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

[Melkor]

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.

Exactly. And this is reinforced not only by the combat example in the book, but by the text for reactions which state that the trigger for a reaction is a "Successful" attack.

 

[Quire]

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.

Ooh. You're not wrong.

Ooh.

- Q

 

[simonh]

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.

Interesting. I've done some calculations of typical situations (50% attack Vs 50% defence; 80% vs 80%) and the odds using the two roll method seem comparable to the one roll method in RQ2 and RQ3.

In fact the one roll method from the player's guide makes things slightly worse for defenders than in previous RQs because it looks like in MRQ it's a bit easier to damage an opponent who successfuly dodges or parries. In previous RQs, a successful dodger would not have any risk of being damaged, for example, but in MRQ the minimum damage rule means it's a distinct possibility. Likewise MRQ weapons have much lower armour points than in RQ3, so a successful parry is generaly less effective than it was.

The overall effects are much smaller than I thought. Thanks for the clarification.

On an unrelated point, I'm not sure how come Shortswords get to be set against a charge. Presumably that's supposed to be a superscripted '2'.

 

[iamtim]

The overall effects are much smaller than I thought. Thanks for the clarification.

No problem; I'm a recent convert to the church of "two combat rolls" myself.

On an unrelated point, I'm not sure how come Shortswords get to be set against a charge. Presumably that's supposed to be a superscripted '2'.

Well, MRQ is certainly errorlicious and in need of a true errata -- not a clarification document, but a list of typos and such.

 

[Quire]

I have to agree with Tim about the system looking like it was designed for two attack rolls - the top left table result is the absolute give away.

Now, that being a given - and the one attack roll system presented in the Players Guide aside - what on earth is a two attack roll system meant to simulate?

I realise that the abstraction of combat to Attacker tries to hit; Defender tries to avoid getting hit is a very poor representation of all the kinds of moves, feints, etc that 'real' hand-to-hand is composed of...but surely a roll to determine degree of success for each side makes more sense than two rolls for an attack?

Can someone suggest what the rationale for such a system could be?

- Q

 

[Arkat]

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.

You don't need a line for when the attack fails at the start. If that happens then your opponent doesn't have to spend a reaction to fully commit a parry (or dodge) to your inaccurate attack. The table assumes that your not going to waste reactions on the off-chance you can force your foe to over-extend.

Not quite like RQ2-3, where you still needed to roll the parry in case you fumbled.

 

[Quire]

You don't need a line for when the attack fails at the start.

Using the one attack roll method Matt outlines in the Players Guide, you're absolutely right.

But when I was assuming that Attack and Defence rolls are made simultaneously, the Attack Fails row was still relevant.

Not quite like RQ2-3, where you still needed to roll the parry in case you fumbled.

- Q

 

[burdock]

ok guys so we have established that MRQ combat works almost perfectly using the Two Roll System.....and, it seems........was originally designed that way......

BUT..............

now our job is to make it work using the One Roll System... :twisted:

 

[burdock]

how does the Two Roll System feel in actual play melkor? Maybe we should all just convert to it.

 

[iamtim]

now our job is to make it work using the One Roll System... :twisted:

Well, there's the Player's Guide (single roll w/successful attack triggering the defense), but that offputs some people because of the unused combat table results.

There's the old-school RQ approach (one roll with defense declared at time of attack, instead of triggered by an attack), but that returns an illogically high number of fail/fails becoming successful attacks.

The only way to make one roll work to everyone's acceptance, methinks, is to completely re-write the combat charts OR do away with them completely and take a more old-school RQ approach.

*shrug*

I'm going to try the two-roll approach at my next game; if that works OK, I really don't see a reason to try and make a single-roll approach work.

 

[burdock]

tim wrote

if that works OK, I really don't see a reason to try and make a single-roll approach work.

being a runequest2er I have been a proponent of the ORS (One Role System) as it has always seemed more smooth and less cluttered to me....but this could just be a habit......I would like to try the TRS (Two Roll System)....it might work out really brilliantly in play and if it does......what the heck!!

 

[valind]

now our job is to make it work using the One Roll System... :twisted:

Well, there's the Player's Guide (single roll w/successful attack triggering the defense), but that offputs some people because of the unused combat table results.

There's the old-school RQ approach (one roll with defense declared at time of attack, instead of triggered by an attack), but that returns an illogically high number of fail/fails becoming successful attacks.

The only way to make one roll work to everyone's acceptance, methinks, is to completely re-write the combat charts OR do away with them completely and take a more old-school RQ approach.

*shrug*

I'm going to try the two-roll approach at my next game; if that works OK, I really don't see a reason to try and make a single-roll approach work.

If the table result attacker fails / defender succeeds was changed back to was in previous editions it would work fine.

 

[Melkor]

I'm going to try the two-roll approach at my next game; if that works OK, I really don't see a reason to try and make a single-roll approach work.

Tim, you and I are on the same page. Strange after our introduction, but I'm glad we worked through that.

I played through five test combats after deciding that the two roll system was the way MRQ was meant to be played, and it worked great. No problems at all. It didn't take a lot of time, and produced the full range of results on the Parry/Dodge tables (except for a Crit result being rolled during an attack, that didn't happen).

We applied the same modifiers to the attack roll and the second roll which opposed the parry.

After questioning how Crits would work if one was rolled on the first roll (but not the second), the second roll (but not the first), or both rolls - and discussing it in this thread (and a previous thread) with iamtim....I am completely satisfied with how the system works with two rolls.

I have yet to play a long-term set of adventures or a campaign. Now that I am satisfied with the two-roll system, I'll probably be starting a game this weekend.

From all I can gather, the system seems to have been playtested and demo'd using the two roll system. The rulebook and SRD seem to have been written based on a two roll system (the rulebook containing a combat example that confirms this), and only later posts by Matt, and the Player's guide PDF seemed to try and modify the original rules into a one roll system.

Since (in my opinion), I feel that the system was designed and tested using two rolls, and two rolls allow the full use of the Parry/Dodge tables as written in the rulebook, I really don't see the need to try and shoe-horn the game into a one-roll system.

I use the term 'shoe-horn' because thats what following the Player's Guide PDF and using a one roll feels like to me - your mileage may vary.

 

[iamtim]

Tim, you and I are on the same page. Strange after our introduction, but I'm glad we worked through that.

It was actually all our, uhm, discussions that made me re-consider what I read in the SRD.

I think that the *rulebook* is worded poorly -- if you read it ignoring the examples with a single combat roll in mind, you'll read that it uses a single combat roll. If, however, you read the examples and expect two rolls in combat, you'll come away with it using two combat rolls.

The SRD, however, being nothing but the core, basic rules, is not so unclear.

And now I'm like, "Hmm. I can keep using one roll, it works well enough for me, but if I can add one d% roll and access the full combat tables as written... why not?"

 

[Mac V]

So the "two-roll" system would be:

Roll to attack, if sucessful AND defender has reactions, each roll and consult the chart correct?

Sorry if I seem daft. It's just that I'm a bit overwhelmed with the flood of "fixes" for the game so far.

 

[Melkor]

So the "two-roll" system would be:

Roll to attack, if sucessful AND defender has reactions, each roll and consult the chart correct?

Yep. The attacker rolls to hit. If successful, that qualifies as the trigger for a reaction if the defender has any left. The defender rolls his reaction, and the attacker rolls again creating an opposed test. The results of this second roll are compared on the Parry or Dodge tables for the results.

The thing that makes it work is the fact that a failed parry, and a failed second roll on the attack STILL causes a successful hit (which is only right after the first roll needed to be a successful hit to even trigger the reaction).

Sorry if I seem daft. It's just that I'm a bit overwhelmed with the flood of "fixes" for the game so far.

Not daft at all - In fact, I think it's only natural to be a bit confused with the examples and text in the rulebook seeming to illustrate combat works one way, and the Player's Guide pointing to something else which renders some of the options in the rulebook impossible to achieve.

 

[Quire]

The only way to make one roll work to everyone's acceptance, methinks, is to completely re-write the combat charts OR do away with them completely and take a more old-school RQ approach.

My group gave the system a run-thru tonight. They kicked some broo ass!

We started off with two attacks rolls, but soon decided it felt wrong. Just couldn't get our heads round what two attack rolls actually represented! 'Right. So they hit me. Now I'm gonna parry...err...'

So, we settled for simultaneous rolls for attacker and defender. It made more sense: 'Whoa! They're raising their weapon at me! I'm not waiting to see if they hit me or not, I'm gonna parry!' We still used the tables - but we changed the top left results on both Dodge and Parry (ie both sides fail) to 'Nothing happens'.

Only one result on each table needed to be re-written, and they worked just great.

Our thoughts on Resilience and Armour Penalties I'll post on other threads!

- Q

 

[Elandyll]

The only way to make one roll work to everyone's acceptance, methinks, is to completely re-write the combat charts OR do away with them completely and take a more old-school RQ approach.

My group gave the system a run-thru tonight. They kicked some broo ass!

We started off with two attacks rolls, but soon decided it felt wrong. Just couldn't get our heads round what two attack rolls actually represented! 'Right. So they hit me. Now I'm gonna parry...err...'

So, we settled for simultaneous rolls for attacker and defender. It made more sense: 'Whoa! They're raising their weapon at me! I'm not waiting to see if they hit me or not, I'm gonna parry!' We still used the tables - but we changed the top left results on both Dodge and Parry (ie both sides fail) to 'Nothing happens'.

Only one result on each table needed to be re-written, and they worked just great.

Our thoughts on Resilience and Armour Penalties I'll post on other threads!

- Q

It seems two schools of MRQ combat are going to develop (at least until/if Mongoose publishes an "official errata".

On one hand, what appears to be the "original" combat which can be described as

1) Declaration of attack and roll
This roll is -only- to determine if the intention of attack is successful. No critical/fumble/etc. at this stage.

- the parry/dodge can only be triggered on a succesful attack.
In that case:

2) Quality of attack (important wording) vs Defense (Parry/Dodge)
A second simultaneous roll is made for both attack (to determine its quality) and defense (eitehr parry or dodge).
In this case, if the quality of attack "fails", it only means that the attack has not been upgraded to even a "normal" attack and is rather poor. Hence the result if the parry is successful.
It also means that he weapon still hits if the defense fails.

Pros: Follows the book closely. Table works if you consider first roll as a simple "success/fail" and the second as a "quality" roll.
Cons: More rolls. Loses some "real" feel, as you have to wait for a succcessful attack to declare that you defend.

SECOND SCHOOL (the one that would normally have my preference, but Tim appears to be right, the system seems written for a 2 roll school)

One roll for attack. One roll for defense.

The defense -has- to be declared first. I like that, because it opens the way to feints. But I digress.
You have to ignore the basic rule "A Defense roll can only be triggered on a succesful attack roll".

1) Intention of attack
2) Intention of defense made.
3) Attack roll -and- defense roll
4) the chart has to be changed in several ways.

The Fail - Fail should result in a no dmg done either way, most importantly.
Other than that, It can definitely work.
Pros: simpler. more "realistic"
Cons: have to ignore two main rules (the description and the trigger), and rewrite the table.

 

[Arkat]

I'll be trying the one roll method this weekend with my group. Roll to hit, if you hit then the target can spend a reaction to parry or dodge and consult the table (fixed) from there. No 2nd attack rolls needed. Nice and simple and the bad guys get the same option of what and when to parry/dodge.

 

[Gnarsh]

Well. There is a flaw with using the two roll system as well. I think this flaw is being overlooked because everyone is trying to correct for the more obvious "both fail makes an attack succeed" problem.

Ok. Let's ignore both failing for a moment, and test other results. What if you attack and score a critical. So an "attack succeeds as normal" result carries the critical through. However, that only happens in 3 of the 9 possible results on the table. The other 6 results don't necessarily carry that critical through (or provide much if any benefit for it).

If the defender fails his dodge (for example), the three possible second roll results are "attack succeeds as normal"X2 (a carry through crit), and "attack succeeds and becomes a critical (it already was in this case, so no real benefit). Ok. We're fine if the defender fails since in all three cases we got a crit through. Of course our roll didn't matter, but who cares?

If the defender suceeds with his dodge, the three possible second roll results are "attack fails" (your crit missed), "attack succeeds but does minimum damage" (your crit was canceled by a successful dodge), and "attack succeeds as normal (crit carries through). That's not so great. Basically, if the opponent succeeds with a dodge, you must critcal a second time to get your critical to carry through (dual success is identical to you having gotten a normal success on the first roll). This is not so great.

If the defender criticals his dodge, the three possible second roll results are "attack fails, overextended", "attack fails", and "attack succeeds, minimum damage". Again, the fact that you criticalled on your first roll is completely erased in this collumn. It does not carry through at all.

The first and third collumns aren't too bad. However, those are going to tend to be on the ends of the probability spectrum. If we assume reasonably skilled opponents most of the time, we can also assume that successful dodges will occur more often then criticals and failures. And it's that middle collumn that's kinda messed up. You basically have to critical *twice* with your attack to get a critical against a standard sucessful dodge. In fact, the most likely result of the second roll is going to be the center result (both suceed, attack hits for minimum damage). Most of the time, your crit will be totally erased by the combat table if you use a two roll system.

The parry chart works better thankfully. It's still a bit ugly, but I suppose is workable.

I think the confusion is the result of several different ideas being considered at once, with the final one decided upon and tossed in at the last moment, and not enough editing to make sure that all the rules reflected that change. I think that they originally intended for declaration of reaction at the same time as declaration of an attack. The combat tables were used but were different (with the "fail/fail resulting in a miss, not a hit). I think they then decided that with the increased number of attacks that would be flying around in their system, they needed to allow defenders to declare defense after being hit. This required a number of changes as well (damage and AP values reduced for parries and dodge results being minimum instead of none). I think someone floated around the idea of a two roll system about this time, but it was rejected. Unfortunately, the combat result table change that's caused all of this was left in place.


The issue is not easily resolved no matter how you approach it. If you just adopt a two roll system, you actually do have to make some change to account for crits passing through (or at least influencing the result) in some manner (perhaps bumping the 2nd roll result one level?).

If you adopt a one roll system, you either have to ignore the extended/riposte results (which seems kinda "strange"), or you have to commence into some major reworking of the combat system. In order to retain a one roll system and keep the extended/riposte results, you must require parries and dodges to be declared prior to seeing the result of the attack roll. But if you do that, you also have to re-address the balance between damage and defense. MRQ right now is balanced to assume that you're 100% effective at utilizing your reactions. If you require reactions to be spent against missed attacks, you totally throw this balance off. You suddenly need to change damage values for weapons and armor values for armor (and parrying items and dodge results). Because we can pretty much always react to a successful attack, the effectiveness of the reactions are muted. A dodge does not stop all damage. Parries will not always block all damage. Changing that reaction dynamic requires a host of other changes to bring things back into balance.


I'm not surprised at all then that they decided to just ignore the top line of the tables. It's the simpliest way out of the problem. Every other solution requires re-writing a good chunk of the combat system (and perhaps other components as well).