Opposed Skills Over 100%

[Mechashef]

Can the chance for a critical be higher than 5% and for a special be greater than 20%?

On Page 2 of the QS under the section on Abilities over 100%, the second dot point states:

Quote

While actual chance of success remains no better than 95%, the chance of a special or critical success continues to increase.

This seems a definite yes.  But ...

 

On Page 3 under “Special Success” it states:

Quote

As with the critical success, the special success is based on the modified chance of success, not on the user’s raw ability rating.

And back on Page 2, the first dot point states:

Quote

If the highest rated participant in an opposed resolution has an ability rating in excess of 100%, the difference between 100% and their ability rating is subtracted from the ability of everyone in the context (including themselves).

 

Does this mean that for skills such as attack, the character's modified skill can never exceed 100% because the component over 100% is subtracted from their own skill bringing it back to 100%, and thus the chance for a critical or special can never be greater than for 100%?

 

[Psullie]

Combat is not an opposed resolution so no your Special and Critical chances are not capped. 

With the case of opposed rolls, everybody's skill and therefore specials etc are reduced. 

[Mechashef]

19 minutes ago, Psullie said:

Combat is not an opposed resolution so no your Special and Critical chances are not capped. 

With the case of opposed rolls, everybody's skill and therefore specials etc are reduced. 

Perhaps I phrased it poorly.  My mistake.

Dot point one under "ABILITIES ABOVE 100%" states in full:

Quote

If the opponent is trying to parry, dodge or otherwise oppose the character's use of the ability then 100%+ ability gives a greater chance of overcoming the opposition. If the highest rated participant in an opposed resolution has an ability rating in excess of 100%, the difference between 100% and their ability rating is subtracted from the ability of everyone in the context (including themselves).

Thus it appears that regardless of what we choose to call it, that clause is aimed at combat (and also some other skills).

On a very minor point I would also suggest that the "100%+" in that clause should really be "101%+"

 

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Mechashef
stupid typo

[Yelm's Light]

In other words, an effective Defense skill.  Yeah, I'd HR against that in a heartbeat.

[Psullie]

It clearly states on Page 6 that Opposed rolls are not used to resolve combat. 

[Mechashef]

hmmm,

The rules are definitely contradictory. 

I hope that page 6 is the intended version and that the page 2 connection to combat is just the fingerprints of a significant rule change that didn't make it through to the published rules.

Is anyone able to arrange an official response?

[styopa]

Sounds to me like combat WAS supposed to be an opposed roll, that was revised out and this wasn't caught in the edit.

 

There's your chance of success, from which your special and crit are derived.  This percentage can and often does go over 100.

Nevertheless, when rolling, a 96-00 is ALWAYS a failure, regardless of your chance of success.  That doesn't mean your chance of success drops to 95 (even though it effectively is).  Your chance of success remains what it is (and special/crit continue to be derived from that).

In the resolution of opposed rolls, if a success chance is over 100, the excess above 100 for the highest participant is deducted from everyone.

Here's how I'd rule that.

We have Able, Baker, and Charlie.

Able has a skill of 140%, meaning special of 28% and crit of 7%.

Baker has 120% (S: 24%, C 6%)

Charlie 70% (S: 14%, C: 3% I think)

If they're just fighting it out, both Able and Baker have skills > 100 so they BOTH only fail on 96-00.  The only difference in their combat rolls, really, is the respective differences in their special/crit values.  Charlie just has his values as normal.

If they're in an OPPOSED roll, then we look and see that Able is the highest skill at 140.  So we reduce his by 40% to 100.  Then we apply that same -40 to Baker (whose success is now 80%) and Charlie (who's left with a woeful 30%).

I don't think this next bit is clear, but here's how I'd rule it: I would NOT change anyone's special/crit values.  Able would now be 100/28/7, Baker would be 80/24/6, and Charlie would be 30/14/3.  (I think it would probably be more accurate to recalc their special/crit, and I personally would have no issue doing it on the fly, but some might and it would just be faster to leave them as-is.  Yes...it means Charlie's special value is nearly 1/2 his success chance, which is...wonky.

Anyway, assuming we DON'T recalc values, then in the opposed resolution:

• Able will get a failure 96-00, a success 29-95, a special 08-28, and a crit 01-07.
• Baker will get a failure 81-00, a success 25-80, a special 07-24, and a crit 01-06.
• Charlie will get a failure 31-00, a success 15-30, a special 04-14, and a crit 01-03.

At least, that's how I'd see it.

[Pentallion]

I don't see how you're reading into it that the rule has anything to do with opposed rolls.  Say I'm 140% to hit and you're 90% to parry.  Per this rule, I become 100% to hit and you become 50% to parry.  Opposed rolls have nothing to do with this.  It simply lowers your chance to parry.  I am pretty sure that Jeff specifically said that your chances to crit and special are not affected by this rule and if that part is not clear in what you're reading, then they may have to clarify. 

[Psullie]

Here is my reading:

Quote from Page 2:
If the opponent is trying to parry, block, dodge, or otherwise oppose the character’s use of the ability, then 100%+ ability gives a greater chance of overcoming the opposition. If the highest rated participant in an opposed resolution has an ability rating in excess of 100%, the difference between 100 and their ability rating is subtracted from the ability of everyone in the contest (including themselves).

This is TWO statements which would have been better listed as two bullets, Statement A (the first sentence) skills greater than 100% are better. Statement B in the case of Opposed rolls the 100+ will lower everyones (this is very much like HQ matching masteries).

The second bullet just says that Crits and Specials a set at 5% & 20% so a 120% skill gives 6% & 24% respective. No reference to Opposed skills etc.

At all times the chance of a critical or special is based the Modified skill level (remember that in RQ skills are modified not dice rolls), regardless of where the modifier comes from.

Combat is never considered Opposed. So your Passion augmented Rune Lord lord with 125% Sword augmented to 175% has a Crit on 8%, Special on a 35% and Fail on a 95+

If he were in a debate (Opposed) Orate skills with an Augment Orate of 120%, versus a klutz with Orate 35%, then the nature of the Opposed rule would reduce both skills to 100% & 15% respectively with their chance of Specials and Crits likewise reduced

 

 

[styopa]

9 hours ago, Pentallion said:

I don't see how you're reading into it that the rule has anything to do with opposed rolls.  Say I'm 140% to hit and you're 90% to parry.  Per this rule, I become 100% to hit and you become 50% to parry.  Opposed rolls have nothing to do with this.  It simply lowers your chance to parry.  I am pretty sure that Jeff specifically said that your chances to crit and special are not affected by this rule and if that part is not clear in what you're reading, then they may have to clarify. 

It specifically refers to "opposed resolution" - t doesn't just mean actions that are opposed by someone else.

This is a specific method, which isn't used for combat. 

[MJ Sadique]

56 minutes ago, styopa said:

It specifically refers to "opposed resolution" - t doesn't just mean actions that are opposed by someone else.

This is a specific method, which isn't used for combat. 

NO MAN,

you're wrong here styopa... re-read the text :

1 hour ago, Psullie said:

Quote from Page 2:
If the opponent is trying to parry, block, dodge, or otherwise oppose the character’s use of the ability, then 100%+ ability gives a greater chance of overcoming the opposition. If the highest rated participant in an opposed resolution has an ability rating in excess of 100%, the difference between 100 and their ability rating is subtracted from the ability of everyone in the contest (including themselves).

1- The text clearly speak about parry, block and dodge which are fighting actions; This new rules was made to use the ability results table (normal, special and critics) without the need to create an extended table with percentiles upper than 100. RQ II always dislike more than 100% skills because most table are caped at 100%.

2- Opposed resolution is specific method to CHARACTERISTIC (mainly POW) not skills...

double wrong today Styopa,

[Zit]

I'm not so sure. This paragraph is a summary of how skills above 100% work. Both sentences are separated and may refer to two different situations This is the quick start, a condensate text, I suppose the full rules will clarify this point. But since levels of success are compared in combat as well, even if not stricto sensu an opposed roll, I think that it does not make so much difference statistically if keeping the original skill rates or decreasing the highest to 100% and all others accordingly.

Opposed resolution are for abilities.

Quote

p. 6 Opposed rolls are made when one character’s ability is pitched against an opponent’s ability.

 

[g33k]

Hmmm.  I wonder if this is going to be more clear in the main rules?  Or even have a different choice made (since the QS is known to be a snapshot of a non-final RQG draft) as to what is the Right Way To Do It?

What say you, @Jason Durall and/or @Jeff ?

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by g33k

[Mugen]

8 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

2- Opposed resolution is specific method to CHARACTERISTIC (mainly POW) not skills...

No.

Opposed resolution is for abilities (that is, skills, runes or passions).

Characteristics opposition is done using resistance table.

See page 6 of Quickstart for both methods, and page 2 for a definition of what an attribute is.

[Yelm's Light]

15 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

2- Opposed resolution is specific method to CHARACTERISTIC (mainly POW) not skills...

STR vs. STR is common as well...

[MJ Sadique]

11 hours ago, Mugen said:

No.
Opposed resolution is for abilities (that is, skills, runes or passions).
Characteristics opposition is done using resistance table.
See page 6 of Quickstart for both methods, and page 2 for a definition of what an attribute is.

D'oh! ..... it hurt man .... but you're right, I quick-read too fast the quick-start. I Thanks Mugen for the enlightenment & Sorry To Styopa for my mistake !

To sum up, we have Characteristic / Abilities ie Skills, Runes and Passion / Combat skills and their respectives resolutions with resistance table / opposed rolls results / usual mix of opposing rolls effects (att vs par/blo) or opposing rolls results (att vs dodge).

Combat is still a (Little) messy but RuneQuest combat as a "choose between Scylla and Charybdis dilemma" IS great. This why I prefer RQ3, because parry is a much secure choice and dodge is a "all or nothing" gamble; you just have to choose your poison !

The abilities above 100% rules still apply because there is still an opposition of abilities ! (combat skills are skills and they are abilities as well)

Is it really important ? This rules have some flaws and take a little time of calculations before rolling any dice but some calculations make me estimate that using them will help gaining some time in fine by using the ability results table instead of calculating it. You can ignore this rule if all your player have a calculator and know how to make division, if not better use it or be ready to make ALL your newbies calculations by yourself !

[Pentallion]

I know this:  all my players have unanimously said they hate the rule to reduce the skills.  If it also reduces the chance to crit and special that's a deal breaker.

[Mugen]

14 hours ago, MJ Sadique said:

Combat is still a (Little) messy but RuneQuest combat as a "choose between Scylla and Charybdis dilemma" IS great. This why I prefer RQ3, because parry is a much secure choice and dodge is a "all or nothing" gamble; you just have to choose your poison !

Well, RQ:G combat is where the influence of RQ3 is the most obvious

 

2 hours ago, Pentallion said:

I know this:  all my players have unanimously said they hate the rule to reduce the skills.  If it also reduces the chance to crit and special that's a deal breaker.

Sure, but the increase in chances of success can be huge.

For instance, if the rule changes a 125% vs 75% contest into a 100% vs 50% one, isn't it worth losing 1% crit and 5% special ?

Edit: well, of course it depends on which side you are of the conflict...

Edited December 16, 2017 by Mugen

[jongjom]

The way the maths works for a 125% vs 75% contest against a 100% vs 50% one, means that your chance of a win of any kind is much greater when your opponent their % chance to defend lowered (respectively, Approx. >35% vs. Approx. >55% in this example).

Also, although your chance of a critical goes down by 1% in this example, the opponent's chance of a fumble goes up 1%. 

 

[styopa]

9 hours ago, Pentallion said:

I know this:  all my players have unanimously said they hate the rule to reduce the skills.  If it also reduces the chance to crit and special that's a deal breaker.

That's actually why my first reaction was to reduce the skills but NOT change the special/crit %....because once someone starts getting over 100%, those start to become the only meaningful results.

 

 

[Jusmak]

5 hours ago, styopa said:

That's actually why my first reaction was to reduce the skills but NOT change the special/crit %....because once someone starts getting over 100%, those start to become the only meaningful results.

 

 

I find this problematic. Scaling skills up over 100 makes game too boring without reducing. Exitement is gone with 5% failure rate, if combat becomes waiting for a special... Or is it? Passions boosting skills up over 100, does those actually improve game or lover it? 

When I played Rq6/mythras, I reduced, when I played RQ3 I did not do reductions. Those became a bit unnecassary hassle. There are ways to make things intresting (dark, multiple opponents, narrow corridors, weapon brakes), which bring a bit more into game itself than static boosting.

[Mankcam]

I generally don't like player-characters having any more than 90% chance in a single roll, otherwise there isn't any unpredictability in combat. I tend to rule that either the skill gets split up into multiple attack rolls, or that any excess skill points over 90% get transferred into a Defence Modifier that reduces the opponent's attack roll. This keeps things gritty, yet still makes high skill scores quite beneficial.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Mankcam

[Pentallion]

It reduces the danger of the weaker opponent and thats not good.  Also, say Im 190 and youe 90.  You become 05 and I go to 100.  But then I berserk.  Still 100, youre still 05.  The RQ3 way, that attack at 380 specials for double damage 76% of the time and the weaker guys shield begins to crumble and he starts getting knocked around.....but his 90% skill still makes him dangerous.  Desperate, but dangerous.  

IMO the reduction is the worst idea and all 6 of my players have expressed their dislike for it in our recent campaigns even though I kept my opinion to myself.  

So that's a rule we wont be using.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Pentallion

[Mankcam]

Yeah I see your point, I don't tend to have campaigns long enough for attack skills to go that high. I would probably impose some restriction of how much the opponent's skill could be reduced to, perhaps they cannot be reduced below their Special Success chance, or something like that. I think having the option to choose between multiple attacks and reducing the opponent's roll seems to work well for me. If RQG forces you just to make only multiple attacks then that will be okay. Not a big issue, as it is often  the better option of the two anyway. But I'll just keep playing how I have for the past few years anyway.

Edited December 17, 2017 by Mankcam

[soltakss]

On 12/13/2017 at 8:04 AM, Mechashef said:

Can the chance for a critical be higher than 5% and for a special be greater than 20%?

On Page 2 of the QS under the section on Abilities over 100%, the second dot point states:

This seems a definite yes.  But ...

That is how we always played it in RQ2. Someone with a 200% skill has a Special of 40% and a Critical of 10%.

Does this mean that for skills such as attack, the character's modified skill can never exceed 100% because the component over 100% is subtracted from their own skill bringing it back to 100%, and thus the chance for a critical or special can never be greater than for 100%?

I have seen this played 2 ways:

1. The special/critical chance depends on the skill AND the extra skill counts against an opponent (We called it Anti-Parry), so someone with a skill of 160% has a Special of 32%, a Critical of 8% and opponents subtract 60% from Parries
2. The extra part of the skill is subtracted from the skill before critical/special is worked out, so someone with a skill of 160% causes opponents to subtract 60% from Parries, leaving a skill of 100% with a Special of 20%, a Critical of 5%.

I much prefer Optoin 1 and that is the way I always played it.

However, it would be useful to get the rule clarified in the RQG rules.