Yet Another Combat Table Variant

[RosenMcStern]

After re-reading the rules suggestions for Partial Success in defense on the MRQ Wiki, I decided I liked it better than the Player's Update. However, as stated on my previous thread, this rule is too different from standard MRQ to be generally accepted.

A variation in the tables that adds some options to the defender if he rolls higher, however, might be better than both the "downgrade level of success" method described in the update, which many do not like, and the partial success system, which is non-MRQish. So here is the suggestion, for public debate (and flaming).

I have also included the variant to leave the Reaction not "used up" in all cases in which the defender rolls better, as I think the pointless burning of reactions on failed attacks is the rule that really spoils MRQ, but it can be just ignored.

The alternate tables (PDF)

The parts that differ from the SRD are highlighted in red.

 

[Rurik]

Looks solid with some nice options. I'll run some combats using it but I'm pretty sure already I like it better than the official update (though that probably does not come as too big a surprise :wink: ).

Nice about how reactions are only sometimes used (though this pretty much rules out just using the old way).

Are you intentionally upgrading a normal attack to critical damage on a fumbled defense or is that a cut and paste oversight?

 

[RosenMcStern]

Nice about how reactions are only sometimes used (though this pretty much rules out just using the old way).

Not exactly. A newbie will run out of reactions much faster than a master. In the old way it was only your opponent's success that decided how many reactions you used up.

Are you intentionally upgrading a normal attack to critical damage on a fumbled defense or is that a cut and paste oversight?

It's in the SRD. Oh, my, why is it different from the Update?

 

[atgxtg]

Hey, I like this. I like how retreat is used to downgrade some attack results. Very similar to what Sanguine does with Iron Claw annd USagi Yojimbo.

It will keep combats moving and dynamic as opposed to trading attacks. Plus it makes parrying worthwhile.

 

[Rurik]

Nice about how reactions are only sometimes used (though this pretty much rules out just using the old way).

Not exactly. A newbie will run out of reactions much faster than a master. In the old way it was only your opponent's success that decided how many reactions you used up.?

The point I was making was that nothing in the table in the Update assumes that you declare reactions before the attack is rolled. You can use all the other new rules in the update but still elect to declare reactions only in response to a successful attack if you want.

Your table assumes that the reaction was commited prior to the attack roll - in some cases it just doesn't get used. I'm not saying this bad in any way, I was commenting on the fact that your table has the pre-declaration built into it (it is after all the new official rule).

Are you intentionally upgrading a normal attack to critical damage on a fumbled defense or is that a cut and paste oversight?

It's in the SRD. Oh, my, why is it different from the Update?

Doh. You are indeed correct - it upgrades in the players update as well. I was only looking at your table and noticed it so mentioned it. I didn't realise it was identical to the Update as the time. My bad.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Tables updated. I incorporated ideas from the other thread. A bit complex, but there is some balance between playable and realistic.

 

[Space Coyote]

Looks nice, even if perhaps a bit too articulate for a simple matrix? You are basically allowing the partial winner to pick up his own "special" result. However, why do you still save a reaction even though you parry the attack (that is, damage is reduced)?

When both fails, I guess the table should read "if the defender rolled lower"? That if you use the RAW. I personally would use the margin of success or failure, simply because it requires you to consistently roll low. Now you have to roll high, but under your skill, however if you roll very low it's actually better.

For continuity, I wouldn't let a fumbled defense upgrade a successful attack to a critical one OR I would also let a fumbled defense updgrade a failed attack to a successful one. But I'd go for the former: a roll on the Fumble table should be enough.

Cheers, Alex.

 

[RosenMcStern]

Looks nice, even if perhaps a bit too articulate for a simple matrix? You are basically allowing the partial winner to pick up his own "special" result. However, why do you still save a reaction even though you parry the attack (that is, damage is reduced)?

You can save a reaction if you outskilled your opponent (roll higher or rolled one level better). However, if you want to use your skill advantage to its maximum effectiveness (make attack fail altogether or use double AP) you cannot save the reaction. For example, if you parry with a sword and roll higher, you still have to spend the reaction if you do not want to use the basic APs, that are very low.

 

[gamesmeister]

IMHO, the table is a little too over-complicated i.e. there are just too many possible results. It would mean checking the table would be a must for quite some time, and the choice of options would inevitably slow combat down.

That said, the idea to save the reaction when winning the opposed roll is nothing short of brilliant! :!: I'm going to have to have a think about how this can be incorporated into the earlier proposal.

Nice!

 

[Rurik]

IMHO, the table is a little too over-complicated i.e. there are just too many possible results. It would mean checking the table would be a must for quite some time, and the choice of options would inevitably slow combat down.

That said, the idea to save the reaction when winning the opposed roll is nothing short of brilliant! :!: I'm going to have to have a think about how this can be incorporated into the earlier proposal.

Nice!

I agree it might not pass the Rasta test :wink: , though I certainly will play around with this - I like seeing how these things work out. Even if I don't end up using it in the end good ideas come out of these discussions. Whether I use them or not the Block option and the Save Reaction are definately good ideas.

I too think I'm going to stick with the simplified approach as well, but as far as incorporating the saved reaction goes just throw it in as a bullet item under full success and critical (reaction is not used). The main difference between that and Rosen's approach is that in his table you can save a reaction on a failure if you roll higher, and as I a failed roll would always result in using the reaction.

 

[Sorn]

I figured since everyone is throwing around their versions of combat that I might as well put my idea in also.

http://sorn1808.googlepages.com/CombatMatrix.pdf

My combat tables are based on a few things:
1) I like having a table of results to look at. I know some people are trying to do away with the tables for a simpler set of combat results, but I think tables are fine as long as they are not overly complex.
2) I like using opposed rolls in combat, and prior to the update, I was planning to basically use Rurik's idea for opposed rolls (including highest margin to determine the winner) with the original combat tables.
3) I even like the idea that the "loser" on equal success is downgraded. I have adopted the "partial" idea - partial critical or partial success.
4) I do not like how this plays out with the new tables, making combat all or nothing in most cases.

Basically I wanted to integrate a new set of partial results into the existing tables, and to make it where the information is still easily digested. In my matrix the "loser" of the opposed roll (for equal successes) looks to the appropriate "partial" column or row (attacker or defender). This is simply referenced to the "winner's" level of success.
For the results on the partial levels of success I essentially wanted to "halve" the result the winner would have had at that level of success. In other words, if the attacker lost they would do half as much damage as normal; if the defender lost they would reduce damage by half as much as usual.
My wording might sound a bit complicated, but I think it is clear on the tables.
Ex 1) Defender parries and both critical, but defender "wins" the test. The result would be: Half maximum damage for the attacker, reduced by 2xAP.
Ex 2) Defender dodge, and both score a regular success, but the attacker "wins". The result is: Attacker does minimum damage x2

I haven't (and won't in the foreseeable future) had any chance to test this out, but I put it together based on various ideas from the threads here. I'd be glad if anyone took a look at my tables and let me know what they thought, what could be improved, or if the whole idea is garbage

P.S. I don't mean to steal your spotlight in this thread RosenMcStern, so if this would be better moved to a new thread let me know.

 

[Sorn]

Just a bump to see if anyone had looked at my matrix. Anyone have comments, criticizisms, thoughts?
Oh well, if not I'll drop the subject - I still love this place though

 

[Halfbat]

Just a bump to see if anyone had looked at my matrix. Anyone have comments, criticizisms, thoughts?

tbh, though it may be better placed in another thread (as this one sprung from the non-tabular, partial success discussion and tried to put it into a table) but it is a contribution that reflects that issue.

Looking at the one you posted, though, it looks similar to the stuff posted on the SRD in general. After a quick scan it looks usable, but I think needs the explanations so can't stand on its own. As a result it looks as if there may be a mistype in that a partial success vs a critical defense is as potent, if not more so, than normal successes (MAX DAMAGE * 1/2 is a really nice average to know you are getting! - may be best left at "1/2 Crit/Success damage"). I'd also put the "partial" result next to "success" so it's easier to scan, but tht's a personal preference.

------------
I think the general problem with both sets of tables is the attempt to incorporate/alleviate partial successes into a results matrix not geared towards supporting partial results, and thereby breaks the so-called "it's not RQ rule".

However the non-tabular approach works really well, imho - perhaps what's really been uncovered in this set of discussions is that in the new MRQ with opposed rolls, partial successes are absolutely vital to the system, both on combat and in other areas. I love them. I think they ease the problems with the "winner takes all" approach that makes the new combat so deadly, unpredictable and biased .

 

[RosenMcStern]

Mind me, Halfbat, I am in favour of partial success and all sort of "degree of success" variations, but as stated elsewhere this is too far away from the standard MRQ concepts, so even though it is a good idea it is difficult to have it accepted by the general consensus and the goal of these forums is to look for general consensus rules (or at least widely accepted variants), as everyone is free to use whatever houserule he wishes in his games.

Now I have an idea on how to make the tables clearer, but it requires some graphic work, so it will take some time.

 

[Deleriad]

Mind me, Halfbat, I am in favour of partial success and all sort of "degree of success" variations, but as stated elsewhere this is too far away from the standard MRQ concepts....

I think it's as about "unRQ" as opposed rolls are, which is to say that I don't think you can implement opposed skill tests in RQ without answering the question "what happens to someone who loses a contest but makes the test?"

You can answer that if you lose, you lose, end of story, regardless of whether or not you made the test. I happen to think that a "partial success" answer is better and, in fact, it has already been implemented in the new spell resistance mechanic in the updated players guide.

The problem, as pointed out in many threads, is that Mongoose don't have someone who's job it is to oversee the mechanics of the system to ensure that they work together. *Maybe* RQ Deluxe is where they plan to start this. I must admit that I've put all my purchasing on hold until I can be certain that Mongoose are getting a grip on what appear to be a cascade of problems. I'm not going to purchase a GMs guide or advanced combat or whatnot if they don't fit in with the rest of the system.

 

[RosenMcStern]

The problem, as pointed out in many threads, is that Mongoose don't have someone who's job it is to oversee the mechanics of the system to ensure that they work together.

I think Loz was somehow in charge of doing this with the new update, with some advice from Pete Nash. But as many people pointed out, there is much more that needs a consistency check in the many supplements that have been published so far, and a reprint of so many books is out of question, I think.

I do not want to sound too pessimistic, but at this point the damage is done. If there are inconsistencies in the "gateway" line of products, including the new Spellbook, we shall have to live with them.

However, I think that having 20+ quality supplements, with 80%+ new materials in them, in the first year after the core system is out, is much more that we ever had with Chaosium or Avalon Hill. So I am definitely happy with the system, inconsistencies or not.

 

[gamesmeister]

Mind me, Halfbat, I am in favour of partial success and all sort of "degree of success" variations, but as stated elsewhere this is too far away from the standard MRQ concepts, so even though it is a good idea it is difficult to have it accepted by the general consensus and the goal of these forums is to look for general consensus rules (or at least widely accepted variants), as everyone is free to use whatever houserule he wishes in his games.

I don't really agree with this. All a "partial success" is is just a name for one of the possible combinations on a results matrix. It's not some sort of radical new concept, it's just identifying that the attacker succeeded with his roll but failed the opposed roll. You have exactly the same possible result on your matrix, but without an identifying name.

Hmm, I suppose MRQ doesn't have it on their matrix, so maybe we're all trying to introduce something that isn't there at the moment. I really hope Loz considers this at some point in the near future though.

 

[RosenMcStern]

You have exactly the same possible result on your matrix, but without an identifying name.

This was exactly my intent. A concept is more likely to be accepted if it is not labeled with a word that has been discarded. The solution on the MRQ Wiki works fine, but the general approach of MRQ is Degree of Success -> NO , Tables -> YES. Unless this attitude changes, the Partial Success solutions is not viable (and is likely to be declared Anathema in some Malkioni Ecchlesiastical Council )

 

[Sorn]

Thanks for the response, and the continued discussion, i really appreciate it. To address a few points:

My table is close to srd, yes, but on purpose. I wasn't looking to go too far away from the base rules. As for the explainations, I'm sure I could make the tables and text with it a bit more verbose to make it stand alone, but I think the concept is simple. when I explained it to a friend he got the idea quickly.

I think when you said "I'd also put the "partial" result next to "success"", you meant to put those into the body of the table and not on the edges? If so I initially tried that, since it would make the most sense, but to me at least the result was too busy and hard to read. You did give me a good idea on how to clear up table to make more understandable, I can label the "partials better. I really made this for my group though, and I think they would be able to follow what I did. Thanks for visual idea on making table easier to read though, that is the kind of thing I was looking for.

Not sure what you meant about damage - I meant a partial crit to be better then a regular success. I don't know though, I need to play test and make sure that you aren't right, and it is not overwhelming.
With respect to this being "not RQ", it doesn't mean so much to me, since this is my 1st incarnation of the rules. Of course MRQ doesn't have the idea of partials, but it does like the tables, and I am comfortables with mixing the two. I totally agree that "partials" are something that seems needed, in whatever format, to make combat less black and white.