play enough. I have come to like the 'streamlined' MRQ rules (and I never found RQ 2/3 too complicated, RQ3 Encumbrance and all).

I will definately use the over 100 rule. Perfectly servicable and 'official'.

I share the others concerns about the combat tables being all or nothing and being a bit more complex.

Also using the combat tables as updated a successful parry that converts a sucessful attack to an attack fails would negate knockback (strictly speaking). I'm not sure if this is intentional or not.

The other thing worth mentioning is that capping Persistence at POWx5 does not play nice with Divine Magicians and Shamans and the Dedicated POW rules - they will be reducing their Persistence cap whenever they learn spells (but then Dedicated POW is my most hated rule - even more than halving).

I'll definately use these to get a feel for them, but after absorbing them today I think I too am a bit disapointed.

Is this the same Combat Resolution in that will be in both Elric and Hawkmoon?

 

[Kravell]

I am new to RuneQuest and I'm just trying to absorb the rules when I saw this new version of the rules.

On the new Dodge and Parry tables I wondered if the opposed roll could just be dropped and the results simply compared. That way, the AP gets used more often.

Also, I thought that maybe if the Dodge or Parry is a Success but the Attack is a failure, perhaps the defender could Recover--which would get him his Reaction back for the that attempt. More skilled defenders would fare better against novice attackers that way.

Finally, it seems better to drop the Defender forced to Give Ground result with a failed Dodge versus a failed attack. Why punish the defender?

These new tables seem to hurt the defender, who is giving up a Reaction on top of everything else.

 

[juhanfg]

I

On the new Dodge and Parry tables I wondered if the opposed roll could just be dropped and the results simply compared. That way, the AP gets used more often.

I agree with you on that and I think that i will be using the tables that way.

 

[Sinisalo]

The over 100% rule and the spreading of opposed resolution is very welcome (especially to magic). Havent had time to digest the combat tables so wont comment.

I think this has made the system much more elegant. I'm very pleased.

 

[gamesmeister]

Generally I like the changes, although they don't go far enough i.e. there are a number of other areas that need rework, particularly among the rules found within the Companion.

However, I too will not be using the 'downgrading' rule - the changes to the combat table are quite sufficient, and this rule is unnecessary, adds additional complexity, and is, IMO, a bit daft!

However, I like the new combat tables as they stand, and the more common results will quickly become second nature, meaning I'll only need to reference them very occasionally.

So overall, quite pleased.

 

[weasel_fierce]

Overall looks very welcome, though it'll take a bit to digest and think through various implications.

 

[Deleriad]

Two questions about this.
1. Is just to reask the question about whether the use of APs has been deliberately downgraded in parries. Just to resummarise:
If attacker and parrier both succeed then the "winner" downgrades the loser. this means that that the success vs success result will occur roughly 1 time in a 100. In terms of game design this is something of a failure because the result which *looks* most common when two masters fight just doesn't happen. E.g. Inigo is 120% sword and is facing Westley also 120%. Roughly 1/2 of Westley's attacks strike Inigo for normal damage and the other 1/2 miss entirely. This feels badly wrong. Ditto dodge: if Inigo dodges he either dodges completely or gets fit full on *and* has to give ground.

Furthermore, lets pit Gorbash with a hatchet (d6) and damage modifier of +d4 against Wilko who has a target shield (8APs). First attack, Gorbash hits and Wilko parries. Gorbash rolls higher so does d6+d4 damage. Next attack Gorbash criticals! Yes! Wilko manages to get a parry. We look at the result of critical attack vs successful parry - defender blocks APs of parry weapon so Gorbash does 6+d4-8 (i.e. d4-2) damage. Drat! If only he hadn't criticalled.

2. If both parties fail does the "winner" still downgrade the loser. I'm guessing the answer to this is no but it could really do with being spelled out.

These may have been addressed elsewhere, if so, my apologies.