Jump to content
galafrone

100+ in a combat skill

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, galafrone said:

so technically, let's say i DONT want to use the plus to reduce the opponent % (for any reason) can i keep the 185 and calculate crit and special on it ?

 

RAW no - As long as the opponent wishes to oppose the attack you will have to follow the above 100% rule and reduce your chances to 100%, with the resulting crit/special chance. But crucially they also have their chance reduced by whatever % you had over 100%.
 

If they don’t know, don’t wish to, or are unable to oppose the attack then you can have the special/crit chance at 185%

Edited by Paid a bod yn dwp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, galafrone said:

so technically, let's say i DONT want to use the plus to reduce the opponent % (for any reason) can i keep the 185 and calculate crit and special on it ?

 

Just gave the relevant rules areas a read and, well let’s start with the bad news The rules as written say the skills are brought below 100%, period. After that it get a bit confusing

Quote

While the actual chance of hitting remains no better than 95% (due to rolls of 96–00 failing), the chance of a special or critical success continues to increase or decrease, based on the final modified chance of success. As with other skills or abilities, the final modified value is always the one used to determine the chance of special or critical successes, as well as fumbles. Thus, a Wind Lord with a 150% sword skill has a 30% of a special success, and an 8% chance of a critical hit

This is the third bulleted point on "Combat with Skills Above 100%" from RQ RiG page 202.  The wording says specials and crits go up and down based on mods, so we have to decide if decreasing both skills equally to drop then to 100% or below is just such a modification. 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%.).

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.

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! 

ETA Just saw that Paid a bod yn dwp rules the opposite way on the previous page, so what do you say sir, with the above ruling disagreeing with the example given and yourself as well, have you a thought on this. Well of to the well to see if the link has been fixed and to see what it says.

Cheers

Edited by Bill the barbarian
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 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%.).

That's not right.

Quote
  • While the actual chance of hitting remains no
    better than 95% (due to rolls of 96–00 failing),
    the chance of a special or critical success continues
    to increase or decrease, based on the final
    modified chance of success
    . As with other skills or
    abilities, the final modified value is always the one
    used to determine the chance of special or critical
    successes, as well as fumbles. Thus, a Wind Lord
    with a 150% sword skill has a 30% of a special
    success, and an 8% chance of a critical hit.

The "Thus..." is a bit misleading, IMO.

Personally I might houseruling that special and crit use the unmodified chance on a split attack.

Edited by PhilHibbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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?

Yes, sure.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

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 guess the penalty would only apply to the weapon when parrying, not the shield 

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Share this post


Link to post
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

Share this post


Link to post
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.

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...