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

[Utgardloki]

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

Okay, I take this as a challenge to develop a "Three Roll System".....

:twisted:

 

[RMS]

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.

What's your fixed table? Is it around here somewhere and I've missed it?

For a one roll system, I would make the defender declare the reaction before the roll, then basically adopt the old BRP/RQ results. Something like this:

Attack fails, defender fails, no result
Attack fails, defender succeeds, defender rolls to damage attackers weapon
Attack fails, defender criticals, defender gets chance at riposte
Attack succeeds, defender fails, normal damage
Attack succeeds, defender succeeds, parry at AP
Attack succeeds, defender criticals, parry at 2xAP
Attack crits, defender fails, critical hit
Attack crits, defender succeeds, parry at 1/2xAP
Attack crits, defender crits, parry at AP

I'm tempted to put fumbles back in there too, but won't at this point since they aren't in MRQ.

 

[Melkor]

Gnarsh - I see your point.

I think the charts were purposefully created the way they appear in the rulebook to favor the defender. If the defender succeeds on his parry or dodge roll, it 'trumps' the successful attack or critical. I think the thought process was that sense it applies to all combatants, it 'evens' out.

Why was it done this way ? Who knows - maybe because the combat system in MRQ can be really deadly.

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 completely agree. Unfortunately, MRQ has lots of warts and needs a good deal of thought and playtesting put into an errata document and possible revision.

I think that they originally intended for declaration of reaction at the same time as declaration of an attack.

I don't believe that this was the case after reading the trigger descriptions for reactions, and the combat examples, but that's just personal opinion.

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).

I hope that's not the case....the 'easy way out' instead of fessing up that the system wasn't playtested enough, or that the rules that were printed in the rulebook were incorrect. I guess we will have to wait for the errata for all of our questions to be answered.

In the meantime, I think I am satisfied with the two-roll system...even if it favors the defender in some instances.

 

[Nagisawa]

Being the idiot that I am, let me make sure I understand it right.

Roll to hit, success, defender reacts, rolls successes/failures are checked on the chart.

Roll to hit, miss and no reactio is caused, that combat sequence ends there. Switch to other combatant.

Am I right?

 

[Melkor]

Yep, sounds like you've got the gyst of it. This based on how I (and iamtim, and several other folks) read the rules in the rulebook and combat examples - and assuming you ignore the Player's Guide PDF.

1) Roll to hit.

2) A miss ends the attacker's action right there.

3) If the attack is successful, that fulfills the trigger requirment for a reaction (dodge/parry) by the defender IF the defender has any reactions left.

4) Attacker rolls to 'confirm hit' against defenders dodge/parry reaction and results are compared on the dodge/parry charts.

Of course, the Player's Guide PDF would have you roll only once. A successful attack would allow a trigger reaction (dodge/parry). The defender would then roll for the dodge/parry, and compare it to the original attacker's roll (as an opposed test) on the dodge/parry tables.

This eleminates the chance of an Overextended or straight Riposte result on the parry/dodge tables as a 'failed' attack by the attacker is no longer possible (since the trigger requirement for a dodge/parry is a 'Successful' attack).

 

[Gnarsh]

Gnarsh - I see your point.

I think the charts were purposefully created the way they appear in the rulebook to favor the defender. If the defender succeeds on his parry or dodge roll, it 'trumps' the successful attack or critical. I think the thought process was that sense it applies to all combatants, it 'evens' out.

Why was it done this way ? Who knows - maybe because the combat system in MRQ can be really deadly.

It's hard to guess exactly which order which ideas came out and were written into the rules. However, I think that most of the people examining this aren't taking into account that one game effect affects another. There are pairs of mechanics that are linked by balance. If you change one, you really have to change the other to match.

A two roll system does favor the defender. But doing that *and* allowing a reaction to be declared after the attack increases that favoring IMO. But if you declare prior to the attack, then you don't need two rolls, right? And if you do that, you have to change a bunch of other stuff as well. The whole system is in balance. Somehow we ended up with parts of different ideas kinda mixed in together.


I really do think that they just went with the easiest fix. It's abundantly apparent that they intended for overextended and ripostes to be part of the combat system. Thus, we must assume they intended us to use that top combat line. Thus, they must have assumed that characters would parrry or dodge misses. Thus, they must have originally assumed that reactions would be used prior to knowing if the attack succeeded or failed. Clearly, at some point, they changed the reaction mechanic but did not change the tables to match them. Or, more likely, they changed one part of it (the fail/fail=hit) in some test of a two roll system, but then scrapped it for some reason and left the charts in a mixed up position.

Dunno. It's hard to say how exactly they got there, but I'm pretty sure that the least likely was that there was an official decision to scrap the top combat result line in the charts. There's too many references to those results for that to be the case. It's more likely that they realized the problem after release, also realized that there was no way to solidify the rules into any of the tested cases without massively changing the rules, and just settled on the simpliest solution (ignore the top line since it can't happen).

These kinds of errors do creep in during editing and production.

 

[bluejay]

I definitely agree with Melkor that the system was designed for two-roll play and I don't think that's a bad thing.

The halving mechanic is really wonky but I don't see any problems with two-roll combat.

If people wish to check out comparative stats then I still have my old combat calculator http://www.genomia.co.uk/mrqstats_old.html which still works with two rolls.

 

[Nagisawa]

*Snipped for space, but informative nonetheless*

Thank you kindly!

 

[Melkor]

I definitely agree with Melkor that the system was designed for two-roll play and I don't think that's a bad thing.

The halving mechanic is really wonky but I don't see any problems with two-roll combat.

If people wish to check out comparative stats then I still have my old combat calculator http://www.genomia.co.uk/mrqstats_old.html which still works with two rolls.

Hey bluejay - being the math wizard that you are, is there any chance you could figure out the percent chances of scoring a critical given the two-roll system (rolling a critical on only the first roll, rolling a critical on only the second roll, or rolling one of both) ?

Not that it matters all that much, I'm just curious about the math, and have never been good with the numbers. :wink:

 

[Melkor]

Thank you kindly!

No problem!

 

[Elandyll]

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.

That flaw is actually not one. The first attack roll simply determines if the attack is successful or not, not if there is a crit/fumble etc.
That would the the second roll. This makes much more sense with the Fail/Fail result.
If you port the crit ... then why is a second roll necessary in the first place ?

 

[Arkat]

Yup I don't see the need in a 2nd attack roll either. It doesn't add anything to the game and is not in keeping with the original rules. I like the combat actions, reactions and new strike rank system though.

It's just a matter of do we want pc's to have to designate thier reaction prior to the attack roll or not. Older RQ rules you had to designate what weapon of your foe you had to parry (such as the broo's headbutt and not his spear).

One way it could work: "The Rhino Broo charges down the street at you, raising the tree stump in 2 hands to smash you into the cobble" Any Reaction? *gulp, yes I dodge!" Ok roll away, the broo gets a 47, a hit, and your dodge is successful.. *consult table* that's minimum damage to you as his blow drives you further up the street (giving ground).

 

[Ralph]

Gnarsh - I see your point.

I think the charts were purposefully created the way they appear in the rulebook to favor the defender. If the defender succeeds on his parry or dodge roll, it 'trumps' the successful attack or critical. I think the thought process was that sense it applies to all combatants, it 'evens' out.

Why was it done this way ? Who knows - maybe because the combat system in MRQ can be really deadly.

It does seem easier for the defender to avoid a critical, but lets not forget, you critical 10% of the time now instead of 5%. It kind of balances.
The second roll is really a defence roll, so any success should have some kind of effect after all.

I think I'm going to go with the 2 roll system to see how it plays before toying with house rules. I'm convinced that's how the rules were written, even if the last playtest copy I saw (1.4) didn't have tables or 2 roll systems.

Ralph

 

[bluejay]

I definitely agree with Melkor that the system was designed for two-roll play and I don't think that's a bad thing.

The halving mechanic is really wonky but I don't see any problems with two-roll combat.

If people wish to check out comparative stats then I still have my old combat calculator http://www.genomia.co.uk/mrqstats_old.html which still works with two rolls.

Hey bluejay - being the math wizard that you are, is there any chance you could figure out the percent chances of scoring a critical given the two-roll system (rolling a critical on only the first roll, rolling a critical on only the second roll, or rolling one of both) ?

Not that it matters all that much, I'm just curious about the math, and have never been good with the numbers. :wink:

My old RuneQuest stats calculator does calculate crits in this manner and it collates all of the info at the top in the summaries.

 

[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.

That flaw is actually not one. The first attack roll simply determines if the attack is successful or not, not if there is a crit/fumble etc.
That would the the second roll. This makes much more sense with the Fail/Fail result.

Sure. But the two roll system I was responding to specifically determined "hit, miss, crit" on the first roll, then used the "attack succeeds as normal" to carry the hit or crit through. That system does allow for the top row to be used, but also reduces the effectiveness of a crit on the first roll since the table eliminates that crit for many results on the dodge chart.

If you port the crit ... then why is a second roll necessary in the first place ?

I think you're confusing what's meant by porting the crit. We're not saying to carry the result of the first roll into the second (because then it would be just one roll for the attacker and the top row of the chart would never be used). He was specifically saying that the "attack succeeds as normal" means it succeeds at the same level as the original roll. So if you critted on your initial roll, that result carries that crit through. You don't just use the crit row for the attack.

Make more sense?

 

[Elandyll]

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.

That flaw is actually not one. The first attack roll simply determines if the attack is successful or not, not if there is a crit/fumble etc.
That would the the second roll. This makes much more sense with the Fail/Fail result.

Sure. But the two roll system I was responding to specifically determined "hit, miss, crit" on the first roll, then used the "attack succeeds as normal" to carry the hit or crit through. That system does allow for the top row to be used, but also reduces the effectiveness of a crit on the first roll since the table eliminates that crit for many results on the dodge chart.

If you port the crit ... then why is a second roll necessary in the first place ?

I think you're confusing what's meant by porting the crit. We're not saying to carry the result of the first roll into the second (because then it would be just one roll for the attacker and the top row of the chart would never be used). He was specifically saying that the "attack succeeds as normal" means it succeeds at the same level as the original roll. So if you critted on your initial roll, that result carries that crit through. You don't just use the crit row for the attack.

Make more sense?

Oh I do understand what you mean, but in your interpretation ... What's the Crit of a Crit ?
2nd Roll:
Failed Result vs Failed Dodge : If the 1st roll was a crit, it carries through ("as normal")
Critical Result vs Failed Dodge: Attack succeeds and becomes critical hit

 

[iamtim]

Critical Result vs Failed Dodge: Attack succeeds and becomes critical hit

*shrug*

Easy way of insuring that an either/or situation works; if a crit on the first or second roll is obtained, it's a crit.

One could also look at it through some d20 colored glasses by saying a crit on the 1st roll only threatens a crit; if the dodge is failed it actually becomes a crit.

Again, *shrug*

 

[Gnarsh]

Or it "becomes a crit if it was not already one".

A simple way of looking at the chart (for dodge in this case) is to just line up the results in order:

0. Attack misses, attacker overextended
1. Attack misses.
2. Attack hits for minimum damage, defender gives ground.
3. Attack succeeds as normal.
4. Attack succeeds and is a critical hit.

The idea is that initially, the attacker either hits, misses, or crits. The second roll then compares the defenders dodge skill to the attackers attack skill with a semi-opposed roll. The results end up being one of these 5 things. If you look at it, the chart kinda spreads the 5 results out. The first collumn (defender misses his dodge), contains two 3s and a 4. The second collumn (defender makes his dodge), contains 1, 2, 3. The third collumn (defender criticals his dodge), contains 0, 1, 2.


Another way to resolve this is to simply use the levels. Assign a value in the list to the result based on the attackers roll. Critical=4. Hit=3. Miss=1. Note that the number 2 only occurs as a result of the defenders dodge affecting the attack and can't be a starting point.

On the second roll, if the attacker gets a regular success his result is unchanged. If he crits, he adds one. If he misses, he subtracts one. For the defender, if he misses, he does not change the result. If he suceeds, he subtracts one. If he criticals he subtracts *two*.

Dunno. Just another way of looking at the issue. The idea being that a "normal" hit can be elevated to a crit if the defender fails his dodge skill on the second roll, and the attacker criticals his skill on that same roll. I actually kinda like the line method better since if you do choose to use a two roll system, it more correctly retains the value of an initial crit, where the chart removes it.

 

[Quire]

Why would you use a two attack roll system? What does it simulate, and what are the benefits of it?

- Q

 

[Ralph]

Why would you use a two attack roll system? What does it simulate, and what are the benefits of it?

- Q

IMO:
The second roll is the defence roll, not a second attack roll. It is opposed to allow parries to block varying amounts of damage rather than the 'all or nothing' approach of past editions.

It was this 'hit/parry' routine that put off a lot of my players. Characters with a low attack % are usually irked when they get lucky on their attack roll only to have it made completely ineffective by a lucky parry.

Ralph