Quire said:
iamtim said:
Yeah, I'm with Melkor. I don't think ANYONE is arguing that; in truth, two combat rolls seems rather quite illogical. BUT... the game as written seems to want to be played that way and it shouldn't be a big deal to those who mind the extra die roll.
I concurr!
I'm just interested in the purpose of such a system.
Perhaps I have too much time on my hands...
- Q
My take on it is that -if the 2 roll system is indeed what was intended- its purpose was to separate the attack process into two classic events
1) Attack roll (remember that only a successful attack can trigger a defense, as per the rules
This determines either success -or- failure of attack. no crit/fumble at this point
2) Quality (how good it is) of attack vs Defense.
This is in fact not as "weird" as you might think.
Quality of hit tables are old as RPGs, but used to be called "Crit Tables" or "Fumble Tables".
THis table is just a bit too small compared to what we are used to.
At the very least, it needs an additional Fumble row (which has been added already by one of our resident posters I believe).
With this explanation, all makes sense:
- the trigger effect
- the Fail/Fail result
- And specially the line "Attack succeeds and become Critical Hit".
What I would love to see is a table with the following lines
Fumble / Special Failure(opt.) / Failure / Success / Special Success / Crit
This would be a lot more RQ'esque
.
Of course, my preference would go toward a 1 roll, in which case we have to have declaration of defense first (player having specifically to declare what he is defending against), and change the first result (Fail/Fail) to nothing happens.
With a more complete table (the "special" result begin borrowed from older RQ's), and this one roll system, we'd have the best of both worlds imho.