Jump to content

100+ in a combat skill


galafrone

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

The example (not the entire rule) given clearly says no, we know that the 150 must become 100 and thus make the 30% default to the mandatory min of 5%. but note that the special and critical remain as if for 150% (30% and 8%.).

The example at the end of that last bullet point in the rulebook is a little confusing, as it doesn't make clear whether the 150% is being opposed or not. There's a tendency (for me at least) to read it as a continuation of the previous bulleted example. But in fairness it doesn't mention that its being opposed, so the example on face value stands correct -  The unmodified 150% skill (not opposed by a parry/dodge) will remain with a special of 30% and crit of 8%. As soon as its opposed by a parry or dodge it will become 100% with the crit/special chances being effected accordingly.

9 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Now I hope Paid a bod yn dwp does not mind the interruption but really, of all the people i have seen take this question he is the only one who can make it sensible to me. What say you sir? @Paid a bod yn dwp I would check out the Q and A section at the Well of Dahlia but the last time I was there (this morning) it gave the dreaded 404 error. Thanks for you time Paid a bod yn dwp! 

 

Jason Durall has covered this in the core rules questions. See here:

 

Jason has also expounded on this in another question about Berserk. Interestingly he says he would allow any  left over percentage points over 100% (after reducing opponent to min parry) to be used as a plus or minus to other related actions.

 

9 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

So rules as written not dropping your opponents parry would be holding back your blow. If I was a GM and you came to me and after all this explanation you told me you wanted to make it harder to hit (holding back ones full skill, or really allowing your opponent their full skill even though o do not have to) I would allow it... but again you are tying a hand behind your back in this fight. I can see no advantage to it unless out of homer you are giving your foe a chance.

 

Yes I would allow that as GM call, though if it was in the context of a a sword trance I would rule that you can't pull blows. Edit: however if the opponent wants to oppose the your attack, with parry/dodge you do RAW have to follow the over 100% combat rule. Your 185% humakti will still be very effective as the opponent will be reduced by 85%

Edited by Paid a bod yn dwp
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, my poor aching brain I wish I could say I understand but... even Paid a bod yn dwp has not helped on this one... Alas, the only thing I am understanding is you agree the example is unclear and that you would allow a player to hold back his attack except when tranced... Not your fault, but I can not get it. Thanks for trying...

Edited by Bill the barbarian

... remember, with a TARDIS, one is never late for breakfast!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bill the barbarian said:

Oh, my poor aching brain I wish I could say I understand but... even Paid a bod yn dwp has not helped on this one... Alas, the only thing I am understanding is you agree the example is unclear and that you hold allow a player to hold back... Not your fault, but I can not get it. Thanks for trying...

Basically the final modified attack/parry chance is what you base the crit/special % on. 
So if your over 185% skill is brought down to 100% because of the opposed combat rule, then the crits/specials will be based on the modified 100% chance - Not the starting 185%.


edit: never leave a man behind! 

Edited by Paid a bod yn dwp
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2020 at 12:39 AM, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

The only question remaining is which starting parry % value should you apply if attacks are split unequally? Do you go with the higher or lower % value? Unless I can think of a good reason not to,  I’d always go with the higher of the % chances. 

I’ve added this as a question In the core rules thread to see what Jason says.

Just thought of a good reason not to go with the higher value % for the parry in a split attack situation. Perhaps (as with mounted combat and the ride skill)  the lesser skill should be the limiting factor? It does make sense and feels in line with the logic of the RQG ruling for mounted combat where the Ride % skill takes precedence if its lower then the weapon skill used to make a mounted attack. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The main reason I don't agree with said ruling here is that it means that splitting attacks will always be a bad idea, unless you can't/don't have to parry (e.g. berserking, not being attacked, relying on dodge, so buffed you don't care).

Although splitting attack with the weapon and defending with a high shield skill should still produce a penalty when you're being attacked, correct? So it mainly hurts 2H weapon wielders.

Edited by Akhôrahil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

The main reason I don't agree with said ruling here is that it means that splitting attacks will always be a bad idea, unless you can't/don't have to parry (e.g. berserking, not being attacked, relying on dodge, so buffed you don't care).

Although splitting attack with the weapon and defending with a high shield skill should still produce a penalty when you're being attacked, correct? So it mainly hurts 2H weapon wielders

To be honest, with the current multiple parries rule coupled with the rule for skills above 100%, it's difficult for me to see a situation where splitting attacks is not a bad idea nonetheless.

See the example given at the beginning of the thread of a character with skill 185%, splitting his skill into 134 and 51%. It's possible that he hits twice, but the chance that both attacks either fail or are parried is higher than if he just rolled under 95% and applied the -85% to the defender. Even with the increased critical chances, I would personally not do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

See the example given at the beginning of the thread of a character with skill 185%, splitting his skill into 134 and 51%. It's possible that he hits twice, but the chance that both attacks either fail or are parried is higher than if he just rolled under 95% and applied the -85% to the defender. Even with the increased critical chances, I would personally not do it.

Yes - Perhaps more handy when you’ve got multiple opponents. Try and take 2 of 3 opponent down quickly then deal with the last opponent at full attack advantage 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Yes - Perhaps more handy when you’ve got multiple opponents. Try and take 2 of 3 opponent down quickly then deal with the last opponent at full attack advantage 

Even in this situation, splitting attacks sounds like a bargain to me, and I'd rather try to kill opponents with one almost guaranteed unparried attack per round rather than hope for two succesfull attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Even in this situation, splitting attacks sounds like a bargain to me, and I'd rather try to kill opponents with one almost guaranteed unparried attack per round rather than hope for two succesfull attacks.

True - but RuneQuest is deadly. Just one successful blow could take you out. It’s a gamble I guess.

Neutralise as many as possible as quickly as possible? Or take them out one by one, prolonging the risk of blow getting through to you?

Edited by Paid a bod yn dwp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

True - but RuneQuest is deadly. Just one successful blow could take you out. It’s a gamble I guess.

Neutralise as many as possible as quickly as possible? Or take them out one by one, prolonging the risk of blow getting through to you?

Sure, but if you miss your attacks (or those are parried), you won't kill your opponents quicker.

Edited by Mugen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:
1 hour ago, Mugen said:

 

Yep that’s the gamble. 

I could also imagine other time limited situations where splitting attacks could be the best option. For instance you have to try and take out more then one opponent in melee round to stop someone from escaping, triggering an alarm/calling for help, or just protecting allies 

Edited by Paid a bod yn dwp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all down to the math. Let's say that you have 100% attack vs opponent's 80% defense (and that you're using a shield so that you don't mess up your own defenses by splitting).

Splitting here makes sense, as two 50% attacks vs 80% and 60% parry respectively are more likely to bypass parrying than one 100% attack vs one 80% parry. 

Edited by Akhôrahil
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

Although splitting attack with the weapon and defending with a high shield skill should still produce a penalty when you're being attacked, correct? So it mainly hurts 2H weapon wielders.

21 hours ago, Kloster said:

Yes, sure.

There's nothing in the rules to suggest that splitting your attack should affect your shield parry or dodge skill. And it makes no sense - you're splitting your attack because you're good enough to do it. The penalty is the half chance to hit. There should be no further penalty, and there never has been in any previous iteration of the rules.

 

Edited by PhilHibbs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

There's nothing in the rules to suggest that splitting your attack should affect your shield parry or dodge skill. And it makes no sense - you're splitting your attack because you're good enough to do it. The penalty is the half chance to hit. There should be no further penalty, and there never has been in any previous iteration of the rules.

I absolutely agree, which is why I don't agree with the "clarification" that it does (for that weapon).

Edited by Akhôrahil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

I absolutely agree, which is why I don't agree with the "clarification" that it does (for that weapon).

For me it makes sense that it would affect your ability to parry with the same weapon. After all you’re trying to do an awful lot in one round. Sure we already have the culminate parry penalty, but the starting parry shouldn’t be so much higher then the attack chance IMO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Akhôrahil said:

It's all down to the math. Let's say that you have 100% attack vs opponent's 80% defense (and that you're using a shield so that you don't mess up your own defenses by splitting).

Splitting here makes sense, as two 50% attacks vs 80% and 60% parry respectively are more likely to bypass parrying than one 100% attack vs one 80% parry. 

Fair enough. Splitting may be an interesting option when you're at 100% and slightly above (and you consider a failed attack is the same as a parried one, but let's keep it simple).

But the higher your skill will be and the more attacking just once will be interesting when compared to splitting.

In a scenario where your opponent has 80% skill, 120% seems the turning point to me. If you don't split, you'll attack once at 95%, and there's 40% he won't block a successful attack. That gives you .38 successful attacks on average in a round. If you split, you'll certainly want to concentrate on your sscond attack, as it's the one with the less chance to be parried. That will give you 50% versus 80% on first attack, and 70% versus 60% on second attack, for a total of .5x.2 +.7x.4 =.38 attack per round on average.

But you'll also have to consider that you'll have 62% chance that all attacks are missing or parried in a round if you don't split, versus 65,2% if you do.

Of course, opponent's skill also has an impact, and the lower your opponent's skill, the higher the turning point will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

There's nothing in the rules to suggest that splitting your attack should affect your shield parry or dodge skill. And it makes no sense - you're splitting your attack because you're good enough to do it. The penalty is the half chance to hit. There should be no further penalty, and there never has been in any previous iteration of the rules.

This is exactly what Akhorahil said, or at least what I understood he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kloster said:

This is exactly what Akhorahil said, or at least what I understood he said.

It is - my line of reasoning was "but if we accept this, then this weird thing happens" (specifically that splitting attacks with a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon and no shield becomes suicidal).

Edited by Akhôrahil
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

For me it makes sense that it would affect your ability to parry with the same weapon. After all you’re trying to do an awful lot in one round.

Yes it makes sense, but the problem is about translating that into rules that do (1) hold up to moderately simple cases and (2) don't get too convoluted. Right now RAW either ignores the issue by letting you parry at super high (max) skill or, with Jason's "clarification", fails IMHO in at least (1), if not (2). That's why earlier I suggested possible house rules like "your parry is the highest (or lowest if you prefer nerfing it) of the effective (split) percentages", or "you can only split evenly, lose any remaining percentage points... parry equals effective (split) percentage". They provide the desired effect while keeping it simple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, lordabdul said:

That's why earlier I suggested possible house rules like "your parry is the highest (or lowest if you prefer nerfing it) of the effective (split) percentages"

 

Pretty sure this is what Jason has said the rules are supposed to be. It solves the issue of having a ludicrously high parry relative to your split attack. Whether you use the higher or lower value of the split attacks as the parry starting point ( still waiting for Jason to confirm his thinking here in the Q&A) , it remains a simply penalty that changes relative to the split attack %.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Paid a bod yn dwp said:

Pretty sure this is what Jason has said the rules are supposed to be.

I understood Jason's comment more as "each parry gets the penalty of its respective attack", which is where it break apart quickly -- I wasn't the only one who understood it that way AFAICT. But if that's what Jason meant, then yeah I think it's a decent rule. Let's wait for the official word on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...