Really high skills (skills over 100%)

[PhilHibbs]

13 minutes ago, Psullie said:

Not saying I'm correct but I'd GM that Broo encounter slightly differently. but you raise a valid point

Sure. Grievously contrived, guilty as charged. It was going to be even worse, with an infinite loop of "Split attck!" "One of them parries, you can't!" "Ok, single attack on the other!" "It will dodge, so you can split!"

Edited June 13, 2018 by PhilHibbs

[Jeff]

You all are aware that this is essentially the exact same rule for skills over 100% from RQ2? In RQ2, skills over 100% was exclusive to Rune Lords, now it is a rule of general application. 

[Psullie]

7 minutes ago, Jeff said:

You all are aware that this is essentially the exact same rule for skills over 100% from RQ2? In RQ2, skills over 100% was exclusive to Rune Lords, now it is a rule of general application. 

Yep, but now with Augments and a much better chance of actually playing high powered characters the opportunity for this rule to come into play has increased 

[Zit]

Not exactly, if I recall well. The higher skill skill was not reduced down to 100%, you just removed the part over 100 from the opponent's skill. Actually the case with both opponents above 100% was not clearly stated in RQ2, but you could just deduce that for instance 150 vs 120 -> 150-20 vs 120-50 = 130 vs 70. The new rule makes it 100 vs 70. Both work, the old way keeps higher chances for crits (+1.5% in our example) and specials (+6%) and advantages the highest skilled, but gets complicated when more than 2 opponents are fighting. The new rule makes it easier with less maths. Since it does not fundamentally changes things but simplifies, I'm ok with it.

[deleriad]

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

Another problem with the skill adjustment is that other characters' choices within the melee round then affect your statement of intent at the beginning.

IIRC your ability to split is based on "natural skill" only. Hang on, I'll do this properly and find the actual text "Thus, an adventurer can only split attacks
with a natural skill rating of 100% or higher with the weapon (magical benefits or augments that bring a skill over 100% do not count in this case)." p202

So presumably this means that if you are 120% and attack 60/60 then Bladsharp 4 makes you 80/80. Alternately fighting someone with skill 130 would make you 30/30. Axe Trance 5 makes you 110/110 etc. Conversely if your skill is 90% and you have Fanaticism (135%) you can't split attacks (ditto beserker).  I presume the intent of the rules is that you can't reduce your *natural ability* below 50% per attack but that any subsequent modifiers affect that split natural value not the original one. 

 

[PhilHibbs]

4 minutes ago, deleriad said:

IIRC your ability to split is based on "natural skill" only. Hang on, I'll do this properly and find the actual text "Thus, an adventurer can only split attacks
with a natural skill rating of 100% or higher with the weapon (magical benefits or augments that bring a skill over 100% do not count in this case)." p202

Ok, fair point, looks like my example was wrong. So if you split your 140% attack to two 70%s, and then you find out that you're being parried or dodged by two enemies with 120%, you get two 30% attacks. That's going to be a real kicker! So don't split your attacks unless you are really sure how tough the opponents are!

Edited June 13, 2018 by PhilHibbs

[deleriad]

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

So don't split your attacks unless you are really sure how tough the opponents are!

Probably true of life in general...

[Grievous]

16 minutes ago, deleriad said:

Probably true of life in general...

There is a reason there tends to be a feeling out period in any serious fight (perhaps excluding many of those that explode out of rampant emotion). If you have two (or more) people coming at you, that feeling out is going to be pretty difficult to accomplish (as is, realistically, any one-against-many fight unless you happen to hold some other type of clear advantage, such as a longer weapon, etc).

Edited June 13, 2018 by Grievous

[Psullie]

I'd be inclined to reduce any skills before the spilt. So my 130 v 130 would reduce my combat to 100 with two attacks at 50/50 not 35/35 or 20/20. If the opponent was good enough to reduce my skill below 100 then that would prevent me from making two attacks as both need to be 50+ 

[deleriad]

8 minutes ago, Psullie said:

I'd be inclined to reduce any skills before the spilt. So my 130 v 130 would reduce my combat to 100 with two attacks at 50/50 not 35/35 or 20/20. If the opponent was good enough to reduce my skill below 100 then that would prevent me from making two attacks as both need to be 50+ 

Except that is not the rules as written and would be a house rule. There are very good reasons why it is written as it is because if you start applying some modifiers before the split and some after,  you're in for a whole world of confusion. It's perfectly fine as a house rule that lets you tweak the game to the way you want it but bad for a rulebook rule because you end up having to write follow up rules, clarifications and so on. 

From a purely rules as rules perspective there are no lack of problems with splitting, high skills modifiers and strike ranks and how they all interact in a horrible mess but that's a whole other issue. In terms of what is in RQG then basing the split on "natural skill" (a term that is never defined or used anywhere else) is probably the best way to go.

[PhilHibbs]

27 minutes ago, Psullie said:

 If the opponent was good enough to reduce my skill below 100 then that would prevent me from making two attacks as both need to be 50+ 

Which would lead to exactly the time travel loop paradox that I described. You'd need to know what the opponent is going to declare before you can declare yourself, and vice versa. The RQG rules don't have that problem. I'm not entirely happy with having two mechanics for solving the same problem, but I have yet to try it out in game, and skills over 100 are not something I typically come across in my games anyway so I'm not worrying about it too much for my own sake.

Edited June 13, 2018 by PhilHibbs

[Psullie]

1 hour ago, deleriad said:

Except that is not the rules as written and would be a house rule. There are very good reasons why it is written as it is because if you start applying some modifiers before the split and some after,  you're in for a whole world of confusion. It's perfectly fine as a house rule that lets you tweak the game to the way you want it but bad for a rulebook rule because you end up having to write follow up rules, clarifications and so on. 

From a purely rules as rules perspective there are no lack of problems with splitting, high skills modifiers and strike ranks and how they all interact in a horrible mess but that's a whole other issue. In terms of what is in RQG then basing the split on "natural skill" (a term that is never defined or used anywhere else) is probably the best way to go.

Fair enough, but how does it work the other way. If my 'natural' skill of 100+% is reduced to less than 100 do I lose the ability to make two attacks? Also if, for example my skill of 150% is attacking a mook with 60%, then my choice is attack once with 100 v10 (happy with this) or is it two attacks at 75v60 or two at 50v10?

1 hour ago, PhilHibbs said:

Which would lead to exactly the time travel loop paradox that I described. You'd need to know what the opponent is going to declare before you can declare yourself, and vice versa. The RQG rules don't have that problem. I'm not entirely happy with having two mechanics for solving the same problem, but I have yet to try it out in game, and skills over 100 are not something I typically come across in my games anyway so I'm not worrying about it too much for my own sake.

I'm not conned about the Statement of Intent phase as I view this as 'subject to action' any way so as a GM I've no problem with 'you dive in hoping to make two attacks but the xyz are far tougher than you anticipated so you only get one'. I'd like to start including powerful NPC's with skills 100+ because I like the whole concept of they are really good so your chance of success is less 

[PhilHibbs]

5 minutes ago, Psullie said:

Fair enough, but how does it work the other way. If my 'natural' skill of 100+% is reduced to less than 100 do I lose the ability to make two attacks? Also if, for example my skill of 150% is attacking a mook with 60%, then my choice is attack once with 100 v10 (happy with this) or is it two attacks at 75v60 or two at 50v10?

Good questions! Regarding the second, I think it's 75 v 60. Splitting is before modifiers. Reduction of skills over 100 is after modifiers. In the first case you can split your attacks and they both get reduced by whatever penalties you are suffering.

One exception to the bonuses rule is if the bonus is to your characteristics and therefore your category modifier. This gets in well before any of the rules are applied as it affects your actual skill number.

Edited June 13, 2018 by PhilHibbs

[Mugen]

2 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

Good questions! Regarding the second, I think it's 75 v 60. Splitting is before modifiers. Reduction of skills over 100 is after modifiers. In the first case you can split your attacks and they both get reduced by whatever penalties you are suffering.

That doesn't seem like a very interesting thing to do.

With one attack, I have 85.5% chance to hit (150% vs 60% reduced to 100% vs 10%)

If I split my skill into 2 attacks, each have 30% chance to hit (.75*.4), which means 9% chance to hit twice (.3*.3), 49% (.7*.7) chance to miss both attacks and 42% chance to hit once.

EDIT: I didn't count the fact crits and specials will be more frequent. But I doubt they're worth the reduced chance to hit.

EDIT2: Hmm... I didn't take into account the fact the second parry will be at -20%. So, second attack will have 45% chance to hit.

Which means 13.5% chance to hit twice, 21.175% chance to miss both and 59.325 chance to hit once. Much better. But is it worth it ?

EDIT 3: If the other character now has 100% skill, it's really not worth it, as the chance to hit with first attack is 3.75% and 15% with the second attack.

Edited June 13, 2018 by Mugen

[deleriad]

1 hour ago, Psullie said:

Fair enough, but how does it work the other way. If my 'natural' skill of 100+% is reduced to less than 100 do I lose the ability to make two attacks? Also if, for example my skill of 150% is attacking a mook with 60%, then my choice is attack once with 100 v10 (happy with this) or is it two attacks at 75v60 or two at 50v10?

I'm not conned about the Statement of Intent phase as I view this as 'subject to action' any way so as a GM I've no problem with 'you dive in hoping to make two attacks but the xyz are far tougher than you anticipated so you only get one'. I'd like to start including powerful NPC's with skills 100+ because I like the whole concept of they are really good so your chance of success is less 

I am reading your "natural skill"  as the skill before modifiers so it can't be raised or lowered by modifiers. (Spells which change characteristics and therefore ability modifiers will presumably be an edge case.)

[Atgxtg]

Just now, deleriad said:

I am reading your "natural skill"  as the skill before modifiers so it can't be raised or lowered by modifiers. (Spells which change characteristics and therefore ability modifiers will presumably be an edge case.)

Me too. I see it as a case of somebody being good good enough with a weapon to be able to do it as opposed to success chance. But, I wouldn't mind doing it the way Pendragon does, it's much simpler.

[Atgxtg]

3 hours ago, deleriad said:

Except that is not the rules as written and would be a house rule. There are very good reasons why it is written as it is because if you start applying some modifiers before the split and some after,  you're in for a whole world of confusion.

I think it isn't a house rule and your kinda of stuck with it. What happens if someone is fighting two opponents and has some sort of advantage, like height, but only against one opponent? Then the height modifier would have to apply after the split for that one opponent, right?

[Pentallion]

And if thered been an internet back when RQ2 came out you'd heard people disliking the rule back then too once thay had more experience with it.

Anyways its a yrqmv thing. 

[Atgxtg]

38 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

And if thered been an internet back when RQ2 came out you'd heard people disliking the rule back then too once thay had more experience with it.

Anyways its a yrqmv thing. 

You didn't need an internet, that just streamlines the process. It's no secret what the fans don't like about an RPG. For instance most people didn't like RQ3's Fatigue and Sorcery rules. And even the internet only speeds things up so much. In the end it's probably not so much if one or two people gripe about something but what happens down the road, when a large percentage of people just dump a rule or something. 

 

 

[soltakss]

On 6/12/2018 at 4:21 PM, PhilHibbs said:

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

That's good, I hadn't spotted that. We have houseruled this for a long time, it made no sense that I could split against 2 people but not against the same person.

[soltakss]

On 6/12/2018 at 6:48 PM, Jeff said:

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.

We played an RQ2 campaign that started with roll-ups with no background experience and ended up with most PCs in the 150-250 range and a couple in 250-350 range. Make a 350% PC Berserk against Chaos and you get 700%, add a dollop of Crush and Bludgeon and you get another 60, giving 760%. One PC had over 400% Sense Chaos. So, it is deifnitely achievable, it just takes time and effort.

[soltakss]

9 hours ago, Jeff said:

You all are aware that this is essentially the exact same rule for skills over 100% from RQ2? In RQ2, skills over 100% was exclusive to Rune Lords, now it is a rule of general application. 

Yes, the same rule but better explained. We liked it in RQ2 and called in Anti-Parry, as it reduced the chance of the opponent parrying. It made berserk useful when fighting non-Rune Lords.

[Atgxtg]

10 hours ago, Jeff said:

You all are aware that this is essentially the exact same rule for skills over 100% from RQ2? In RQ2, skills over 100% was exclusive to Rune Lords, now it is a rule of general application. 

Attack over 100% reducing the opponent's parry? I don't recall that in RQ2. 

[soltakss]

41 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Attack over 100% reducing the opponent's parry? I don't recall that in RQ2. 

Oh, yes, definitely there. 

We played that you reduced the opponent's parry but your own skill didn't change, so slightly different to RQG, but RQG makes more sense.

In the RQ2 Classic PDF version, as that is searchable, P53 has Anto_parry for Lockpicking, so a Craftsman with 120% causes a lock picker with 30% to have a 10% chance of success, also P60 "An opponent’s parry is also reduced against a 100%+ attack. Thus a character with a normal parry of 75%, fghting a Rune Lord with a 120% attack, has only a 55% chance of parrying the Rune Lord (120-100 = 20,75-20 = 55)."

[Atgxtg]

Yup, it is. I'll be a Baboon's uncle.