You'll get a kick out of this, Melkor...

[iamtim]

I've been reading over the SRD the last few days (it's easy to do at work, and I don't have to explain why I've got a RuneQuest book sprawled across my keyboard when I should be coding PHP...); I've read the combat section a few times now, and you know what?

I'll be damned if even the SRD reads as if it were written for an attack roll and then a separate, opposed defense roll. Not only does the SRD read that way, but the tables make perfect, 100% sense that way.

To whit: I roll an attack. I succeed, triggering a Dodge reaction from my opponent. An opposed roll takes place and both rolls fail. The original successful attack is "passed through" via the "attack succeeds as normal" result.

I'm sorry to beat a dead horse, but I can't support the "it was designed for one roll and the charts are a f*ckup" theory any longer. That just doesn't make sense. With a second, opposed defense roll the rules in the SRD seem to work smoothly.

 

[Utgardloki]

Well, maybe it works and maybe it doesn't. It still seems like more dice rolling than necessary.

If we made it so that the first attack roll is then opposed by the defender's dodge/parry roll, that would cut one die roll out of the process. I am thinking that everybody should be resigned to the idea that to make combat more detailed than it is in D20, the cost is that an individual turn is going to take a lot longer.

This might really suck for those who roll low in initiative, but we'll have to see what happens when I run a game with all my house rules. Certainly, cutting out at least one die roll per attack would be a good thing, especially if that die roll does nothing to make the combat more detailed.

 

[Melkor]

Like you, the more times I read the combat section (and I've read it probably 15 times), the more and more I was convinced that the combat system was designed, playtested, and printed with two rolls in mind.

That's why I had that puzzled dog sideways head turn "huh ?" when I read Matt's posts regarding combat after the rulebook was released, and was even more confused after the Player's Guide PDF was released.

I don't know why rolling an extra die has such a stigma attached to it...It doesn't take that much longer, and it doesn't really make combat more difficult. This is, of course, only my opinion - but apparently, a lot of people were up in arms over it after reading the rulebook.

It seems to me that some of Matt's comments after the rulebook release, and the release of the Player's Guide PDF were an attempt at maybe avoiding some of that criticism, or to try and modify the combat system after the fact for some other (unknown and quite puzzling) reason.

It just never made sense to me because the rules (as written in the rulebook) seem to 1) Work with the full Parry/Dodge charts (not a somewhat suspect explanation of 'ignore it - it's done out of sense of completeness and will be explored later), 2) Work with the listed "Triggers" for Parry and Dodge - a SUCCESSFUL atack, and 3) Work with the combat examples as printed in the rulebook.

There was also mention that Mongoose folks demoing the system before it's release were using a two-roll system.

It's like the thing wasn't broken, and worked as written, albeit with a two roll system, and some clarification needed* - but then the after-the-fact modifications turned it into something that didn't work nearly as well, and broke something that didn't need fixing.

In fact, I have a feeling that people who have read the rulebook or SRD without logging onto the forums or downloading the Player's Guide PDF are certainly playing the game with two rolls...and are probably quite happy with the system.

That's the main reason I have been such a squeeky wheel around here.

*I'm still curious about the Criticals that you and I have already discussed Tim - assuming the use of a two roll system as presented in the Rulebook and the SRD :

Does a critical rolled on first roll count as a critical based on the "attack succeeds as normal" part of the Parry/Dodge tables in addition to the possibility of obtaining a critical on the second roll (effectively giving a chance for a critical on both the first roll and the second depending on the results on the Parry/Dodge tables) ?

It would seem like it does indeed according to the charts.

I'm also curious as to whether or not modifiers to the first roll would apply to the second roll as well...and I am tempted to say they would.

Anyway, this entire things leaves me pondering why the change would have been made which made the rules which seemed to work as written no longer work. Was it simply to cater to the folks clamoring that MRQ wasn't a one-roll system ? That would seem strange to me.

Did anyone here Playtest MRQ ? If so, could you confirm or deny that a two roll system was a part of the playtest ?

 

[iamtim]

Well, maybe it works and maybe it doesn't. It still seems like more dice rolling than necessary.

Dice rolling doesn't bother me; I like rolling dice. It's why I play tabletop RPGs instead of online games.

If we made it so that the first attack roll is then opposed by the defender's dodge/parry roll, that would cut one die roll out of the process.

That was my original take, but then you get things like a failed attack roll and failed defense becoming a successful attack which doesn't always make sense. This way if both results on the opposed defense roll fail and the attack roll was a success, the table makes sense.

I think it all depends on what you are looking for -- fewer dice rolls or combat table integrity.

 

[iamtim]

Does a critical rolled on first roll count as a critical based on the "attack succeeds as normal" part of the Parry/Dodge tables

Armed with this new knowledge, I still say yes. In defining the "Attack succeeds as normal" table result the SRD reads, "The [dodge/parry] attempt failed and the attack resolves damage as normal."

The SRD further says that a critical hit "...automatically causes maximum damage for the weapon in question."

As the normal damage resolution for a critical hit is maximum damage, a critical hit resolving damage as normal would, in fact, provide maximum damage.

 

[Melkor]

So if we assume a two roll system was the original intent, and that the combat system and Parry/Dodge tables work as written, and work well - using two rolls, what are the other major 'issues' that need working out with further errata in the MRQ rulebook ?

Resilience ?

Armor (not sure about this one, but I saw people posting that the Armor charts were messed up) ?

Additional options for Opposed Rolls instead of halving to avoid the statistic glitches ?

What else ?

 

[iamtim]

Resilience?

'Splain.

Opposed Rolls ... halving?

I don't think that'll change. The "statistical anomoly" was a calculated risk. And while it wonks up statistical chances of success (while keeping the ratio between opposed skill levels intact) it *works*, and there's no question about how to use it.

 

[Utgardloki]

think it all depends on what you are looking for -- fewer dice rolls or combat table integrity.

I don't care about combat table integrity. After all, I'm making such wholesale adjustments to the game, I can rewrite the tables too. It's not hard: just fill out a 3 x 3 grid with what looks plausible.

But really, I've ditched the table entirely. If combat becomes an opposed roll, then a table is not necessary. A rule that a critical attack success that is *not* successfully dodged or parried does extra damage is all that I need.

One of the things I liked about 3rd edition D&D was that I no longer needed a DM's screen; I didn't need to look up anything on a table any more. That's always a nice thing.

 

[Melkor]

'Splain.

This seemed wacky:
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=21679

I don't think that'll change [halving]. The "statistical anomoly" was a calculated risk. And while it wonks up statistical chances of success (while keeping the ratio between opposed skill levels intact) it *works*, and there's no question about how to use it.

I'd just like an option or two (pulled from those that are supposed to be found in Legendary Heroes) presented in the forthcoming errata for folks who have as much trouble with the halving mechanic as I have had with the Parry/Dodge tables when played out as stated in the Player's Guide PDF.

 

[iamtim]

This seemed wacky

Oh, gotcha. I don't see that as wacky. Here's a snip from my reply on that thread:

The argument almost seems like a "duh" thing to me, no offense intended. "Dragons and other big, huge, scary, monstrous bad guys are almost invincible!" Well... duh.

 

[Halfbat]

I know this is a dead horse, but I still think ms was right in pulling it back to a single roll, however it was written and however it was intended to be played. The two sets of rolls _do_ take a smidgeon longer but, more importantly, they are confusing and annoying in play (what if a critical's rolled on the first then the second doesn't but the opponent does: the player _does_ feel cheated - which ain't good for any system). It's also much easier explaining a single-roll system.

Yes I tried the two-roll, which was frustrating, and I tried the one-roll, which left out the top line of the combat tables. And the latter works pretty good. ::shrugs::

 

[Lord Twig]

I can accept that the two-roll system fixes the combat charts.

I will second the problem with Resilience. If you have over 100% Resilience you can take tremendous amounts of damage to your head and keep on fighting. Catapult to the head? Dang! Well at least I can play out the rest of this battle, I still have 12 rounds of fighting to do! (12 Con and Pow)

Armor. So you have two master swordsmen with Greatswords (100% skill). One is in full plate and the other is buck nakid'. Who wins?

The nakid' guy of course! The full plate guy has -42% to attack and parry and now has a 58%. The nakid' guy can take -40% for 60% and totally ignore the plate armor and still parry at his full 100%.

If they don't want to fix the halving rule that is their decision. It would just be a bad one in my opinion.

 

[Quire]

I've looked at the SRD again just now, and it seems pretty clear cut to me:

Close Combat Attacks
1 – Making the Attack
An attack is made by simply rolling D100 and comparing it to the character’s skill in the weapon he is using.

If a character rolls equal to or lower than his Weapon skill, he has hit his target.

If a character rolls greater than his Weapon skill, he has missed his target.

2 – Target Reaction
If the enemy has any Reactions left, then this attack may be opposed.

Two rolls - in total - ie, one for each side.

The tables seem to work fine in this regard too (although I could be picky and ask where the Fumble rows and columns are).

I still haven't seen the RQ HB - so I'm guessing the combat example is the prime indicator of a second attack roll (and from the accounts, the demo games used 'em too). Because I can't see ANYTHING in the SRD to suggest a second attack roll.

???

- Q

 

[Quire]

I tried the one-roll, which left out the top line of the combat tables.

This is another area of confusion for me. How does a Single Attack Roll leave out the top line of the combat tables? A Single Attack Roll can still Fail.

I know Matt has contradicted this in the Players Guide. I'm not sure why. Is it because 'Overextended' status was not described in the book, or the SRD?

???

EDIT - Is this about the ORDER of the Dice Rolls? I've always thought an Attack is declared, a defence declared, then both rolls are made together. Maybe I'm strange???

- Q

 

[Vadrus]

I tried the one-roll, which left out the top line of the combat tables.

This is another area of confusion for me. How does a Single Attack Roll leave out the top line of the combat tables? A Single Attack Roll can still Fail.

I know Matt has contradicted this in the Players Guide. I'm not sure why. Is it because 'Overextended' status was not described in the book, or the SRD?

???

EDIT - Is this about the ORDER of the Dice Rolls? I've always thought an Attack is declared, a defence declared, then both rolls are made together. Maybe I'm strange???

- Q

Aye, a lot of the confusion seems to stem from the rules saying that a defence is only declared after a successful attack. This leads to the perception that combat is an attack roll, followed by a further opposed roll of attack v defense. Tbh I'm totally confused as to where this debate is up to, as probably are most others.


Vadrus

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Aye, a lot of the confusion seems to stem from the rules saying that a defence is only declared after a successful attack. This leads to the perception that combat is an attack roll, followed by a further opposed roll of attack v defense.
Vadrus

This is the only way that the Text in the table makes sense - except it omits fumbles

 

[simonh]

I don't know why rolling an extra die has such a stigma attached to it...It doesn't take that much longer, and it doesn't really make combat more difficult. This is, of course, only my opinion - but apparently, a lot of people were up in arms over it after reading the rulebook.

The main problem with it is that to score a successful hit, you have to roll a success on your skill twice in a row. Thus if you have a 50% attack score, you will score an actual successful hit on the combat chart only 25% of the time.

That's a huge unexpected shift in the combat odds, which I doubt was intended by the game designers.

IMHO the sensible fix is to have defence actions declared before the attack is rolled, and both rolls are made together as in previous editions of RQ. This eliminates the statistical discrepancy, and makes all results on the combat tables possible.

 

[Quire]

IMHO the sensible fix is to have defence actions declared before the attack is rolled, and both rolls are made together as in previous editions of RQ. This eliminates the statistical discrepancy, and makes all results on the combat tables possible.

And this, as well as being eminently sensible (and I confess the way I assumed it works), is implicit in the line:

2 – Target Reaction
If the enemy has any Reactions left, then this attack may be opposed.

as Opposed rolls occur simultaneously.

- Q

 

[burdock]

melkor wrote

Like you, the more times I read the combat section (and I've read it probably 15 times), the more and more I was convinced that the combat system was designed, playtested, and printed with two rolls in mind.

Yes.....I have had little doubt that the tables were designed for a two roll system. They make sense that way: fail/fail on the opposed resolution is still a success because of the original succesful attack roll. I was one of the people up in arms about the two roll system - but I do think it was designed that way.

 

[iamtim]

The main problem with it is that to score a successful hit, you have to roll a success on your skill twice in a row.

Wrong.

You declare your attack, roll, and it's a success.
Your opponent declares defense, you both roll, you both fail.
Looking at the combat chart a fail/fail reads "attack succeeds as normal", so your attack goes through.

That's why it all makes sense for two rolls -- were it designed for one roll, it makes NO sense that a failed attack could somehow become a successful attack because the defense was failed. Maybe once in a while, sure, but not every time both the attack and defense are failed.

Now let's look at crits. You declare your attack, roll, and it's a crit.
Your opponent declares defense, you both roll, you both fail.
Looking at the combat chart a fail/fail reads "attack succeeds as normal"; as the normal result for a crit is maximum damage, your crit goes through and does max damage.

Now let's look at fumbles. You declare your attack, roll, and it's a success.
Your opponent declares defense, you both roll, you both fail; he fumbles.
Looking at the combat chart a fail/fail reads "attack succeeds as normal"; your attack goes through, but because your opponent fumbled I'm going to say that... he slipped and fell while trying to dodge (as the GM I adjudicate fumbles according to my whim, as stated on page 19.)

Really, the *only* way the combat tables work as written is to use two combat rolls: an attack roll and then an opposed defense roll.