Really high skills (skills over 100%)

[Harrek]

I've been reading through the fantastic RQG-book (like everyone else). The rules say: 

If both combatants have combat skills of greater than 100%, the combat skills of each is reduced by the amount the highest skill is above 100%. 
Thus, if a Sword Lord of Humakt with a 150% broadsword skill fights a Wind Lord with a 130% medium shield skill, the Sword Lord attacks at 100% and the Wind Lord parries at 80%.

In our group there's a player character, Monro, whose raw % with mace is around 220%. The rules seem to break a little bit if he'd fight against the same Wind Lord mentioned in the example. Monro would have a mace A% of 100, while the Wind Lords chance is 05. Right? This seems a little bit wrong to me.

Another example: if we have a troll with a maximum damage around 50 point and mace A% of 90. In the old rule versions this would have been a dangerous fight for Monro, even though he has much better A%. Now this would end in a situation where Monro has a skill of 100% and the troll's A% is 05. Monro would win really easily. 

I like the new rule, just can't figure how to put it into practice. The basic idea is good because it fastens the high level fight (more success vs failure, less success vs success) and makes them more interesting. Any suggestions how to handle this are appreciated. 

 

[Psullie]

Wind Lord Shield 130 - 120 = 10% parry v' Monro's 220 - 120 = 100% means that yes it is a tough fight for the Orlanthi. 

As for the troll, yep the skill difference means that the Troll would need a crit and/or Monro to fumble - or Monro could attack twice at 110% each (with reductions to 100 v 80) 

I think that the point is that characters with hero stats like this are not concerned with minions and it is better to focus the action where it matters. Monro would likely just wade through hordes of trolls before confronting their rune lord in one-to-one combat 

[metcalph]

17 minutes ago, Harrek said:

In our group there's a player character, Monro, whose raw % with mace is around 220%. The rules seem to break a little bit if he'd fight against the same Wind Lord mentioned in the example. Monro would have a mace A% of 100, while the Wind Lords chance is 05. Right? This seems a little bit wrong to me.

At such a skill level, Monro can be presumed to outclass the Windlord.  

Monro can also make two attacks of 80% (splitting equally gives 110% against the Wind-Lords 130%) against the Windlord's parry of 100%.

 

 

 

[Prinz Slasar]

What about RQG p 202 and splitting attacks.
A character with a combat skill 200%+ is able to make four attacks in a round as long as his actions fit in the SR 12-frame.

 

Edited June 12, 2018 by prinz.slasar

[Harrek]

2 hours ago, Psullie said:

Wind Lord Shield 130 - 120 = 10%

That's right, my mistake. 

 

2 hours ago, metcalph said:

Monro can also make two attacks of 80% (splitting equally gives 110% against the Wind-Lords 130%) against the Windlord's parry of 100%.

That's true but who would split attacks if you have better chance to win with just hitting once?  High level combats are actually quite simple-minded usually, because players become more cautious also. This usually diminishes tactics  used to hit once + dodge/parry (maybe your allied spirit cancels some magic from the enemy etc.). I hope to increase tactical options for the players in the future. That's why I try to make this rule to work with really high percentages. None that I've heard so far, does so. 

 

 

[PhilHibbs]

5 minutes ago, Harrek said:

That's true but who would split attacks if you have better chance to win with just hitting once?  High level combats are actually quite simple-minded usually, because players become more cautious also. This usually diminishes tactics  used to hit once + dodge/parry (maybe your allied spirit cancels some magic from the enemy etc.). I hope to increase tactical options for the players in the future. That's why I try to make this rule to work with really high percentages. None that I've heard so far, does so. 

I think splitting attacks is mainly for when you need to take down more than one opponent. If you've got over 150%, and your opponents have less than 50%, then you have a chance to take out all three if you're quick. It's the "plow through hordes of trollkin and hope they don't crit" manoeuvre.

[Atgxtg]

 

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

I think splitting attacks is mainly for when you need to take down more than one opponent. If you've got over 150%, and your opponents have less than 50%, then you have a chance to take out all three if you're quick. It's the "plow through hordes of trollkin and hope they don't crit" manoeuvre.

It used to be exclusively for multiple opponents. Old RQ rules were that any "attack" on a single foe was a combination of moves, and you couldn't split you skill when facing one opponent. I guess it's like trying to play the same chess game twice.

 

[PhilHibbs]

3 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

It used to be exclusively for multiple opponents.

There's no such restriction now, the example is of a Dragonewt splitting its attack against Vasana.

[simonh]

19 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

 

It used to be exclusively for multiple opponents. Old RQ rules were that any "attack" on a single foe was a combination of moves, and you couldn't split you skill when facing one opponent. I guess it's like trying to play the same chess game twice.

 

I never really bought that though. In 12 seconds you can absolutely stab/hack/slice someone up more than once.

[PhilHibbs]

2 minutes ago, simonh said:

I never really bought that though. In 12 seconds you can absolutely stab/hack/slice someone up more than once.

I think the rationale was that your attack in melee isn't literally a single swing of the weapon, it could represent a number of blows, so there's no need to break it down and represent the same actions in two different game mechanical ways. The extra damage from a crit or special could be from multiple hits. It's only when you want to spread that out over multiple targets that you have to have a special mechanic.

[simonh]

3 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I think the rationale was that your attack in melee isn't literally a single swing of the weapon, it could represent a number of blows, so there's no need to break it down and represent the same actions in two different game mechanical ways. The extra damage from a crit or special could be from multiple hits. It's only when you want to spread that out over multiple targets that you have to have a special mechanic.

In a system where opponents have multiple hit locations? And in which armour deducts separately from each hit?

[Atgxtg]

6 minutes ago, simonh said:

I never really bought that though. In 12 seconds you can absolutely stab/hack/slice someone up more than once.

Sure but...

1 minute ago, PhilHibbs said:

 the rationale was that your attack in melee isn't literally a single swing of the weapon, it could represent a number of blows, so there's no need to break it down and represent the same actions in two different game mechanical ways.

If an attack were just a single blow it was almost certainly get blocked, parried or dodged. It's remarkably easy to stop a simple attack. Almost as easy as it is to make one (90%+DEX is probably the starting chance to hit in real life-if the opponent isn't trying to avoid it, that is. ). In a real fight, people do compound attacks. That is they preced the real attack with lesser attacks, probing attack, feints, attacks to repostion the foe and so forth. 

 

If it were just single attacks people would be manking an attack every strike rank, or every other. 

[Atgxtg]

4 minutes ago, simonh said:

In a system where opponents have multiple hit locations? And in which armour deducts separately from each hit?

Yup, per RQ2 

 This technique cannot be used to attack or parry one foe twice in a round because any attack is a combination of blows (see Chapter II) and a character with 100% attack ability merely has a better chance of using the combination to hit his target.

 

And even if you allowed splitting against a single foe, why stop at splitting once? Why can't someone with 100% make ten attack at 10%? If feasible. Statistically better too, I think, once you factor in crticals, specials and the perks of hitting someone multiple times. 

[simonh]

Just now, Atgxtg said:

Yup, per RQ2 

 This technique cannot be used to attack or parry one foe twice in a round because any attack is a combination of blows (see Chapter II) and a character with 100% attack ability merely has a better chance of using the combination to hit his target.

 

And even if you allowed splitting against a single foe, why stop at splitting once? Why can't someone with 100% make ten attack at 10%? If feasible. Statistically better too, I think, once you factor in crticals, specials and the perks of hitting someone multiple times. 

I'm familiar with the old rules, I just think the restriction was unnecessary and didn't make a lot fo sense.

I'm used to the Elric system, where you can make split attacks so long as 1) You divide your skill evenly between each attack roll and 2) each attack roll muse be at least 50%. It works fine, but then in Elric you can also make any number of Parries in a round, but each parry after the first suffers from a cumulative 30% penalty.

[Atgxtg]

Yeah the multiple parries makes difference. I liked the old riposte rule in Stormbringer, too It helped.

 

I think the rule made sense, if you really think about it. I mean, "Well I could really make a good effort to get a successful attack, but no, I'll make two half hearted attacks and that will have a better chance of getting past this guy's defenses." 

Realistically, it doesn't make any sense. The only reason why you'd do it is because game rules would let you get another damage roll at full ability. It's like how,  in most RPGs, knives and small caliber firearms aren't all that great because they don't do much damage, when is real life is less about how much damage you do but how well you place that damage.  And realistically two 50% attacks should be easier to stop than one single attack at 100%.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Atgxtg

[PhilHibbs]

6 minutes ago, simonh said:

I'm familiar with the old rules, I just think the restriction was unnecessary and didn't make a lot fo sense.

I'm used to the Elric system, where you can make split attacks so long as 1) You divide your skill evenly between each attack roll and 2) each attack roll muse be at least 50%. It works fine, but then in Elric you can also make any number of Parries in a round, but each parry after the first suffers from a cumulative 30% penalty.

Also now in RQG you can split unevenly as long as they are all 50% or more. The example has a 120% chance split into a 70 and a 50.

[simonh]

28 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

I think the rule made sense, if you really think about it. I mean, "Well I could really make a good effort to get a successful attack, but no, I'll make two half hearted attacks and that will have a better chance of getting past this guy's defenses." 

Realistically, it doesn't make any sense. The only reason why you'd do it is because game rules would let you get another damage roll at full ability. It's like how,  in most RPGs, knives and small caliber firearms aren't all that great because they don't do much damage, when is real life is less about how much damage you do but how well you place that damage.  

In reality you don't go into a fight planning which of the many blows you're going to launch in the next 12 seconds will be the one you 'actually' try to hit with. If you're good enough and you see an opening you'll land as many blows as you can.

I get cognitive dissonance from a rule that says on the one had an attack represents a series of blows, feints and attempts to probe an opponent's defences, but then says that in 12 seconds only one of those can ever be successful. Particularly with knives, once you get an opening you're going to stab the crap out of an opponent. Even with a longer and slower weapon though It's not as if you know beforehand which of those blows is going to be the one you're making the skill roll for.

I don't see splitting attacks as necessarily even throwing more blows at your opponent, I think it's more about taking more risks in the attack strategy on the off chance it will pay off in doing more damage. Not risks with your own defence, but risks that the attack strategy will wind up unsuccessful.

This is all abstracted a lot in the game of course. That's fine, literal blow by blow, manoeuvre by manoeuver simulation would be unbelievably painful to play out and as I said earlier this is all a bit artificial because if you actually got a chance to hit more than once you would anyway regardless of 'statement of intent'. However I find the tactical choices opened up by multiple attacks fun and interesting to play, and I don't find arguments that it's not realistic that more than one blow might land in 12 seconds very convincing. I'd be much more open to arguments that this unbalances the game somehow or is un-fun in some way, but that's not my experience from using the Elric rules.

Edited June 12, 2018 by simonh

[styopa]

I can easily see a high-skill character launching multiple 'series' of attacks on a single target; after all, their skill would allow them to execute the whole series faster too.

In a sense, that holistically addresses the complaints from lindybeige (on youtube) that RQ doesn't reflect the primary improvement that higher skill gives you: speed of attack.  never thought of it that way.

[simonh]

19 minutes ago, styopa said:

In a sense, that holistically addresses the complaints from lindybeige (on youtube) that RQ doesn't reflect the primary improvement that higher skill gives you: speed of attack.  never thought of it that way.

Except that the extra attack comeseven later in the round, and the attack at Normal,SR is less likely to succeed to the point at which an attack is successful is likely to be ever later on average.

[Pentallion]

To be blunt this rule is the worst way to handle skills over 100% and my group tried it in RQ6 we tried it whith RQ2G (winging RQG).   The players absolutely despise this rule and reject it comppletely.

This is right up there with luck points. II've already been told they want nothing to do with this idea.

Too many heroquest players tweaking a game they never played at high levels.  None of them ever reached over 400% skills.  They think their idea works.  It's awful.

Tension is sacrificed.

Worst.  Rule.  Ever.

[Jeff]

Just now, Pentallion said:

To be blunt this rule is the worst way to handle skills over 100% and my group tried it in RQ6 we tried it whith RQ2G (winging RQG).   The players absolutely despise this rule and reject it comppletely.

This is right up there with luck points. II've already been told they want nothing to do with this idea.

Too many heroquest players tweaking a game they never played at high levels.  None of them ever reached over 400% skills.  They think their idea works.  It's awful.

Tension is sacrificed.

Worst.  Rule.  Ever.

400% skills? Really? 

[Pentallion]

7 minutes ago, Jeff said:

400% skills? Really? 

I've seen 900% elf archers after casting arrow trance.

400% easily Jeff.

Hell, we STARTED a campaign about dwarves in a submarine who were all hundreds of years old and had 400% skills to start with trying to get Toras hammer to Mostals forge.

Of course, the tin dwarfs onlu ability was to make cans but we loved that guy and he somehow survived.

Gotta have cans.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Pentallion

[Atgxtg]

59 minutes ago, simonh said:

In reality you don't go into a fight planning which of the many blows you're going to launch in the next 12 seconds will be the one you 'actually' try to hit with. If you're good enough and you see an opening you'll land as many blows as you can.

Yes, you do. I've done it. Most of the blows aren't planed to actually hit the guy. Some are designed to get him to move in one direction, others to get him to move his weapon to one out of your way. Some are designed just to keep him too busy to attack you while you think up what to try next. 

It's not just making a bunch of wild attacks hoping that one of them connects. The only times I didn't know exactly which of my strikes was the one that was going to be the hit was when my opponent "fumbled" and did a circular parry in the wrong direction and turned my feint into a head hit. 

 

59 minutes ago, simonh said:

I get cognitive dissonance from a rule that says on the one had an attack represents a series of blows, feints and attempts to probe an opponent's defences, but then says that in 12 seconds only one of those can ever be successful. Particularly with knives, once you get an opening you're going to stab the crap out of an opponent.

Yes, but it is one "attack". It might mean multiple strikes. 

59 minutes ago, simonh said:

 

 Even with a longer and slower weapon though It's not as if you know beforehand which of those blows is going to be the one you're making the skill roll for.

Yeah, you do. Go buy some Nerf swords and try it out. You might start off just swinging a lot and trying to overwhelm someone with a lot of attacks, but that doesn;t last long. After a bit you start to work out series of strikes and moves so that you can make one good strike that counts. But then, the other guy is trying to do the same thing to you, so it all gets messed up.

59 minutes ago, simonh said:

I don't see splitting attacks as necessarily even throwing more blows at your opponent, I think it's more about taking more risks in the attack strategy on the off chance it will pay off in doing more damage. Not risks with your own defence, but risks that the attack strategy will wind up unsuccessful.

Usually its' the other way around. That is you take risks that reduce your defenses to get the attack. Now I could see something like trading off skill for more damage, but think that flat trade off of skill for damage would reflect that better.

59 minutes ago, simonh said:

This is all abstracted a lot in the game of course. That's fine, literal blow by blow, manoeuvre by manoeuver simulation would be unbelievably painful to play out and as I said earlier this is all a bit artificial because if you actually got a chance to hit more than once you would anyway regardless of 'statement of intent'. However I find the tactical choices opened up by multiple attacks fun and interesting to play, and I don't find arguments that it's not realistic that more than one blow might land in 12 seconds very convincing. I'd be much more open to arguments that this unbalances the game somehow or is un-fun in some way, but that's not my experience from using the Elric rules.

I don;t think it does unbalance anything or is unfun, provided that it is kept reasonably simple. Someone making 120 attack at 1% each would be unfun and unbalancing, but thats the extreme. In years of Pendragon splitting skill worked fine. Of course there were drawbacks to doing it. 

 

I think that in RQG, as far as I can tell, a character is probably better off not doing it and instead reducing the opponent's chance to parry. 

[Atgxtg]

4 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

I've seen 900% elf archers after casting arrow trance.

Wow! 900%

[Jeff]

1 minute ago, Pentallion said:

I've seen 900% elf archers after casting arrow trance.

400% easily Jeff.

Hell, we STARTED a campaign about dwarves in a submarine who were all hundreds of years old and had 400% skills to start with trying to get Toras hammer to Mostals forge.

Then you are playing way outside the design parameters of any version of RuneQuest. The rule works just fine for characters in the 101 to 200% range, and to be honest, I don't actually think there are any mortals with skills above that. YGWV and all that, but if you are creating elf characters with a 450% bow range (since Arrow Trance just doubles the chance to hit), then I think you are on your own.

Jeff