Two-Roll Combat.

[Melkor]

So after weighing the pros and cons of the combat system presented in the MRQ rulebook, I think I am going to go with the two-roll combat method to allow for Overextended and straight Riposte rolls to be possible to achieve in combat.

This allows for reactions to follow the 'Successful Attack' trigger as listed, and the "fail/fail" result on both tables means the attack is successful on the second roll (even if it fails) as long as the first roll hits.

I don't mind the statistical changes using two-rolls makes to the system, because it applies to both combatants equally.

That said, atgxtg made a good point that it makes sitting back and using archery weapons more desirable, but I can live with that too.

My question is, how can you see future Mongoose RQ products throwing a monkey-wrench into the two-roll method as described in the Rulebook ? My concern at this point is that we will start a campaign using MRQ, and at some point in the next couple of months, something will be released that throws the way we are going to run combat into chaos - and it will have to be modified mid-stream (which I would prefer not to do).

Any thoughts ?

 

[iamtim]

My question is, how can you see future Mongoose RQ products throwing a monkey-wrench into the two-roll method as described in the Rulebook ?

I see one of two things:

1) Mongoose later releases something that allows the combat tables to be used as-is with one roll, in which case you keep playing with two rolls or switch over to one roll.

2) Mongoose later releases updated combat tables that allow for the same results with only one roll, in which case you keep playing with two rolls on the old tables or switch to one roll on the new table.

 

[RMS]

After yesterday's discussion, I went back and read through the tables carefully and I'm positive that they were designed for the two roll combat system. That's why a failed attack vs. a failed defense results in full damage: the attacker has already made a successful attack roll to even get to that point. This also means that results are pretty strong. My only issue with it is the requirement for a second roll. Now, MRQ requires two more rolls per exchange than RQ2/3, and MRQ is supposed to be faster and simpler.

 

[Rurik]

Yeah, it certainly seems like the rules were developed with two rolls in mind. I've considered trying the rules with two rolls myself.

I don't think any future change could alter combat that much - character stats, weapon and armor stats, hps, skills, etc will all still be the same so a change in resolution shouldn't have to much of an effect. I doubt they would make any change that rendered obsolete stats in previously published adventures and supplements.

 

[Mac V]

All are valid points. I can't see it hurting the game either way. Anyway, it's your game, as long as everyone's having a good time, you've accomplished the mission!

 

[Deleriad]

Well it seems to me pretty plain that combat used to be two rolls but was changed at the last minute. To be honest, it makes sense in terms of MGF to use a "1 roll" system.

The two roll system means that a successful attack would end up with 4 rolls far too often:
Attack, oppose the dodge or parry, roll hit location, roll damage.
That would put a lot of new players off straight away and leads to all sort of horrible questions about modifiers: do the modifiers for your attack roll also affect your opposition of the dodge/parry? E.g. if you do a precise attack does the negative modifier affect your opposition of the parry/dodge?

Seems to me that if you want to 'fix' the dodge/parry tables then you allow a defender to try to parry/dodge a failed attack in the hope of getting a good result. It's probably a waste of a reaction in most cases but once in a while it would be useful.

 

[Melkor]

My players (and I) have no issues with Multiple Rolls....and I think I would state up front that modifiers to hit would only apply to the initial combat roll, while modifiers to parry (for whatever reason) would apply to the second combat roll by case to attacker and defender.

Yes, I realize some gamers hate the thought of having to roll dice multiple times to resolve a volley of attacks, but I've never been one of them...In fact, the more dice rolling, the better as far as I am concerned. It's fun.

Again, as long as the same standard (regarding modifiers and number of rolls) is applied to all combatants, it evens out.

 

[Rurik]

After yesterday's discussion, I went back and read through the tables carefully and I'm positive that they were designed for the two roll combat system. That's why a failed attack vs. a failed defense results in full damage: the attacker has already made a successful attack roll to even get to that point. This also means that results are pretty strong. My only issue with it is the requirement for a second roll. Now, MRQ requires two more rolls per exchange than RQ2/3, and MRQ is supposed to be faster and simpler.

There is only potentially one more roll than RQ2/3, only the attacker rolls twice. And if the attack misses, the defender doesn't roll at all, which is one less roll.

I really didn't like the two roll Idea at all at first, but I agree that is seems that the game was developed with two rolls. And it may play out well - that is why I thought of trying it that way.

And it requires no 'fixing'. It would be easy to change the tables, or add statement of intent, etc to work better with the rules as "intended" or "clarified", but using two rolls needs no modifactions (other than the two rolls).

Who knows, maybe after trying two rolls I will hate it. But I still think it might work out pretty well. If I find myself making too many changes to the system I will probably just go back to using RQ3 as my base system and steal a few ideas from MRQ.

I am witholding much of my judgement until the Companion is out.

 

[Rurik]

My players (and I) have no issues with Multiple Rolls....and I think I would state up front that modifiers to hit would only apply to the initial combat roll, while modifiers to parry (for whatever reason) would apply to the second combat roll by case to attacker and defender.

I would use the modifiers on both attack rolls, if my modified chance to hit is 65, I would use a 65 for the second attack roll to. Remember there is no second roll for a failure, and no penalty for missing the second attack roll (if the defender misses his parry you still hit).

 

[Melkor]

I would use the modifiers on both attack rolls, if my modified chance to hit is 65, I would use a 65 for the second attack roll to. Remember there is no second roll for a failure, and no penalty for missing the second attack roll (if the defender misses his parry you still hit).

Good point Rurik. I'll try that out and see how it works.

I think we are going to attempt to run a short adventure set in Middle Earth (without Halflings or any magic save Rune Magic - the latter until the Companion is released next week, the former until someone stats out Halflings*).

iamtim - How about a 'Plain Wrap' supplement with some fantasy PC races - Like Halflings, Centaurs, maybe Half-Elves, and Half-Orcs ? I'll buy the first copy.

 

[iamtim]

iamtim - How about a 'Plain Wrap' supplement with some fantasy PC races - Like Halflings, Centaurs, maybe Half-Elves, and Half-Orcs ? I'll buy the first copy.

I meant to ask you how you liked five classic fantasy monsters.

That's not a bad idea. I was given a draft of backgrounds and professions for the monsters in five classic fantasy monsters; I think I'll probably integrate them into the PDF and re-release with updates for everyone who's purchased it already. A matching PDF for PC races would be a nice compliment.

I've got three supplements in the pipe right now, though, and there's only so much I can do AND hold down a full-time job AND be a good husband and father.

 

[Rurik]

I think we are going to attempt to run a short adventure set in Middle Earth (without Halflings or any magic save Rune Magic - the latter until the Companion is released next week, the former until someone stats out Halflings*).

There were a few stats for halflings/hobbits that were posted a few weeks back over a couple of LotR/ME threads. Search for Hobbit and Halfling and you should find them.

Be forwarned there are a lot of bad hobbit jokes you will be subjected to.

 

[Melkor]

I meant to ask you how you liked five classic fantasy monsters.

It worked well for our test combats, and the Orcs and Wargs will make the basis of our Middle Earth campaign enemies (which is why I bought it in the first place - I didn't want to wait for the Mongoose Monsters book).

I've got three supplements in the pipe right now, though, and there's only so much I can do AND hold down a full-time job AND be a good husband and father.

Understood. Any chance I could get you to whip up your take on a hobbit/halfling in the meantime ? That's about all we are missing at the moment to get started, and I'm just not good at coming up with balanced monsters from scratch- especially with regards to a new/unfamiliar system like MRQ.

 

[iamtim]

Any chance I could get you to whip up your take on a hobbit/halfling in the meantime ?

Yeah, I can give it a shot. Probably not 'till tonight, though.

 

[RMS]

My only issue with it is the requirement for a second roll. Now, MRQ requires two more rolls per exchange than RQ2/3, and MRQ is supposed to be faster and simpler.

There is only potentially one more roll than RQ2/3, only the attacker rolls twice. And if the attack misses, the defender doesn't roll at all, which is one less roll.

You roll initiate now, which you don't do in RQ2/3. You roll once to hit and another time to see how well you hit (vs. defense). In RQ2/3 you only rolled once to hit. That's two more rolls. Granted the current combat round is typically 2-3 action/reaction pairs for that initiate vs. old RQ which is 1-2 attacks/defenses per round, but still it's a lot more rolling for the same result. However, I do like the modifiers to APP, a lot. That's an idea I'd steal even if I got back to old RQ. I also like some of the new maneuvers, though miss some of the old ones. I'll probably use all of them in whatever I run.

 

[Melkor]

Any chance I could get you to whip up your take on a hobbit/halfling in the meantime ?

Yeah, I can give it a shot. Probably not 'till tonight, though.

That would be awesome. Thanks Tim.

If you will be using it in a future "Plain Wrap", feel free to PM it to me, and we will test it out Sunday with our first Middle Earth RQ game session.

 

[Sigtrygg]

Here's how I'm doing it.

Reactions are triggered by an attacking action being declared against you.

Both can now roll dice and use the tables as presented.

Additionally on certain results the initiative can switch.

Both fail, nearest to their target number wins initiative for next action.

Both succeed, highest roll has initiative for next action.

 

[atgxtg]

I think we are going to attempt to run a short adventure set in Middle Earth (without Halflings or any magic save Rune Magic - the latter until the Companion is released next week, the former until someone stats out Halflings*).

There were a few stats for halflings/hobbits that were posted a few weeks back over a couple of LotR/ME threads. Search for Hobbit and Halfling and you should find them.

Be forwarned there are a lot of bad hobbit jokes you will be subjected to.

I know I put of images of my Hobbit stats for RQ3. Professions need to be rewqorded a bit but the statsd should line up fairly well.

 

[algauble]

Here's how I'm doing it.

Reactions are triggered by an attacking action being declared against you.

Both can now roll dice and use the tables as presented.

Additionally on certain results the initiative can switch.

Both fail, nearest to their target number wins initiative for next action.

Both succeed, highest roll has initiative for next action.

Sounds good...
So, if you're defending and you've used all your reactions, then you just don't roll, right?
As for initiative switching, does this mean that you wouldn't have to roll initiative every round (or any round after the first)?

 

[Sigtrygg]

If you are defending and you've run out of reactions you're out of luck, the attacker rolls with no defence roll in reply.

I do have a house rule that allows a defend action to add a reaction - lose an attack to gain a defence.

Initiative is determined only on the first turn, after that it is up to combat results to change things. I've found it speeds things up.