When you next print the core rulebooks can you please....

[Sinisalo]

When you next print the core rulebooks can you please....

1) Absolutely definitely have the one roll system for combat with the uneeded line from the matrix removed.

2) Indicate that initiates can use all their cult spells without possesing the corresponding runes

3) Have a better system for skills in excess of 100%. I suggest either the masteries system from Heroquest or making it opposed rolls where score in excess of 100 is added to the number you roll to decide ties. Apply this to combat

4) Make resistence to spells an opposed roll. At the mo someone with 100% in resilience and persistence is pretty much immune to magic.

Pretty pretty please!

It would take about a paragraph for each one to redefine (with some corrections here and there). Proof-read then proof-read again.

Heres hoping the Elric/ Hawkmoon rules have solutions to these issues so we can really see the elegant system beneath.

 

[Loz]

Sounds like you'll like the (shameless plug) RQ GMs' Guide.

 

[RosenMcStern]

I am definitely looking forward to seeing the RQ GM's guide (yay!), but in addition to this:

1) Absolutely definitely have the one roll system for combat with the uneeded line from the matrix removed.

Rurik's houserule works fine. Try it. Simplicity is not always the best solution.

2) Indicate that initiates can use all their cult spells without possesing the corresponding runes

Here I could agree with you, at least until I see the official solution.

4) Make resistence to spells an opposed roll. At the mo someone with 100% in resilience and persistence is pretty much immune to magic.

Read the paragraph about overcharging spells CAREFULLY, and apply it. It is the main reason why I like MRQ. It is a very smart idea, and cancels out the mistakes. But you must learn how to use it.

 

[Rurik]

I have struggled with the opposed rolls for magic resistence and haven't found a way to apply them that works well. The problem is with the overcharging rules and making them work with opposed rolls. The caster rolls first, and so the defender gets to see the attackers roll before deciding whether to overcharge and by how much - which is very unfair to the caster. Solutions involving pre-declaring or keeping hidden values are just too awkward.

I currently use the rules as writen with overcharging and add in a bit of inspiration from older RQ's - a critical resist is needed (be it dodge, persistence, or resilience) to resist a critical casting success. This way a lucky casting will most likely blow through a persistence of even 200%.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

I actually find an opposed roll of the caster's magic skill versus the defender's Resilience or Persistence works like a dream. Never had a problem with it.

With an opposed roll, there's no necessity for overcharging.

 

[Quire]

Solutions involving pre-declaring or keeping hidden values are just too awkward.

Why so? The simulation is of a situation where neither aggressor nor reactor would know the others' overcharge.

- Q

 

[andakitty]

Resistance rolls as in BRP work just fine, too. Why struggle with the MRQ opposed rule at all? I don't see it's needed.

 

[Quire]

Resistance rolls as in BRP work just fine, too. Why struggle with the MRQ opposed rule at all? I don't see it's needed.

I don't think there is a struggle with the opposed rule, andakitty, Ru's talking about overcharging and (I suspect) how to handle overcharging without meta-gaming.

FWIW, one of the things I think MRQ does better than previous RQ incarnations is opposed rolls. It's not a Mongoose innovation, of course (I'm not sure where it first appeared, but I know it's been around for a long old while).

I CHEER the demise of the resistance table.

- Q

 

[Rurik]

Overcharging in the rules as written isn't broken - what is broken is very high resist skills (persistence, resilience, and dodge - though you need a reaction to use the latter). The problem is it is a straight roll. If your skill is 95% you are pretty much immune to spells.

(Note I like the Rock Paper Scissors effect created here - if an opponent has a high resilience use persistence or dodge based spells on them, if they have a high resilience and dodge use persistence based spells, etc. You really need very high skills in all three to be "immune" to all types).

Opposed casting tests seem like a very good solution, where the resisting party has to beat the casters roll.

The problem comes with overcharging. The attacker has to decide how many points to overcharge before he rolls. He loses those points success or failure. The target only has to decide after the attacker rolls. If he see's the roll and it is a very good roll or a very bad roll he can decide not to spend points to overcharge where he otherwise might have. This is a huge advantage to the target.

"High Level" magic duels with good skills and stored magic points are all about depleting your opponents Magic points while still having some left yourself. It is already stacked against casters as they spend the overcharge points whether they succeed or fail (and every point they overcharge gives them -5%). This is balanced by the fact that each overcharge by the caster gives -10% to the defender, who only gets +5% for each point he overcharges.

Using opposed rolls and allowing the target to know the attackers roll before deciding how many points to overcharge breaks that balance. The target can see whether spending magic points to overcharge is likely to buy him anything.

So the only other mechanics are keeping the casting roll hidden from the rest of the table - I hope you trust your players. This could work in some groups, but I just can't stand behind it as a rule for general use.

The defender could decide how many points to spend before the attacker rolls. This seems kinda weird as he doesn't even know if he will need a resist roll. Also it causes both paties to play their hand - the caster reveals who his target would have been had he succeeded in casting roll - which could be important, and the defender reveals how many points they were willing to expend.

The target could write down what they want to spend and keep it hidden. But in the end these solutions are awkward and bog down play.

I have come to really like that there is no statement of intent. I don't have to decide to parry the troll and ignore the trollkin at the beginning of the round. They roll attacks, I roll parries if they hit, nothing needs to be pre-determined. It just flows. Spellcasting in the RAW just flows as well, all of the improvements I have tried impede this flow.

Now if we just didn't have to keep track of reactions.

Wow. If any readers have made it this far you have my condolences.

 

[vitalis6969]

Wow. If any readers have made it this far you have my condolences.

lol :lol: No, this is why I personally respect your stuff so much. It is very well thought out and provokes great thought on the subject. Since our characters aren't high enough to worry about the uber save yet I haven't really thought about it.

Now, I'm going to have to come up with some type of system that works.

Keep it coming Rurik.

-V

 

[andakitty]

Resistance table works for me, but...

What do you mean by 'overcharging'? I just came in to the discussion, and I am interested in how you are modifying the opposed roll mechanic...even though I don't think it is an improvement per se, at this point. Some of MRQ is growing on me, so I would like to understand what I am probably going to reject in favor of an older rule. Just in case.

Be patient and try to make me understand. It will probably help to clarify your own approach to yourself as well. Tell me what you mean, as if I were a new player at the table.

 

[RMS]

Overcharging in the rules as written isn't broken - what is broken is very high resist skills (persistence, resilience, and dodge - though you need a reaction to use the latter). The problem is it is a straight roll. If your skill is 95% you are pretty much immune to spells.

I still think the best solution for these is to tie persistence and resilience (and maybe dodge?) directly to stats and either cap them or set them at stat x 5%. Then super high skills are pretty much limited.

Wow. If any readers have made it this far you have my condolences.

It's nothing compared to some of my rambling posts!

 

[Halfbat]

What do you mean by 'overcharging'? I just came in to the discussion, and I am interested in how you are modifying the opposed roll mechanic...even though I don't think it is an improvement per se, at this point.

Overcharging spells has been in RQ for a long time - it's used to punch through defensive countermagic and, now, to boost the potency of a spell. The caster declares he is adding a number of MP to the spell he is casting in order to reduce his target's resist check - e.g. 10% per point. So a Disruption can be backed by an addition 4 points of MP, for example, just to make sure it hits home (total cost = 5MP).

Defenders against incoming spells can elect to spend MP to help their defense against it. Each MP adds 5% to their Resist check.

FWIW I tend to agree with Rurik - I don't think it's the casting/ overpowering that's the issue, just the way resists are handled. And it's a vexing issue. IME the resistance table, whilst a nice mechanic, didn't quite work well all the time either and I don't really want to go back to it.

-->
As for understanding who the target is, I assume that many spells (as stated in the book) have a visual component anyway so the target of a spell is normally pretty obvious anyway. The target themselves is going to know immediately that they are under magical attack AND that it was successful - it's up to them how they defend against it. From a GM's perspective a way to manage this is making sure the attacking rolls aren't seen, just notifying the player that it's successful.

 

[andakitty]

Ah, that. Thanks.

It's been a long time since I actually played RQ.

As for the resistance table, I am a strong fan of the KISS principle. It seems to me MRQ 'fixes' some problems that don't exist, and left a lot of holes in the rules. I am most curious to see what the 'tweaks' are in Hawkmoon and Elric.

 

[Itto]

I use the opposed roll for resisting spells. I ditched the overcharging rule, I like the flavour of it, but for the same reasons Rurik mentions it doesn't quite work. The way I looked at the overcharing rule was, its there to be able to batter down characters with a high resistance, otherwise a character with 100% would be mostly immune to that type of spell.

Using an opposed roll means that characters with 100% can be effected, so no need for the overcharging rule.


I also made countermagic spells opposed rolls rather than the block effect they have, which I never realy liked in RQII anyway.

 

[Mongoose Pete]

Using an opposed roll means that characters with 100% can be effected, so no need for the overcharging rule.

Precisely!

 

[vitalis6969]

I'm a fan of the KISS method as well... How about just a simple Magic Resistance attribute? Stamina + Power = Magic Resistance

Or something like that, it could also be Intelligence and Power.

-V

 

[andakitty]

So, are you well acquainted with the fanged one, there?

I am an extreme example of KISS, I guess. I don't like to use opposed rolls, but that's just me. Obviously most of the posters here think it's a great tool for rpgs. Saves yes, with the GM determining the difficulty. The boxed set Hawkmoon is about the only version of BRP that does not use them (opposed rolls), that I know of. Stat saves yes, stat x 1, 3, or 5. That's it, and it works fine for me. If I run one of Mongoose' RQ games I will likely pass on the opposed rolls, over 100% skills, and combat chart with multiple action/reactions. Keep It Seriously Simple. It works.

 

[duncan_disorderly]

When you next print the core rulebooks can you please....

(5) Remeber that there are 4 possible outcomes of a roll - Critical, Success, Fail and Fumble, and that any table comparing the outcome of two rolls needs to account for all of them...