Really high skills (skills over 100%)

[Atgxtg]

Sorry had to post this again.

1 minute ago, Atgxtg said:

Wow! 900%

 

[Pentallion]

This rule has nothing to do with "parameters"  it sucks because 1: it destroys tension and 2: it destroys maximum game fun.

The high levels we attained by the end of a 70 year campaign are beside the point.  These are fundamentals being broken by this rule.

Theres no tension nor game fun due to this rule.

Let high %'s stand.  The higher specials and crits win out and theres multiple attacks to be had.  

This rule is uneccessary.

[Sean_RDP]

7 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

This rule has nothing to do with "parameters"  it sucks because 1: it destroys tension and 2: it destroys maximum game fun.

The high levels we attained by the end of a 70 year campaign are beside the point.  These are fundamentals being broken by this rule.

Theres no tension nor game fun due to this rule.

Let high %'s stand.  The higher specials and crits win out and theres multiple attacks to be had.  

This rule is uneccessary.

What rule is unnecessary? Splitting attacks? Reducing the % to hit? I am not sure from context which one(s) you were talking about

[Pentallion]

19 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Wow! 900%

Not naturally.  There was a thread here last year about how arrow trance and I forget the other spell could combine for super high %s.  Sorry, old brain cells drawing a blank right now.

[Pentallion]

4 minutes ago, Sean_RDP said:

What rule is unnecessary? Splitting attacks? Reducing the % to hit? I am not sure from context which one(s) you were talking about

Reducing both combatants skills until the highest is 100%

[Marc]

The way the rule reads( if I've understood it correctly ) is that you have to either split attacks, or reduce both combatants skills.  

I can definitely see scenarios where I would MUCH rather keep the higher chance of a crit or special.  Say to get past the iron plate with Protection 4 and Shield 2 on the Rune Lord you're fighting, which means any normal attack success just bounces off.    

[Atgxtg]

8 minutes ago, Pentallion said:

Not naturally.  There was a thread here last year about how arrow trance and I forget the other spell could combine for super high %s.  Sorry, old brain cells drawing a blank right now.

That's okay. It's just something way beyond anything I have ever seen. 'd have imagined that by that point the high frequency of criticals and automatic specials would have wiped out the group. Then there is the thought of such a character having, say 9 points of Multimissle to go with it...

Just the though of a character starting, just starting in RQG with Bow at 90%, Arrow Trace as cult rune magic, and a few points of Multimisssile is entertaining. 

[Mugen]

Hmmm... so no-one played a Diamond caste mostali with a 2000% skill, really ?

No, I didn't either...

[Atgxtg]

Oh, and Pentallion, I have to back Jeff on this one. You're playing beyond the skill range that the game was intended for. I think  Steve Perrin used additional tiers of success beyond critical to address ultra high skills (i.e 1/10 critical chance). That would probably be the way to go if I ever ran a group that got up to that level. Not that I can imagine that. 

[Pentallion]

But Jeff's reply isn't relevant.  I only referenced the level of skills my players have played at to show we have a lot of experience dealing with %'s over 100 and to a person they hate this rule whereas I suspect whoever wrote this rule does not have a great deal of experience with playing skills over 100% for an extended period of time.  And my players tried to live with this rule twice.

And believe me, our recent campaigns are much shorter so they don't get anywhere near even 200% anymore.  That was just the Argrath Saga and one dwarf adventure.  Our campaigns tend to be much shorter nowadays and this rule is not fun.  Having 100% while my opponent is reduced to 30%?  not fun.  No tension.  The reverse?  being the GM with 100% skill and the player has 30%?   Not fun, wrong kind of tension.  But taking 170% skilled character with 34% special and 9% crit up against a 100% character retains both fun and tension.

Oh, and one of my players made a good point:  In RQ3 it was most  certainly well within Runequest parameters.  400 year old dwarves are a thing.  Immortal God Learners are a thing.  Delecti is a thing.  Harrek is a thing.  Gaining long life spans and going on 70 year campaigns is very much a thing.  Going up in skills every week is a thing.  Going up in skills by heroquesting is a thing.  So 400% skills for a very long campaign is very much within RQ parameters when everything you meet that has those levels of skills are very much a thing.

I love that in RQG they only go up once a season, but that doesn't change that we won't be using the over 100% rule.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Pentallion

[Atgxtg]

Then I think you might have went a little too far in your example. At 900% I be more surprised in the game didn't break down in some way. For what it's worth, I've got misgivings about the rule too. Not so much mechanically-I think it works and makes sense logically, and even helps with the long sequences of "Parry, Parry" that can crop up at Rune Level, but I just don't see my players liking and accepting it. The first time a PC with a 150% blows a parry and gets killed or maimed because his skill got reduced is going to be the death knell of this rule amongst my players. I'll never hear the end of it. And, on their behalf, they will have a point, because there isn't anything they can do about it. Once they realize they are in that situation, it's too late. 

Fortunately, I have time to reflect on this stuff before I start my next campaign, and decide what to houserule and what to at the least warn people about. 

[Psullie]

What about the reverse, when your middling character with 85% parry runs into a serious nasty with an Attack of 130%. Sure you lose 30% off your parry but the incoming chance of a crit is lowered. Or worse when your character blows an augment and takes a 50% penalty and your opponent crit's theirs... I think there would be ample opportunity to explore this rule before the PC's hit hero level.

I'd like to play it as is for a while though before I make any house rules - especially in non-combat situations 

[Jusmak]

3 hours ago, 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.

I agree with this. This rule in a way makes glorantha too safe for heroes. I used to play RQ so, that every encounter is always a risk, no matter of skill level. If risk/tension is taken away, it is nomore RQ/Glorantha and fun.  I came into same conclusion, when tried RQ6/Mythras. Great troll with attack 70 % should still be a threat to consider to anybody. It is just, because of my nostalgic memories, that trolls are always dangerous. Now it takes only one character at 170 skill to make that troll helpless as an infant, which a bit violates my image of Glorantha, and how dangerous adventuring in that world was. One memory, when my high level ogre warrior was skulking at streets, there came beggars trying to mug and rob him. He came to meet them and eat them... At first round my ogre fumbled and part of his plate chest armor just falled. At same round there came dagger attack, which happened to strike chest... Luckily, there was a friend nearby to help and carry poor ogre away. If there was that skill decrease rule used, ogre's fall would not have happened.

 

[kaydet]

Sometimes you just aren't good enough -- adventurers should be made to remember that.

As Rick said in the other thread... "it is the doom of men that they forget."

[simonh]

1 hour ago, Jusmak said:

I came into same conclusion, when tried RQ6/Mythras. Great troll with attack 70 % should still be a threat to consider to anybody. It is just, because of my nostalgic memories, that trolls are always dangerous. Now it takes only one character at 170 skill to make that troll helpless as an infant, which a bit violates my image of Glorantha, and how dangerous adventuring in that world was. 

Actually that’s a pretty convincing argument. I have been in favour of the ‘rebase highest skill to 100%’ rule, and it’s worked fine for me with characters up to about 130%, but I can see it getting to be a problem much beyond that.

Maybe cap the negative modifier to half chance? That’s just another rule you need to remember, but should only come up in games where your characters are already at very high skill levels.

Edited June 12, 2018 by simonh

[Atgxtg]

1 hour ago, kaydet said:

As Rick said in the other thread... "it is the doom of men that they forget."

Forget Excalibur anyway. One of, if not the best Arthurian Films. 

 

1 hour ago, simonh said:

Actually that’s a pretty convincing argument. I have been in favour of the ‘rebase highest skill to 100%’ rule, and it’s worked fine for me with characters up to about 130%, but I can see it getting to be a problem much beyond that.

Maybe cap the negative modifier to half chance? That’s just another rule you need to remember, but should only come up in games where your characters are already at very high skill levels.

I was thinking of using the die switching mechanic from CoC7. That way the lower skilled character is still worse off (that 36 just because a 63), but can still succeed at his rolls, if his skill is high. That way the 70% Great Troll still succeeds half of the time. And 2d8+2D6 half of the time is bad all the time.

Edited June 12, 2018 by Atgxtg

[Atgxtg]

 I just realized what this rule does for Berserk and Fanaticism. In the old rules if two characters were at 100% and one went Berserk, he had a 200% attack, but couldn't defend. In RQG, his attack stays the same and neither character can defend (okay, the second guy gets the default 5%).  

[trystero]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I was thinking of using the die switching mechanic from CoC7. That way the lower skilled character is still worse off (that 36 just because a 63), but can still succeed at his rolls, if his skill is high.

I'm not sure what mechanic from CoC 7e you're referring to here.

[Atgxtg]

14 minutes ago, trystero said:

I'm not sure what mechanic from CoC 7e you're referring to here.

Die switching to adjust for difficulty. At least I think it's from CoC7. What is means is that when a task is of easy difficulty you use the better of the D100 as the tens die and the other as the ones die. When a task is difficult, you use the worse of the D100 as the tens die and the other as the ones die. 

 

So if you rolled a 48, and the task were difficult you'd end up with an 84. If you rolled a 72, but the task were easy you'd have a 27. What nice about this approach is that while it does lower your chances of success and success levels, it's a bit kinder to those with high skills. Someone with a skill over 100% is still going to get a success (baring 96-00), since their roll will be under 100, but crticals and specials will be much less likely. So in this sort of situation they'd still  parry, but it probably would only be a normal success. 

[trystero]

1 minute ago, Atgxtg said:

Die switching to adjust for difficulty. At least I think it's from CoC7. What is means is that when a task is of easy difficulty you use the better of the D100 as the tens die and the other as the ones die. When a task is difficult, you use the worse of the D100 as the tens die and the other as the ones die. 

I think that must be from some other game. CoC 7e has bonus dice (roll two or more tens dice and keep the better or best result) and penalty dice (roll two or more tens dice and keep the worse or worst result), but no swapping of dice that I'm aware of. Clever idea, though.

[Atgxtg]

43 minutes ago, trystero said:

I think that must be from some other game

It is. LOL! It's from the one I'm working on. I took the bonus dice idea from CoC and figured I could accomplish pretty much the same thing and save a die roll by switching. Then I forgot I came up with it. olskool's going to have a good laugh when he sees this. 

Edited June 13, 2018 by Atgxtg

[Jusmak]

Funny thing was, that skill decrease rule did not matter, when playing RQ6 in Korantia world. I did not have opinion how that world should work or behave. Most easy and simple way to deal with it, is to have it as optional rule and not use it. I think it works quit ok up to 130 %, but even then it makes opponents at skill level up to 40 % too weak. Underdogs should have at least a chance, was it a young giant or playing character. If typical skillrange is between 60-120, that may be fine. Spells like bladesharp, shimmer, fanatism, berserk are a bit too easy ways to make things go a bit broken.

Instead using skilldecrease, I like more doing harder maneuvers at higher skill level, like aimed blows, and include unarmed combat into fighting. 

Only reason to use skilldecrease is to have highlevel fights more interesting and bring % skill into scale, where throwing a 100 sided dice matters, and not only wait for critical or special. Other way around is to start from lower values, and there is no need for a rule for a long time. But when somebody eventually gets there, benefits are... fights may actually get more dull. If skilldecrease rule is used and chracters progress even more, things may get worse than they were.

I like to think more about tactical differences like knockback/down. There you effectively do parrying harder. Then you do the difference between combatants skill by playing and not by rules.

[RosenMcStern]

5 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

 I just realized what this rule does for Berserk and Fanaticism. In the old rules if two characters were at 100% and one went Berserk, he had a 200% attack, but couldn't defend. In RQG, his attack stays the same and neither character can defend (okay, the second guy gets the default 5%).  

Forget Berserk, atg. As Hannu Kokko pointed out here

the real showstoppers are Axe Trance and Sword Trance, as you do not need to start from 100% level to reach a point where you can drop the skill of rune-level opponents to effectively zero. If I read the rules correctly, I mean.

I have yet to see how it works in actual play, and this has such a low priority on my to do list that it could never happen. But one of my eyebrows is already raised after reading this thread.

[PhilHibbs]

<Removed contrived example, that turned out to be wrong anyway - seems that modified chances can be below 50% after the split>

Edited June 13, 2018 by PhilHibbs

[Psullie]

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

First off I'd suggest that the Broo are highly skilled and will reduce your attack skills. But still offer the option of two attacks.

Assuming two attacks then 140 -> 100 & 130 --> 90 - both of P1's attacks are at 50% v's Broo Parry of 90 

As for P2 - he's already engaged with two Broo with A & P so his skill is 110 - 30 = 80 so doesn't have the chase to spilt attacks.

They way I see it is that it is never good to be outclassed - attacking opponents whose skills are 100+ and greater than yours reduces your characters options.