Splitting attacks in RQG

[Mugen]

I wonder if splitting attacks of attack skill is superior to 100% in RQG has any interest, with the combination of the rule for opposed skills over 100% and the rule for multiple parries.

I know all those rules are from previous games that worked wonderfully (RQ2 for skills over 100%, Elric for multiple parries), but, to my knowledge, it's the first time they're all present in the same game.

Under RQG rules, if you split your attack skill, your opponent will be able to parry or dodge both attacks, one at full skill, and the second at either -20%, or full skill if the first attack attempt failed.

It seems to me that attacking only once versus reduced parry/dodge skill gives you a far better chance of success than the example above (and doing it with someone with a defense skill over 100% is just ridiculous).

Sure, you'll have better chance to score a crit and/or a special with 2 attacks than one, but I don't think it's worth the reduced chances of simple success.

In RQ3, your opponent needed to either forfeit his attack, or split his parry, to defend against both attacks. I think it's also how RQ2 worked.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Mugen

[jongjom]

34 minutes ago, Mugen said:

I wonder if splitting attacks of attack skill is superior to 100% in RQG has any interest, with the combination of the rule for opposed skills over 100% and the rule for multiple parries.

I know all those rules are from previous games that worked wonderfully (RQ2 for skills over 100%, Elric for multiple parries), but, to my knowledge, it's the first time they're all present in the same game.

Under RQG rules, if you split your attack skill, your opponent will be able to parry or dodge both attacks, one at full skill, and the second at either -20%, or full skill if the first attack attempt failed.

It seems to me that attacking only once versus reduced parry/dodge skill gives you a far better chance of success than the example above (and doing it with someone with a defense skill over 100% is just ridiculous).

Sure, you'll have better chance to score a crit and/or a special with 2 attacks than one, but I don't think it's worth the reduced chances of simple success.

In RQ3, your opponent needed to either forfeit his attack, or split his parry, to defend against both attacks. I think it's also how RQ2 worked.

Yes, the maths is that you are more likely to lose the fight if you split your attacks against an opponent, even worse if you split your attacks against two opponents. However, it is less detrimental if you have exceptionally high skill e.g. 190% and low enough melee SR.

Some situations may call for this risk to be taken, e.g. if you have to kill / disable your opponent quickly. 

[deleriad]

I'm pretty sure there is no situation beyond something really weird and wacky in which it is better to split attacks against the same opponent. This is due to the interaction of the very high skills rule and subsequent parries rule. In fact, it may well be the case that it is generally never a good idea to split attacks against multiple opponents. 

E.g. say it is 110% attack vs 80% parry. This decomposes to 100 vs 70 which is massively better than 60 vs 80 followed by 50 vs 60. Furthermore, given 5 SRs between attacks unless you're using a turbo-spear (in RQ the longer the weapon the faster it moves) your second attack will come after your enemy's attack. 

The only way I can see it making sense is if you have a massively superior augment to your skill compared to your enemy. E.g. say you have +50% from passions and terrain advantage and you can attack twice before your enemy can then it becomes 60+50 = 110 vs 80 (100 vs 70) followed by 100 vs 60. That is compared to 110+50 vs 80 = 100 vs 20. Someone with better stats than me can figure out which is most likely to defeat the enemy. Frankly I would choose the most likely to a sure thing and stick with 100 vs 20.

Same with fighting multiple mooks. There's not much point giving up a near guaranteed unblockable attack for two more easily defended attacks unless you have massive terrain advantage and you can attack twice before they can. In which case you have to wonder why you're even rolling dice in the first place. E.g. your skill is 200% and you have +40% to rolls. The trollkin are 40% and don't attack until SR11 with their hand-held cabbages. Your split skill becomes 100+40 vs 40 (100 vs 0) which means you should be able to kill 2 trollkin before they can hit you with a cabbage.

 

[PhilHibbs]

Yes, I think it's fairly clear that split attacks are only for multiple inferior opponents, where you need to kill them all really quickly. Shame the Fumble spell didn't make it into this edition, or that would be another great way to use this mechanic.

[FinnDeviltry]

One specific case for splitting attacks is when you are wielding a two-handed weapon with lots of base damage that will get through parries. For example, if you are a Humakti wielding a Greatsword with Truesword and Bladesharp 4 on(Free spell for all of them). Damage is 4d8 + 4 + dmg bonus (And add Strength to this?).

It does not matter if they parry successfully your split attack, as long as your base damage still wrecks them through parry and armour.

[PhilHibbs]

4 minutes ago, FinnDeviltry said:

One specific case for splitting attacks is when you are wielding a two-handed weapon with lots of base damage that will get through parries. For example, if you are a Humakti wielding a Greatsword with Truesword and Bladesharp 4 on(Free spell for all of them). Damage is 4d8 + 4 + dmg bonus (And add Strength to this?).

It does not matter if they parry successfully your split attack, as long as your base damage still wrecks them through parry and armour.

This is a good point, but they can dodge. I would say that Truesword is not stackable with Bladesharp, but it is not made clear in RQG.

[simonh]

I'm sure True Sword doesn't stack with Bladesharp, it never has in past editions. Hey, at least it isn't capped to the maximum normally rollable damage of the weapon, as in RQ2.

[FinnDeviltry]

18 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

This is a good point, but they can dodge. I would say that Truesword is not stackable with Bladesharp, but it is not made clear in RQG.

At least in the published RQ3 material they did stack, and it is not stated in RQG that they do not, so I assumed they would.

The Parry vs. Dodge is a good point too. How aware are the NPCs about the amount of damage coming their way?

"Yo Mr. NPC! You are about to be hit in the chest with a glowing greatsword. Do you Dodge at 45% or Parry at 85%?"

Versus:

"You Broo! You are about to be hit in the chest with with a 1.5 meter long iron greatsword glowing with The Unholy Light of Death Itself. If it hits you, it will do 26 points of damage. Your weapon on a succesful parry will block 12 points and you have 3 points of Cuirbouilli on your chest. If you Parry succesfully at 85%, you are still toast. You would need at least a Special Success to have any chance of making it. However, if you try to Dodge at 45% and make it, you are all good."

[Joerg]

6 hours ago, deleriad said:

I'm pretty sure there is no situation beyond something really weird and wacky in which it is better to split attacks against the same opponent. This is due to the interaction of the very high skills rule and subsequent parries rule. In fact, it may well be the case that it is generally never a good idea to split attacks against multiple opponents. 

E.g. say it is 110% attack vs 80% parry. This decomposes to 100 vs 70 which is massively better than 60 vs 80 followed by 50 vs 60.

Actually, it isn't. Using your numbers and ignoring crits and specials, 100 vs 70 gives you a 0.95*0.3=28.5% chance to land a single unparried hit, while the split attack offers you a 0.6*0.2=12% chance to get an unparried hit on your first try and a 0.5*0.4=20% chance to land an unparried hit on the second try.

Counting in crits and specials, calculation gets a little more difficult, but let's compare the chance for crits. Your chance to land an unparried crit with the undivided attack is 0.05*0.97=4.85%. Getting an unparried crit with the two other rolls would be 0.03*0.96=2.88% for the first of the split attacks and 0.03*0.97=2.91%, which is higher, too. But then your chance to fumble increases drastically.

So, mathematically it appears to make more sense to split your attacks than to go for the reduction with these numbers, assuming that you are confident in your ability to parry the counter-attack.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Joerg

[FinnDeviltry]

36 minutes ago, simonh said:

I'm sure True Sword doesn't stack with Bladesharp, it never has in past editions. Hey, at least it isn't capped to the maximum normally rollable damage of the weapon, as in RQ2.

Strangers in Prax page 27, Count Julian. Truesword and Bladesharp stack in RQ3. And unless RQG (or RQ2 in some page) specifically states that they do not, they do stack. Sounds bad but that's what you get when you get hit.

Beware of Humakti bearing Greatswords.

[PhilHibbs]

18 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Actually, it isn't. Using your numbers and ignoring crits and specials, 100 vs 70 gives you a 0.95*0.3=28.5% chance to land a single unparried hit, while the split attack offers you a 0.6*0.2=12% chance to get an unparried hit on your first try and a 0.5*0.4=20% chance to land an unparried hit on the second try.

...which gives a compound 29.6% chance of landing an unparried hit. So yes, you're right!

[Mugen]

35 minutes ago, Joerg said:

Actually, it isn't. Using your numbers and ignoring crits and specials, 100 vs 70 gives you a 0.95*0.3=28.5% chance to land a single unparried hit, while the split attack offers you a 0.6*0.2=12% chance to get an unparried hit on your first try and a 0.5*0.4=20% chance to land an unparried hit on the second try.

Note that the second parry will be at 60% only if the first attack roll succeeds. Which means there is 40% the second attack will have 10% chance to be an unparried hit (.5×.2).

So, you'd better consider a.4x.1 + .6×.2 =16% chance for the second attack.

So, there is a ~26% chance of one unparried hit, and ~0.2% chance to have 2.

Edited June 20, 2018 by Mugen

[PhilHibbs]

12 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Note that the second parry will be at 60% only if the first attack roll succeeds.

I don't think so:

Quote

The parry should be rolled whether the
attack succeeded or not, for some successful parries can affect
a weapon used in an unsuccessful attack.

You don't get to choose whether to parry after they already rolled to hit. You have to declare the parry before the roll, and you have to roll even if they miss.

Edited June 20, 2018 by PhilHibbs

[Atgxtg]

I think I'd be more worried about upping the chance of a fumble from 1% to around 4%. That probably not a risk I'd want to take under most circumstances.

[PhilHibbs]

1 minute ago, Atgxtg said:

I think I'd be more worried about upping the chance of a fumble from 1% to around 4%. That probably not a risk I'd want to take under most circumstances.

It's actually worse than that, 4.88% chance of a fumble. So yes, that's a big drawback of splitting the attack, but sometimes risks are worthwhile. I love the idea of trashing someone's shield with two or three hits in a single round.

[Mugen]

9 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

It's actually worse than that, 4.88% chance of a fumble. So yes, that's a big drawback of splitting the attack, but sometimes risks are worthwhile. I love the idea of trashing someone's shield with two or three hits in a single round.

That's an interesting scenario : what happens when a character wants to break his opponent's weapon ?

I guess he doesn't have to wait his opponent succeeds at his parry roll, isn't it ? Otherwise, it would be more difficult for the character with a skill over 100% to do it.

10 hours ago, PhilHibbs said:

I don't think so:

You don't get to choose whether to parry after they already rolled to hit. You have to declare the parry before the roll, and you have to roll even if they miss.

I stand corrected. I actually prefer when you're required to roll parry in this case.

[deleriad]

17 hours ago, Joerg said:

Actually, it isn't. Using your numbers and ignoring crits and specials, 100 vs 70 gives you a 0.95*0.3=28.5% chance to land a single unparried hit, while the split attack offers you a 0.6*0.2=12% chance to get an unparried hit on your first try and a 0.5*0.4=20% chance to land an unparried hit on the second try.

Fair point. Slightly easier way to think about it:

You can also slightly improve your chances by making your first attack the smaller one (50 vs 80) then having 60 vs 60 for the second one. 

The numbers are closer than I expected. In fact the situation is the other way round to what I thought: the greater the difference the more damaging to your chances of success splitting is.

E.g. 140 attack vs 80 parry works out at 100 vs 40 or if splitting  (70 vs 80 then 70 vs 60). Unsplit, your chance of a successful unparried attack is 57% while your chance of a successful unparried attack when splitting is 14% followed by 28%. 

[simonh]

Aside from which, splitting attacks is fun! You get to roll to attack twice, watch you opponent sweat twice, potentially roll damage twice, potentially get double duty from your magical offensive enhancements and are the awesome object of envy of all your lesser skilled allies. Sure sometimes the numbers don't quite crunch in your favour and I wouldn't necessarily do it all the time especially against a highly skilled opponent, but Huzza! Two attacks!

Edited June 21, 2018 by simonh

[RosenMcStern]

20 hours ago, Joerg said:

Actually, it isn't. Using your numbers and ignoring crits and specials, 100 vs 70 gives you a 0.95*0.3=28.5% chance to land a single unparried hit, while the split attack offers you a 0.6*0.2=12% chance to get an unparried hit on your first try and a 0.5*0.4=20% chance to land an unparried hit on the second try.

Counting in crits and specials, calculation gets a little more difficult, but let's compare the chance for crits. Your chance to land an unparried crit with the undivided attack is 0.05*0.97=4.85%. Getting an unparried crit with the two other rolls would be 0.03*0.96=2.88% for the first of the split attacks and 0.03*0.97=2.91%, which is higher, too. But then your chance to fumble increases drastically.

So, mathematically it appears to make more sense to split your attacks than to go for the reduction with these numbers, assuming that you are confident in your ability to parry the counter-attack.

Yeah, but it is a 70,4% chance of not hitting with the split attack (0,88 x 0,80) versus a 71,5% with the single attack. It is marginally better, does not take into account the risk of succumbing to the counterattack by rolling 96-00 on your own parry, and most likely other combination of skills favour the single attack. For instance, with deleriad's second example of 140 vs 80, the single attack has a 57% chance of hitting unparried, while the split attack is [(100 - 0,7 x 0,2 ) x (100 - 0,7 x0,4) = [0,86 x 0.72] = 61,9% chance of failure, i.e. 48,1% chance of success. Not a good idea, it is almost 10% less.

But the main point for me is... do you really think that all these calculations will cause less indecision paralysis than picking an effect after rolling ? Because some players will not make up their mind without calculating all possible chances.

 

[PhilHibbs]

7 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

But the main point for me is... do you really think that all these calculations will cause less indecision paralysis than picking an effect after rolling ? Because some players will not make up their mind without calculating all possible chances.

So long as they do it before the session starts, I don't mind. Indecision paralysis (were we even discussing that?) means you aren't attacking. Of course if it's an inexperienced player who is just a bit overwhelmed by the situation then that's different, but the kind of player who is capable of figuring all this out can take responsibility for their dithering. Sure, there are options. Sure, those options have numerical consequences. If someone wants to get hung up on the minimaxing of the numbers then fine, some people enjoy that, including me sometimes. Although I played MRQ2 and enjoyed the combat effects, I don't miss them. I'd rather have a rich set of flexible mechanics than a bullet list that nearly always boiled down to "called shot to the head".

Edited June 21, 2018 by PhilHibbs

[Joerg]

24 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

Yeah, but it is a 70,4% chance of not hitting with the split attack (0,88 x 0,80) versus a 71,5% with the single attack.

I crushed the numbers only to see how much better the unsplit deal would have been, and I was astonished to find that it was more or less the same for the first set of numbers, with a slight chance to do damage twice as opposed to only once.

Depending on the parry weapon, with split attacks you have twice the chance to wear that down to only a few AP so that even parried hits will carry through a bit. The increased chance to fumble hits both opponents, and with non-mathematical rounding the players are half as prone to fumbles as their NPC opponents.

 

24 minutes ago, RosenMcStern said:

But the main point for me is... do you really think that all these calculations will cause less indecision paralysis than picking an effect after rolling ? Because some players will not make up their mind without calculating all possible chances.

Sure. So, if you are playing a passionate Orlanthi, going in with a flurry of multiple attacks feels like the way to go, whereas the cool controlled Humakti might be going for the single, decisive strike.

I was merely curious how the reduction mechanism worked out.

Seeing a few examples with the numbers crunched shows that for the numbers range in the first example, it doesn't matter much, whereas for the second example the big reduction on parry makes the single attack worth the while. Let the rest be guided by roleplaying rather than ruleplaying.

With my style of GMing, the players wouldn't know their opponent's parry skills anyway, so they would have to guesstimate which method to use.