Jump to content

Resistance table query (p.146)


Recommended Posts

Hi,

I looked on Well of Daliath but didn't see this covered so having a feeling this might be me not getting it. But here goes...

p.146 example of resistance table use.

The first para describes Sorala (active, CON11) trying to overcome a gas (passive, POT 8). That gives Sorala a 50% + ( 11 - 8 )  x 5% = 65% chance of overcoming the gas. However, the second paragraph then switches to implying the gas is being considered the active entity and notes that the gas has a 35% chance of success (I understand that one or the other will succeed so a 65% chance of success for Sorala means a 35% chance of success for the gas).

Sorala rolls a 74 which is a fail whether Sorala or the gas is considered "active". However, surely Sorala should be overcome by the gas if she is active (per first paragraph) because she has failed her 65% chance to overcome it. Or, she should not be overcome if the gas is active (as implied in the second paragraph) having failed its 35% chance of success.

The outcome describes Sorala not being overcome which implies that the gas was the "active" party in this situation, contradicting the set up in paragraph one.

Grateful if someone could dispel the Befuddle for me!

Thanks,

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's just assume that Sorala is the active one resisting the poison gas as it's always easiest to have the character active and the one that rolls the dice.  As you note, she has a 65% chance of success to resist.  She rolls a 74.  She fails, so she is overcome by the full potency of the gas.  And that's the Resistance table in a nutshell.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jajagappa said:

Let's just assume that Sorala is the active one resisting the poison gas as it's always easiest to have the character active and the one that rolls the dice.  As you note, she has a 65% chance of success to resist.  She rolls a 74.  She fails, so she is overcome by the full potency of the gas.  And that's the Resistance table in a nutshell.

I agree entirely and thank you. Glad to find I haven't been playing RQ wrongly for 40 years!

Since the example concludes that Sorala is not overcome by the full potency of the gas, this leads me to suggest it isn't as clearly laid out as it could be given its purpose is to explain the mechanic. Eurmal will always find a way...

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, RandomNumber said:

p.146 example of resistance table use.

The first para describes Sorala (active, CON11) trying to overcome a gas (passive, POT 8). That gives Sorala a 50% + ( 11 - 8 )  x 5% = 65% chance of overcoming the gas. However, the second paragraph then switches to implying the gas is being considered the active entity and notes that the gas has a 35% chance of success (I understand that one or the other will succeed so a 65% chance of success for Sorala means a 35% chance of success for the gas).

It all depends on who rolls.

Some people get Players to roll for things attacking them, to see of they can defend successfully. Here, Sorala would roll, being the Player/PC, with a 65% chance of resisting the gas.

I prefer the attacking force gets to roll, whether that is the Player or the GM. Here, the GM rolls, as the gas, with a 35% chance of overcoming Sorana's CON.

6 hours ago, RandomNumber said:

Sorala rolls a 74 which is a fail whether Sorala or the gas is considered "active". However, surely Sorala should be overcome by the gas if she is active (per first paragraph) because she has failed her 65% chance to overcome it. Or, she should not be overcome if the gas is active (as implied in the second paragraph) having failed its 35% chance of success.

In that case, Sorala has tried to resist the gas and has failed, so is affected by the gas.

In the second case, if the gas attacked, it would have failed and would only do half damage to Sorala.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, soltakss said:

It all depends on who rolls.

Some people get Players to roll for things attacking them, to see of they can defend successfully. Here, Sorala would roll, being the Player/PC, with a 65% chance of resisting the gas.

I prefer the attacking force gets to roll, whether that is the Player or the GM. Here, the GM rolls, as the gas, with a 35% chance of overcoming Sorana's CON.

In that case, Sorala has tried to resist the gas and has failed, so is affected by the gas.

In the second case, if the gas attacked, it would have failed and would only do half damage to Sorala.

 

Thank you. I agree completely.  Like you I have always played with the attacking force getting the roll (being the "active" entity).  The point I am trying (and rather failing) to convey is that the example, as written, is more likely to confound than clarify for someone new to the game. Para 1 sets up Sorala as the active player. Para 2 has Sorala's roll fail yet have her obtain a "successful" outcome because the example has switched to having the gas as the active entity. Having confirmed that I haven't lost my mind it occurs that a simple edit would remove unnecessary ambiguity from the example for the benefit of future readers. I may now be raising this in the wrong place though.

Many thanks for taking the time to reply.

Edited by RandomNumber
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2021 at 2:22 AM, RandomNumber said:

However, the second paragraph then switches to implying the gas is being considered the active entity and notes that the gas has a 35% chance of success...

You're right, this is confusing. It only implies that the poison is active, though. If you ignore that sentence, everything is correct.

Personally I would have rolled the POT vs the CON, that's how I always did it in previous games, but I guess it makes little difference. The only difference is if you consider the possibility of a special success and what that means. Only the active can special, but both can effectively critical.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2021 at 6:22 PM, RandomNumber said:

The outcome describes Sorala not being overcome which implies that the gas was the "active" party in this situation, contradicting the set up in paragraph one.

The wording is indeed backwards and a bit misleading, but yeah, it's just Sorala's CON as the active stat against the poison's POT as the passive stat. Sorala having a 65% chance of success is equivalent to the poison having a 35% chance of success, but it's indeed confusing that the text switches things around needlessly. The first sentence of the second paragraph ("Per the resistance table...") should be turned around.

2 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Personally I would have rolled the POT vs the CON, that's how I always did it in previous games, but I guess it makes little difference.

Yep, it's all the same mechanically. Personally, all things being equal, I always lean towards the players rolling instead of the GM rolling. The players curse a lot more when it's their dice betraying them 😄 

Edited by lordabdul
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lordabdul said:

Personally, all things being equal, I always lean towards the players rolling instead of the GM rolling. The players curse a lot more when it's their dice betraying them 😄 

That'd probably also increase their sense of agency; i.e., even when defending they get to act (roll), rather than being acted upon (GM rolls.) 

  • Like 1
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.
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...