A tweak to parry skill inspired by CoC

[Kloster]

31 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Have you considered the RQ3 method of just going with the scores unmodified? In my experience the increased chance of specials and criticals make up for the ultra high skill scores, and the ratios are a lot fairer than what happens in RQ2/RQG with parry reduction.  

Exactly my mind (and my method).

[Lordabdul]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

Have you considered the RQ3 method of just going with the scores unmodified?

I did yes, and you may note that I use unmodified scores when only one character is super-skilled. For two super-skilled opponents, however, I don't want to lose the nice success gradient between Criticals, Specials, and Normal Successes. It doesn't seem fun to me if normal successes are happening less than 30% of the time (or even never happen at all if you fight epic monsters!). But I haven't tested these situations and rules enough to be certain of my choices, so I don't think we need to debate this further -- I'm still experimenting, and was merely sharing my thoughts and work in progress.

Edited April 22, 2021 by lordabdul

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, lordabdul said:

I did yes, and you may note that I use unmodified scores when only one character is super-skilled. For two super-skilled opponents, however, I don't want to lose the nice success gradient between Criticals, Specials, and Normal Successes. It doesn't seem fun to me if normal successes are happening less than 30% of the time (or even never happen at all if you fight epic monsters!).

I get your point, although it takes a very high skill (350%) for normal successes to happen less than 30% of the time. 

What if you had skill values over say,  over 200% cancel each other out? So someone with Sword 350% vs. an opponent with a Skill of 320% would be treated as 200% vs. 170%. That way the special and critical chances would cap off, but the relative differences between skills would remain.

Oh, and be glad you're not dealing with Pendragon, it exacerbates the situation- although characters are usually dying off before it becomes a big problem.

 

1 hour ago, lordabdul said:

But I haven't tested these situations and rules enough to be certain of my choices, so I don't think we need to debate this further -- I'm still experimenting, and was merely sharing my thoughts and work in progress.

No problem. I just tossed the idea out there, I'm not championing it. 

 

Another idea might be to require more than one skill check to improve a skill over 100% (say two checks for skills over 100%, three for skills over 200% and so on). This would slow down the skill progression once 100% was reached, which would help to minimize the problem, and slow does the rate that it escalates.

[Kloster]

8 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Another idea might be to require more than one skill check to improve a skill over 100% (say two checks for skills over 100%, three for skills over 200% and so on). This would slow down the skill progression once 100% was reached, which would help to minimize the problem, and slow does the rate that it escalates.

I don't think skills over 100% are a problem. At least, none of my groups ever had a problem with them, and I don't see any reason to reduce the rate of progression (that is already very slow). The problem lies with the way some of BRP games are managing them.

[Kloster]

On 4/19/2021 at 10:20 PM, lordabdul said:

For completion's sake (and in case you get the opportunity to test my stupid half-assed ideas 😉 ), my other lead was to have a threshold under which the bigger creature can't have its skill go. My simple first step was to try "can't go below SIZ". For example: Shortsword 150% against Allosaur SIZ 50 claw/bite attack 60% means that the Allosaur's attack can't go below 50%. So the result would be Shortsword 100% parry against claw/bite 50% attack. There would be a decent chance for the Allosaur to succeed an attack, and for the Wind Lord to get their sword utterly shattered (and arm broken, probably), unless they get a Special success and gracefully deflect the big dinosaur.

Warning: I have given zero thought to any problems that may arise from this rule... I just made a note, and I'm reading it back to you 🙂

Caveat: the need for this rule (or the other one) depends on your particular rule for >100% skill contests. I have RQG in mind here, but for other games, it may not be needed.

You can also (and more simply) say that you can not parry an attack made by someone whose SIZ is, say, 2 times yours. I give 2 without having done any calculation, just giving an idea.

14 hours ago, lordabdul said:

This is going vastly off-topic but yes, as a means to reduce the need for >100% rules in the first place, I also have something similar which (shocking, I know!) is also taken from GURPS 🙂  Feints, deceptive attacks, etc... they all similarly trade penalties to the attack for penalties on the defense. Note however that, at least in GURPS, it's usually a 2:1 ratio to make it feel more risky (i.e. only half of the penalty you take on the attack gets applied on the defense: you take -40%, the enemy takes -20%). I still need to look at the difference between the roll curves of both systems to figure out if I want to keep the 2:1 ratio or go to a 1:1 ratio.

On your proposals, I would choose the voluntary 2:1 ratio. Voluntary meaning that the attacker chooses the difficulty of his attack (and can decide to take no penalty at all, having his full percentage of attack, special and critical), and 2:1 (according to what I have understood of your post) meaning the defender's parry being reduced by half the penalty chosen by the attacker.

[Lloyd Dupont]

54 minutes ago, Kloster said:

You can also (and more simply) say that you can not parry an attack made by someone whose SIZ is, say, 2 times yours. I give 2 without having done any calculation, just giving an idea.

SIZ is already exponential.. every +8 in SIZ is double the weight! 😉

in a way it justify the way the resistance table works...

but one could argue it contradict how 1 POW = 1 MP....

[Kloster]

42 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

SIZ is already exponential.. every +8 in SIZ is double the weight! 😉

in a way it justify the way the resistance table works...

Yes. That means my proposal would be more correct with: You can not parry an attack made by someone whose SIZ is more than 8 (or 10, or 20, or whatever number) higher than yours.

 

43 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

but one could argue it contradict how 1 POW = 1 MP....

This is less a problem because it is much less frequent to have POW with more than 15 points of difference than SIZ with 20 points of difference (not counting CoC entities), even if we count only real current animals (just try to parry with anything a bison, a rhino or an elephant that charges).

[Atgxtg]

22 hours ago, Kloster said:

I don't think skills over 100% are a problem. At least, none of my groups ever had a problem with them, and I don't see any reason to reduce the rate of progression (that is already very slow). The problem lies with the way some of BRP games are managing them.

I suspect that might come down to personal taste, style of running, and what version of RQ/BRP you're running. In RQ 3 High INT and DEX characters, such as elves, could have a Manipulation Bonus well over 10%, and that lead to a much faster rate of increase in weapon skills, although the highest I ever saw a PC get for a permanent skill was 165%, and that was in RQ2. 

[Atgxtg]

21 hours ago, Kloster said:

Yes. That means my proposal would be more correct with: You can not parry an attack made by someone whose SIZ is more than 8 (or 10, or 20, or whatever number) higher than yours.

Except that in real life you can. A parry isn't a block. You not trying to stop the attack outright, but shift it slightly to the side so that it misses. 

21 hours ago, Kloster said:

This is less a problem because it is much less frequent to have POW with more than 15 points of difference than SIZ with 20 points of difference (not counting CoC entities), even if we count only real current animals (just try to parry with anything a bison, a rhino or an elephant that charges).

The latter has been done. Knights used to regularly parry and block lance charges from other knights on horseback, which is functionally the same thing as parrying the horse.

In most RQ/BRP games, the higher damage such big creatures do is ususally enough to make parrying the entire attack difficult. A lance charge could do 1D10+1+4D6 (20-21 average) and a shield will stop 12. 

 

[Joerg]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Except that in real life you can. A parry isn't a block. You not trying to stop the attack outright, but shift it slightly to the side so that it misses. 

The ramming attack of a lorry or the trampling of a stampeding bison is usually beyond a human's ability to parry, or even just to soften. Such attacks might be dodged, depending on the amount of area effect the attack has (say a brontosaur tail slash, or a great troll's roundhouse big maul attack).

 

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

The latter has been done. Knights used to regularly parry and block lance charges from other knights on horseback, which is functionally the same thing as parrying the horse.

The lance has a very small point area of attack. A footman about to be ridden down while not the target of a lance still is in for a world of pain and suffering, and so is a mounted fighter (say a high llama rider) receiving a bison ramming attack from the flank. Even if you manage to get in a hit with your pole axe on the bison's head or front quarter, that won't prevent the ramming of your steed and potentially your leg.

 

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

In most RQ/BRP games, the higher damage such big creatures do is usually enough to make parrying the entire attack difficult. A lance charge could do 1D10+1+4D6 (20-21 average) and a shield will stop 12. 

Such a lance would deliver a knockback damage even if the parry armor plus the body armor plus whatever magical protection the target is wearing prevents hit point loss on a non-impale event. On an impale event too, but that's included in the impale damage, and might only apply to the carry-over after the body rupture has been inflicted (if any).

Damage eaten up by parry, armor or magic might still be accountable for knockback effects, though probably not completely (at least parry should dampen the impact ever so slightly).

Should the damage bonus from the steed be doubled for a special success in (any version of) RQ or compatible BRP?

[Kloster]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I suspect that might come down to personal taste, style of running, and what version of RQ/BRP you're running.

Agreed on the personal tastes. My BRP of choice was RQ3 'til I shifted to RQG. I have also played RQ2, SB, Hawkmoon, CoC, Ringworld and Superworld, but my favorite is RQ3.

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

In RQ 3 High INT and DEX characters, such as elves, could have a Manipulation Bonus well over 10%, and that lead to a much faster rate of increase in weapon skills, although the highest I ever saw a PC get for a permanent skill was 165%, and that was in RQ2.

The highest I have seen in all my groups is (unmodified by magic) around 150%, so consistent with your experience.

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

Except that in real life you can. A parry isn't a block. You not trying to stop the attack outright, but shift it slightly to the side so that it misses. 

No, you can't, because you can not deviate even slightly something that is vastly heavier than yourself just with your weight, your movement and the help of an instrument, be it a broadsword, a mace or any shield. You can only dodge it.

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

The latter has been done. Knights used to regularly parry and block lance charges from other knights on horseback, which is functionally the same thing as parrying the horse.

When you have 2 knights charging each other with lances, they are almost bolted to the horse, and the opponents weight is similar (weight of the horse + wheight of the knight, including armor).

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

In most RQ/BRP games, the higher damage such big creatures do is ususally enough to make parrying the entire attack difficult. A lance charge could do 1D10+1+4D6 (20-21 average) and a shield will stop 12. 

Agreed, BRP is not good at simulating jousting.

48 minutes ago, Joerg said:

The ramming attack of a lorry or the trampling of a stampeding bison is usually beyond a human's ability to parry, or even just to soften. Such attacks might be dodged, depending on the amount of area effect the attack has (say a brontosaur tail slash, or a great troll's roundhouse big maul attack).

Exactly my point, Joerg.

[Atgxtg]

17 hours ago, Kloster said:

Agreed on the personal tastes. My BRP of choice was RQ3 'til I shifted to RQG. I have also played RQ2, SB, Hawkmoon, CoC, Ringworld and Superworld, but my favorite is RQ3.

My favorite is also RQ3. So much so that I've adapted Strombringer/Eternal Champion to RQ3 game mechanics. 

17 hours ago, Kloster said:

The highest I have seen in all my groups is (unmodified by magic) around 150%, so consistent with your experience.

I think that has to ddo with fregency of play, the easy of getting a skill check, and how long the game was going on. THe elves were the ones that really risked breaking things open. Once you get charactesr with a Manipulation Modifier of +15-20% they can advance two or three times as fast as most of the other characters. At least in theory. 

17 hours ago, Kloster said:

No, you can't, because you can not deviate even slightly something that is vastly heavier than yourself just with your weight, your movement and the help of an instrument, be it a broadsword, a mace or any shield. You can only dodge it.

Sure you can, becuase you aren;t shifting the entire thing, just the part that is attacking you. 

17 hours ago, Kloster said:

When you have 2 knights charging each other with lances, they are almost bolted to the horse,

Not really. They are sitting in saddles. Yes they are saddles designed for this sort of thing, but they are far from bolted to the horse.

17 hours ago, Kloster said:

 

and the opponents weight is similar (weight of the horse + wheight of the knight, including armor).

Yes, and even men of foot can block and parry those lances. Yes, the lance might knock the guy over, but that comes down to how well they pull off the parry. The idea is to get the lance to glace off an angled shield away from the person wielding the shield. And yes it can be done. 

17 hours ago, Kloster said:

Agreed, BRP is not good at simulating jousting.

It's not all that bad really. You just need a jousting lance instead of a war lance. Drop the lance damage down to about 1d6 crushing and it's not too bad, assuming the opponent managed to parry with his shield. 

17 hours ago, Kloster said:

Exactly my point, Joerg.

No. He said "usually beyond a human's ability to parry, or even just to soften" and you're saying always. Actually, almost any attack can be soften somewhat- that why rolling with the impact can help. It's just that it might not help enough to make a difference. 

If I had to get charged by a bison, I'd certainly rather have a shield in front of me. If nothing else it would spread out the impact, and absorb some of it instead of me. It might not save me, but I'll take whatever help I can get.

[Atgxtg]

18 hours ago, Joerg said:

The ramming attack of a lorry or the trampling of a stampeding bison is usually beyond a human's ability to parry, or even just to soften. Such attacks might be dodged, depending on the amount of area effect the attack has (say a brontosaur tail slash, or a great troll's roundhouse big maul attack).

I'll cut & paste:  Actually, almost any attack can be softened  somewhat- that why rolling with the impact can help. It's just that it might not help enough to make a difference. 

If I had to get charged by a bison, I'd certainly rather have a shield in front of me. If nothing else it would spread out the impact, and absorb some of it instead of me. It might not save me, but I'll take whatever help I can get.

18 hours ago, Joerg said:

The lance has a very small point area of attack. A footman about to be ridden down while not the target of a lance still is in for a world of pain and suffering,

Probably. But the footman could also ground the lance and put the knight into a work of pain. Or angle his shield so that the blow glances off harmlessly. It can be done. It might not be easy, but it can be done. 

The thing is, I don't really see the justification for Klosters tweak. In game terms anything big nough to qaulify for the rule is probably doing enough damage to really hurt a human anyway. If you tweak the rules so that a human can't even parry the blow then why put such creatures in the game? It's just a ends up slaughtering PCs. most of the time they don't evenget a say about what attacks them. 

18 hours ago, Joerg said:

and so is a mounted fighter (say a high llama rider) receiving a bison ramming attack from the flank. Even if you manage to get in a hit with your pole axe on the bison's head or front quarter, that won't prevent the ramming of your steed and potentially your leg.

If you turn it head it might change direction, and you might be moved aside enough to get a blancing blow or even a miss. You might also end up as soft cover for the bison. 

But the point is,m if you just automatically say the bison will win, then you makk all the battle and rune magic useless. Whose to say a human backed up with magic cannot do super human things?

And if we are going to try to be ultra realistic, then how about we look into how feasible most of the mounts in glorantha really are in the first place. There a re reasons why there were never tribes of nomads riding (most) of those beasts in the real world. Most of those animals cannot be domesticated.

 

18 hours ago, Joerg said:

Such a lance would deliver a knockback damage even if the parry armor plus the body armor plus whatever magical protection the target is wearing prevents hit point loss on a non-impale event. On an impale event too, but that's included in the impale damage, and might only apply to the carry-over after the body rupture has been inflicted (if any).

Sure, although the saddle and stirrups will give the knight on the receiving end a chance to remain in the saddle. But the thing is those knight did block the lances with shields and it worked. Otherwise they wouldn't have bothered with the shields in the first place.  

18 hours ago, Joerg said:

Damage eaten up by parry, armor or magic might still be accountable for knockback effects, though probably not completely (at least parry should dampen the impact ever so slightly).

Sure. About the only way a character could avoid that would be if they rolled an critical parry (and took no damage). At least by some versions of BRP. 

18 hours ago, Joerg said:

Should the damage bonus from the steed be doubled for a special success in (any version of) RQ or compatible BRP?

No, because damage bonus isn't doubled on an impale, only weapon bonus. Still 2D10+2+4D6 (average 27 points) is probably going to ruin the day of most BRP characters.