Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
10baseT

Rules Clarification Question, Sleep, Attacks 100%+

Recommended Posts

Good evening folks, just came back from a fun session of Runequest. I have a few rule questions for the collective:

*The Sleep spell, does it affect vampires, or zombies for that matter?
(Checking the Bestiary, we couldn't find evidence either way)

*Attack skills over 100%, does Attacker they keep their critical and special percentages based on their skill that's over 100%?

Example, if i have attack at 150%, even though i go down to 100% attack, then minus 50% from my opponents parry, does does my critical stay at 8% and special at 30%, which are based on my 150%?
(The page 202 example, 2nd bullet point upper left, points to yes that your critical and special would be based on the 150%. But the sentence "the chance of a special or critical success continues to increase or decrease, based on the final modified chance of success", seems to contradict.

*Shadow Cat base rip attack damage, is it really 3d6?

On page 159 of the Bestiary, a Shadow Cat does base rip damage of 3d6  (+damage bonus). A Shadow Cat has an average SIZ of 3-4. A Sabre Tooth Tiger has a base rip damage of 2d8 (+damage bonus). Something isn't jiving i think. The base rip for a Shadow Cat is too high. (I understand it has an average damage bonus of -d4, but still, that base seems too high for a Shadow Cat rip).

Edited by 10baseT
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As with other skills or abilities, the final modified value is always the one used to determine the chance of special or critical successes, as well as fumbles."

So,yes, your critical, special attacks as well as your fumble scores are always based on your final chances of success.

As for the Alynxes 3D6 sounds very high given that shadow cats come in very variable sizes, but even if those stats deal only with the largest specimens, lions, pumas or saber-tooth cats deal "only" 2D8. Maybe there will be an erratum about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jps said:

So,yes, your critical, special attacks as well as your fumble scores are always based on your final chances of success.

Meaning that, in combat, you can never have more than a 5% crit chance and 20% special chance?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Crel said:

Meaning that, in combat, you can never have more than a 5% crit chance and 20% special chance?

If the opponent is parrying or dodging, then yes. If they are not, then you use the full attack chance.

Although it seems a little unfair if someone with 5% dodge dodges someone with 200% attack, the attacker only has a 5% critical chance. If they didn't dodge then the critical chance would be 10%. I think the sensible thing to do is never to reduce the attacker's >100% skill by more than the defender's skill. I suspect that little consideration was given to very high skills vs very low skills, the "high skills" rules are designed for somewhat-equivalent participants.

Edited by PhilHibbs
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

I suspect that little consideration was given to very high skills vs very low skills, the "high skills" rules are designed for somewhat-equivalent participants.

Yeah, I noticed that from the Bestiary. It seems like the game in general doesn't expect Attack% over 120% or 150% from adventurers. Coming from RQ3 it feels like a big change, where Ralzakark and the Crimson Bat had hundreds of Attack%.

Speaking of the Crimson Bat, it still feels really weird to me that, RAW, an adventurer with Dodge 175% always avoids the Bat's Bite 75%.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Crel said:

Speaking of the Crimson Bat, it still feels really weird to me that, RAW, an adventurer with Dodge 175% always avoids the Bat's Bite 75%.

You only have to be better at dodging than the people around to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concerning really high scores, I think it's fair to say that once you've reduced you opponent' skill to 5% (the minimum chance to hit or to dodge) you stop reducing your own score. This would mean that someone with 200% to hit versus a defender with a 80% chance to parry, would reduce the parry by 75% and would be left with a 125% attack score. Sounds logical but I haven't checked if the rule support this interpretation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Crel said:

Speaking of the Crimson Bat, it still feels really weird to me that, RAW, an adventurer with Dodge 175% always avoids the Bat's Bite 75%.

Unless he rolls 96+ :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Crel said:

Meaning that, in combat, you can never have more than a 5% crit chance and 20% special chance?

jps quoted only a portion of the text from page 202, so it might be confusing.

Here is the passage (the rules section on "Combat with Skills Above 100%" begins on p. 201, and continues to 202):

Quote

While the actual chance of hitting remains no better than 95% (due to rolls of 96–00 failing), the chance of a special or critical success continues to increase or decrease, based on the final modified chance of success. As with other skills or abilities, the final modified value is always the one used to determine the chance of special or critical successes, as well as fumbles. Thus, a Wind Lord with a 150% sword skill has a 30% of a special success, and an 8% chance of a critical hit.

So, "final chance of success" refers to the full value of the ability before the value is dropped 100% in a conflict.

The passage above (from page 202) is a clarification of the text on page 144 which introduces the rules about abilities over 100%:

Quote

While actual chance of success remains no better than 95%, the chance of a special or critical success is based on the final modified chance when making an opposed roll.

 

Edited by creativehum
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, creativehum said:

So, "final chance of success" refers to the full value of the ability before the value is dropped 100% in a conflict.

Hmmm, I'm finding it hard to believe that that is correct. I'll have to read the rules carefully this evening. I guess that would be ok... two high-skilled fighters keeping their un-modified critical chances... actually, I rather like it! I hope you are right!

It does lead to the rather odd case of a fight with 200% vs 100%, where the participant with 100% is reduced to 5%, all of which are criticals! But... why not?

Edited by PhilHibbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Eric Christian Berg said:

I think it is because the drop to 100% isn't considered a modifier.

Exactly.

I'm not sure how one could read the example from page 202 (quoted above) and read it any other way.

 

Also, here is the example from page 144, where the rules for over 100% are introduced (I missed it earlier): 

Quote

Example: The Lunar warrior-magician described above with 120% Kopis skill has a 24% chance of a special success, and a 6% chance of a critical success. If his skill is reduced to 100% (while reducing his opponent’s skill by –20%), his chance of a special success is based on 100%, and thus a 20% chance of a special and a 5% chance of a critical.

This seems to contradict the example on page 202. I really don't know what to make of this. (There's a lot to love in RQG, but the more I dig into the rules to prepare to play the more... well, aggravated might not be an inappropriate word.)

 

48 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

It does lead to the rather odd case of a fight with 200% vs 100%, where the participant with 100% is reduced to 5%, all of which are criticals! But... why not?

I didn't understand this at first, but you're right, if we're applying the rules and example from page 202.

My read on this is that if someone so outmatched does succeed against his opponent, he'll have to be amazing to make it happen!

Edited by creativehum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The chance for a Critical or Special is based on the final modified target number. Reductions for >100% are considered Modifiers. So the best one can hope for with Opposed or Combat rolls is 5% and 20% respectively. Also the reduction works until the highest value is 100%. So a 15% v 155% would become -40% v 100% (yes the -40% still has a 5% chance of success, a 1% chance of Critical and no chance of a special, Fumble on a 95+). a 250% v 325% = 25% v 100% with all specials etc reduced. 

I believe that this is levelling factor, regardless of how great you are, there is a slim chance that some dweeb will take you down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Psullie said:

The chance for a Critical or Special is based on the final modified target number. Reductions for >100% are considered Modifiers. So the best one can hope for with Opposed or Combat rolls is 5% and 20% respectively. Also the reduction works until the highest value is 100%. So a 15% v 155% would become -40% v 100% (yes the -40% still has a 5% chance of success, a 1% chance of Critical and no chance of a special, Fumble on a 95+). a 250% v 325% = 25% v 100% with all specials etc reduced. 

I believe that this is levelling factor, regardless of how great you are, there is a slim chance that some dweeb will take you down.

Even if that is the offical rule, I think I will houserule that critical and special chances don't need to be re-calculated. If you already know what your crit and special chances are for your 133% skill, what is the advantage of both you and the GM having to figure out the crit and special chances for two reduced skills (although one will by definition be simple, 01-05 and 01-20), especially if they might be changing every round due to different order of parrying? There's zero advantage to making this extra step of changing the critical and special chances, unless both sides have 1900% skill in which case 01-95 is a critical for them both. And right now I'm not going to worry about that!

Edited by PhilHibbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, creativehum said:

Here is the passage (the rules section on "Combat with Skills Above 100%" begins on p. 201, and continues to 202):

Quote

i fail to see what the entire quote is adding to the question: I picked the section that clarified the whole thing.

And, of course dropping a score of 120% down to 100% is a modification ... you've just modified it.

In RQ it's your final score that counts to determined special, critical or fumble results, it's always been like this and I have no clue why it's confusing to you.

Edited by jps
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the confusion arises from the quoted example where the 'skill over 100' used is Sword. They should have used a skill which will more often be unopposed, like First Aid. Sword will most likely be opposed in general usage, so the example with the Kopis is germane and clarifies things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jps said:

i fail to see what the entire quote is adding to the question: I picked the section that clarified the whole thing.

And, of course dropping a score of 120% down to 100% is a modification ... you've just modified it.

In RQ it's your final score that counts to determined special, critical or fumble results, it's always been like this and I have no clue why it's confusing to you.

You are correct. I got it wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jps said:

i fail to see what the entire quote is adding to the question: I picked the section that clarified the whole thing.

And, of course dropping a score of 120% down to 100% is a modification ... you've just modified it.

In RQ it's your final score that counts to determined special, critical or fumble results, it's always been like this and I have no clue why it's confusing to you.

I think what's confusing people is that whilst a character can have a final modified skill % in excess of 100%, the player only has a 95% maximum chance, because rolls of 96-00 always fail.

Character skill and dice probabilities are not the same thing.

Special and crit % are based on final character skill level, not on RW probabilities in rolls of the D100.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That must be it.

Talking about confusion, there's something I do find confusing about splitting attacks, page 202 reads: "Higher skill provides the ability to make better split attacks: an adventurer with a 120% chance of hitting with a sword could make two 60% attacks; one 70% and one 50% attack; or any other combination, so long as each attack is 50% or higher. The attacker can pick the order of the attacks based on their chances, if different."

But when you have a skill above 100% you reduce it to 100% so I can't see any example where you can split an attack score above 100% (unless you"re attacking by surprise and it's unopposed).

One might argue that if you elect to split your skill, it is no longer above 100% therefore the rule we were discussing earlier (reducing skills above 100%) doesn't apply but in this case, if your opponent does have a score above 100% and doesn't split it, you will suffer a malus even if your score was higher to start with.

Example: you have 150% and your opponent has 120%. If you don't split your attack, it will be 100% for you and 70% for your opponent but if you want to split it (let's say one at 60% and the other one at 90%) does it mean you opponent' score (120%) drops to 100% and YOU get a -20% modifier to both attacks (which would end up being respectively at 40% and 70%) ? Does it mean you have to drop your skill to 100% before splitting it,  in which case splitting a skill above 100% will never happen ? Does this mean you drop your skill only you opponent' skill is also above 100% ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you split your skill and the split chances are 100% or less, whoever you're attacking doesn't take any penalty. If their parry is >100, you'll be the one at negatives. So you're right, in a one on one combat. If you're facing several foes though,  if you know you thoroughly outclass the enemy, or you simply must hit (or even engage) 2 targets before the end of the round for some reason, you may want to attack more than once and strike at two targets in the same round, if you've enough space in the 12 SR.

It may help to know that the splitting rule has some historical baggage, in that, for previous versions of the D100-based system, you were only permitted one parry per round with a given weapon/shield, unless you were good enough to split your parry. With the advent of the current system and its cumulative penalties for parries after the first, there will be little chance of it ever being tactically sound to elect to split your skill to parry, so a good chunk of the usefulness of the mechanic is deprecated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, jps said:

But when you have a skill above 100% you reduce it to 100% so I can't see any example where you can split an attack score above 100% (unless you"re attacking by surprise and it's unopposed).

Split first, then adjust. At the point that you decide to split your attack, you have no opponent because you haven't declared targets yet. So if you split your 120% attack evenly to try and hit two targets, and the first one has (and uses) 150% parry, then your 60% is reduced by 50. But if that target has already had to make three parries, then he is down to 90% so it's just your 60% vs their 90%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, womble said:

If you split your skill and the split chances are 100% or less, whoever you're attacking doesn't take any penalty. If their parry is >100, you'll be the one at negatives. So you're right, in a one on one combat. If you're facing several foes though,  if you know you thoroughly outclass the enemy, or you simply must hit (or even engage) 2 targets before the end of the round for some reason, you may want to attack more than once and strike at two targets in the same round, if you've enough space in the 12 SR.

 

It sounds sensible, nonetheless, the player could choose to drop its skill from 150+ to 100% first and then to split it into two attacks at 50% each don't you think ?

If so it could be smarter as both foes would suffer a -50% penalty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

Split first, then adjust. At the point that you decide to split your attack, you have no opponent because you haven't declared targets yet. So if you split your 120% attack evenly to try and hit two targets, and the first one has (and uses) 150% parry, then your 60% is reduced by 50. But if that target has already had to make three parries, then he is down to 90% so it's just your 60% vs their 90%.

Okay you split first so it's the first version but could you drop to 100% first and split last ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jps said:

Okay you split first so it's the first version but could you drop to 100% first and split last ?

What do you mean, "drop to 100% first"? At the point that you decide to split your attacks, you don't have an opponent. They might decide not to parry, and that decision is made after you have declared your split. So no, you can't, unless I am misunderstanding you.

Edited by PhilHibbs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, PhilHibbs said:

What do you mean, "drop to 100% first"? At the point that you decide to split your attacks, you don't have an opponent. They might decide not to parry, and that decision is made after you have declared your split. So no, you can't, unless I am misunderstanding you.

Quoting for emphasis.

Another way of looking at it is that you don't 'choose' to take [skill-100] off both your and your opponents' attacks; that's just a mechanism to reflect highly skilled opponents relative skillfulness without having to worry too often about 50% rates of special success... ;) Whereas you do make the choice to attack two opponents, thus dividing your attention and skill between them. So you divide first, then if there are any >100 vs >=100 skill oppositions going on, effective skills are modified accordingly.

Without going back and checking though, I don't know whether situational  bonuses are applied at the beginning or the end; if you're attacking one prone and one standing target, I'd suggest you add the situational bonus after having divided, to find your actual effective skill for the purposes of opposition (because attacking the rear of one target ought not help against the other target who's facing you, for example). So if you have a large situational bonus on one target, and you bias your split so that you've got a higher % attack on them and 50% on the other, you might find your effective skill against the advantageous target goes back up over 100%, and reduces their parry accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×